Sentencing Bill

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

New Clause 1

Parents of young offenders

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use by the courts of the following powers in the Sentencing Code—

(a) sections 365 to 375 (parenting orders); and

(b) sections 380 to 383 (Costs, fines and other financial orders where offender aged under 18).

(2) The assessment undertaken under subsection (1) must make recommendations on—

(a) ways to increase use of the Sentencing Code powers to make parenting and financial orders; and

(b) other potential sentencing changes to promote greater parental responsibility in respect of young offenders.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”—(Mr Bedford.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the use of the courts’ existing powers to make parenting orders and financial orders to parents of young offenders.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:24

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 3—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.

New clause 4—Probation caseloads—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.

(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.

New clause 5—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.

New clause 6—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.

(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—

(a) tracking offender progress,

(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.

New clause 7—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—

“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.

(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.

New clause 8—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.

New clause 9—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.

New clause 10—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.

(2) The assessment should consider—

(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,

(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.

New clause 11—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—

“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.

New clause 12—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—

“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.

(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

New clause 14—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—

“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.

(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”

This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.

New clause 15—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”

This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.

New clause 16—Sexual offences: Offender Personality Disorder Pathway—

“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”

This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.

New clause 17—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.

New clause 18—Sentencing Council: abolition—

“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;

(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and

(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.

(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.

(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—

(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.

New clause 19—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”

This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.

New clause 20—Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements—

“(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).

(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing—

(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth;

(b) their national insurance number;

(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names;

(d) their place of residence on the date of notification;

(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and

(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—

(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);

(b) a change to their place or residence; and

(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.

(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—

(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and

(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.

(6) The relevant offences are—

(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);

(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);

(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);

(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);

(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;

(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—

(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);

(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);

(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and

(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”

This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.

New clause 21—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous driving—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous driving would be banned from driving for life.

New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—

“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,

that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.

(2) On such an application, the court may—

(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or

(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”

This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.

New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—

(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and

(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.

(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.

(3) A report made under this section must include—

(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and

(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”

This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.

New clause 24—Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—

“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) At the start of subsection (5), insert ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,’.”

This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

New clause 25—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—

(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;

(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and

(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”

This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.

New clause 26—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.’”

This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.

New clause 27—Probation capacity: independent report—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.

(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.

(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.

(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”

This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.

New clause 28—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

New clause 29—Foreign criminals: risk assessments prior to deportation—

“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

‘32A Deportation following stalking offences: risk assessments

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—

(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”

This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.

New clause 30—Foreign criminals: potential stalking offences following deportation—

“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

‘32A Potential stalking offences following deportation

(1) This section applies where the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) apply.

(2) Condition 1 is that a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(3) Condition 2 is that they have—

(a) committed an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) they have contacted or sought to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the relevant authorities, setting out—

(a) a police point of contact in the country to which the offender is returning;

(b) steps to protect and safeguard the victim in the UK; and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.’”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance in dealing with foreign criminals who have been deported after a stalking conviction, and who seek to continue to stalk the victim.

New clause 31—Exclusion from automatic release following fixed-term recall for specified serious offences—

“(1) An offender shall not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall where they have been convicted of any of the following offences—

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;

(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;

(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;

(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm (under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);

(j) grooming (under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);

(k) stalking (under section 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997);

(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult (under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); or

(m) causing death by dangerous driving (under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall also be ineligible for release following a fixed-term recall if they have been convicted of an attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit any of the offences listed in subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add or remove offences from the list in subsection (1).”

This new clause would mean offenders who had committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall.

New clause 32—Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision—

“(1) Where an offender is—

(a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision; and

(b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision,

the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where—

(a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm;

(b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender; or

(c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice.

(3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including—

(a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals;

(b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour; or

(c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court.

(4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must—

(a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible; and

(b) seek confirmation by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days.

(5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been confirmed, revoked, or amended by the court.

(6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.”

This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court.

New clause 33—Mandatory dependent support orders upon sentencing—

“(1) Where an offender is known to have dependents who rely on them for financial or other material support, the court shall, at the time of sentencing, inquire into the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents.

(2) In addition to any sentence imposed, the court must make an order requiring the offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents (‘dependent support order’), unless the court determines that such an order would be manifestly unjust or impracticable.

(3) The amount, frequency, and method of payment made under subsection (2) shall be determined by the court having regard to—

(a) the offender’s financial means, earning capacity, and assets;

(b) the reasonable living costs and needs of the dependents; and

(c) any other relevant circumstances.

(4) The court may direct that payments be made—

(a) through a designated collection authority; or

(b) directly to the dependent’s guardian, caregiver, or other appointed representative.

(5) An order made under this section shall remain in effect—

(a) for such time as specified by the court; or

(b) until it is varied or discharged by the court on application by any interested party.

(6) A failure to comply with an order made under this section shall constitute a breach of the sentence.”

This new clause would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents.

New clause 34—10-year driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for 10 years.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for ten years.

New clause 35—Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving: statutory aggravating factor—

“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 3A, insert—

‘3B Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving: aggravating factor for sentencing

In considering the seriousness of any offence committed under sections 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZS or 3A for the purposes of sentencing, the court must treat failure to—

(a) stop at the scene of the accident;

(b) call the emergency services; or

(c) administer first aid, where it is possible to do so;

as an aggravating factor, and state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”

This new clause would create statutory aggravating factors, for the purposes of sentencing, of failure to stop, call the emergency services, or administer first aid where it is possible to do so, in cases of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving.

New clause 36—Earned progression for prisoner release—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 244, after subsection (4), insert—

‘(5) The duty to release under subsection (1) is subject to the prisoner demonstrating compliance with the earned progression scheme during the course of their custodial sentence.

(6) The Secretary of State must issue regulations, under section 267 (alteration by order of the relevant proportion of sentence) setting a higher requisite custodial period for prisoners who have not demonstrated compliance with the earned progression scheme during their sentence.

(7) In this section, ‘the earned progression scheme’ must include—

(a) compliance with prison rules;

(b) engagement in purposeful activity;

(c) attendance at any required work, education, treatment or training obligations, where these are available; and

(d) any other factors that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance to prisons on the operation of the earned progression scheme.’”

This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the independent review on sentencing for the release of prisoners at the one third point of their sentence to be subject to their compliance with an earned progression scheme.

New clause 38—Sentencing Council—

“(1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

New clause 39—Deportation of foreign criminals—

“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—

(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or

(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,

must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.

(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—

(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and

(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”

This new clause would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

New clause 40—Criminal cases review—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—

‘Part IVB

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)

36A Scope of this Part

(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.

(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.

(3) This Part applies to any case—

(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or

(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—

(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) In this Part, ‘sentence’ has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and ‘sentencing’ shall be construed accordingly.

(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).

(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

(9) In this section—

‘offence triable only on indictment’ means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;

‘offence triable either way’ means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and

any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—

(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (‘the person sentenced’) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and

(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,

that British citizen (‘the petitioner’) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the Commission’) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—

(a) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and

(b) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,

provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (‘the co-petitioners’) including his own.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—

(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or

(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.

(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.

(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.

(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.

(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.

(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after ‘failed to’ there were substituted ‘impose a sentence required by—

(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,

(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,

(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or

(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015’.

(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and

(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

36C The Commission

(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.

(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.

(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.

(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (‘ROTL’) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.’”

This new clause would allow any British citizen to refer a sentence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for the Commission to review the sentence and consider whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

New clause 41—Sentencing statistics: duty to publish—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s—

(a) country of birth

(b) nationality,

(c) ethnicity,

(d) immigration status, and

(e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—

(a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and

(b) annually thereafter.”

This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status.

New clause 42—Crown Court sitting days for the delivery of sentencing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings day in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings days in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.

New clause 43—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

This new clause is a sunset clause, meaning the Act would cease to have effect after two years.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 35, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 33, page 3, line 9, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 34, page 3, line 9, leave out “significant”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”

This amendment would require offenders (under the age of 21) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

Amendment 16, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—

(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);

(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;

(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;

(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;

(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;

(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;

(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;

(h) at the time of the current offence, was—

(i) subject to a supervision order; or

(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).

(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”

This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—

(a) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or

(b) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

Amendment 18, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

Amendment 19, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”

Amendment 20, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”

Amendment 21, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”

Amendment 22, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

Amendment 36, page 4, line 4, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 39, page 4, line 7, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 37, page 5, line 20, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 38, page 5, line 20, leave out “significant”.

This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.

Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”

This amendment would require offenders (aged 21 or over) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.

Amendment 24, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

Amendment 25, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—

(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);

(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;

(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;

(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;

(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;

(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;

(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;

(h) at the time of the current offence, was—

(i) subject to a supervision order; or

(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).

(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”

This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.

Amendment 26, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—

(c) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or

(d) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

Amendment 27, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

Amendment 28, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”

Amendment 29, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”

Amendment 31, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

Amendment 6, page 6, line 28, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 10, after “(including victims of crime” insert

“, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.

This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.

Amendment 9, page 36, line 9, leave out clauses 18 and 19.

Amendment 7, page 37, line 9, leave out clause 20.

Amendment 11, page 47, leave out lines 16 to 19.

This amendment would leave out the Bill's provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions

Amendment 2, in clause 24, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.

Amendment 3, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—

(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,

(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and

(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.

Amendment 12, page 66, line 34, leave out clause 36.

Amendment 13, page 68, line 8, leave out clause 37.

Amendment 4, page 68, line 24, leave out clause 38.

[Mr Bedford]

In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl.

Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate.

I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate.

These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful.

New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week.

New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.

[Mr Bedford]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility.

I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change.

We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder.

I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver.

I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To remind the Minister, in last week’s Committee, my new clause—which is effectively new clause 26 today—represented the views of a number of organisations, including the National Association of Probation Officers, recalling the problems that we faced with privatisation, particularly in relation to community service and unpaid work. In London in 2013, the supervision of unpaid work was privatised to Serco, and it was a catastrophic failure in providing both effective work and security for the community overall. It left a stain on the old process of managing community work. That was reflected when the previous Government totally privatised probation, which then had to be brought back in-house.

New clause 26 simply asks for an assurance from the Government that, although we will want to engage with voluntary organisations, charities and non-profit bodies, we will not seek the privatisation of community service and unpaid work, in particular the placement of former prisoners in work in which they could be exploited.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will join me in supporting my new clauses 27 and 28, and new clause 25 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). My new clauses relate to probation capacity and the devolution of probation services to Wales, but in Committee we had no feedback whatsoever from the Minister at the close of the day. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those four new clauses, including his own, warrant a response from the Minister?

[John McDonnell]

That is why I tabled my new clause in Committee. I did not want to be a pain in the neck; I just wanted the Minister to acknowledge our understanding of the implications of the measures and the Probation Service’s overall concerns about these matters. I have re-tabled the new clause simply to get the Minister’s view and to hear the Government’s attitude on those issues. A range of amendments have come from the justice unions parliamentary group, which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) chairs.

Let me be absolutely clear: community service has always been state-supervised work with charities and non-profit organisations. At no stage do we want to allow private sector organisations to profiteer in that area of service. No matter what attitude the Minister takes, I hope that he can give us an assurance on that. If there is a need for further discussion and dialogue, I am sure that the justice unions parliamentary group will be willing to meet him to go through those issues in more detail.

[Andy Slaughter]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although commercial organisations may well be able to run community schemes, it is clear that the ambition of voluntary organisations is rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, and that really must be the goal of community sentencing, which is at the heart of the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

I can only draw on the experience that my hon. Friend and I had when Serco was in charge, which was about profiteering and reducing costs, largely through a reduction in staff. He might recall that on occasion we had reports that community service volunteers were turning up, and the tools were not available for them to do their work. There was a lack of supervision, and in a few instances we discovered that some of the vehicles that they used had been forced into and were unsafe.

We do not want to go back to that profiteering. That is why an assurance that this provision will be managed and orientated by the state, using non-profit-making voluntary organisations and charities, would reassure those professionals who have unfortunately experienced the privatisation that has taken place in the past, to the detriment of us all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that.

It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely.

Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one.

I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill.

I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier.

Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence.

I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence.

This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets.

It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today.

New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.

I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan.

It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance.

In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said:

“We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.”

As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them.

However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.

15:44

Parliament legislated to say that the ultimate sanction of our legal system should be used when police and prison officers are killed for doing their jobs, and Lenny Scott was killed for doing his job. The wording of the present measure refers to the murder taking place in the course of their duty. I cannot know with certainty what was in the minds of all parliamentarians when passing that legislation. Maybe they had considered scenarios such as the one that Mr Scott suffered and actively chose to exclude them, but even if they did, Conservatives are clear that they should not. Our new clause would ensure that that loophole is closed once and for all.

When a police or prison officer is murdered, if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police or prison officer’s current or former duties, it should result in a whole-life order. We cannot go back and secure that outcome for Mr Scott and his family, but I have had the pleasure of speaking with Mr Scott’s mother, who would very much welcome this change in memory of her son so that her family knows that, although nothing can be undone, something positive can happen for others as a result. She has accepted an invitation to attend Parliament and meet with me, and I am sure that the Minister would welcome the opportunity to meet her as well.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

indicated assent.

[Dr Mullan]

I note that the Minister is nodding.

We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.

New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.

This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.

The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.

A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.

Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.

Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.

However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:

“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”

She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.

I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.

MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.

My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that offering clear incentives for earned release is a key way of offering certain offenders clear chances to change, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending and enhancing public protection?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will have seen—she sits alongside me on the Justice Committee—there is clear evidence to back that up. Secondly, starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prison capacity in the longer term.

To develop my first point, inquiries by the Justice Select Committee have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and violence against inmates and staff. Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has described how participating in education has rehabilitative benefits, helping people in prison to occupy their time positively and learn new skills.

His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that the prisons best able to tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and, importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons such as HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour. By incentivising engagement in well-resourced, purposeful activity, new clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and the strain on prison staff.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she said, the chief inspector of prisons has found that rehabilitation in prisons is not working. This Bill presents an opportunity for a sea change in how that works, as well as in reoffending when people leave prison. As a member of the Select Committee, she will know that we will soon produce a major report on rehabilitation. It is essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons, and not the exception.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I greatly trust and rely on his opinion. It is essential that rehabilitative work is available to all in prisons, as I will go on to talk about in a little more detail.

On my second point, structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after release. As the earned progression model stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. While I welcome the focus and measures in the Bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we should not wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often, individuals return upon release to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place. Why wait, when we can intervene when they are most reachable? We literally have a captive audience. If people leave custody having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they are more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That in turn reduces pressure on the Probation Service, which is also already under immense strain.

To summarise, the model proposed by new clause 36 is fair and proportionate, actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the Bill punish bad behaviour. Those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third in. Those who break the rules will serve more days. Meanwhile, those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. That ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked in to the earned progression model from the start.

Having said that, I understand that practicalities have to be considered in implementing this positive requirements scheme, if it is to be successful. Years of neglect by the previous Government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced. On 4 February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks, the Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison, and Nacro. We were told during that session that only 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part-time and not rehabilitative. That is due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In essence, we have inherited prisons that cannot offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.

I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in getting the prison system to a place where the proposals in my new clause can be implemented fairly, effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. While I do not expect the Government to accept my new clause today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements on purposeful activity in the earned progression model as soon as conditions allow. This incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke outlined in his review.

He said:

“This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”

Only by doing this will we truly future-proof our prisons, help people to turn their backs on crime, and ensure, unlike the last Government, that we always have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:59

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

As the House has heard repeatedly in recent weeks, our justice system is crumbling under the strain in our courts, prisons and probation services, bulging at the seams, stretched to the limit and ultimately failing all who come into contact with it. It is not adequately punishing criminals, not rehabilitating them, and not protecting victims and survivors. Confidence has been slowly eroded and undermined. This has to end. The Bill provided ample opportunity for us to address these issues, with scope to consider how we tackle the looming projection of a prison population of over 100,000 in just three years’ time. I am disappointed that such a large Bill, which makes fundamental changes to sentencing, was not given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill Committee, rather than a Committee of the whole House, could have afforded it.

The Liberal Democrats are supportive of many of the steps taken in the Bill, and, in the spirit of working collaboratively on a crisis that affects us all, we have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve and strengthen it. For example, we welcome clause 3, which would give courts the power to order offenders to make monthly payments from their income, and we have tabled new clause 3 to ask the Government to assess whether income reduction orders could be used to fund victim support. On the topic of financial penalties, new clause 33 would create a power for sentencing courts to require offenders to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants, ensuring that their responsibility to provide support is not automatically void during a custodial sentence.

Creating a presumption of a suspended sentence for terms of under 12 months is a measure for which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is a necessary step to reduce prison overcrowding, but it also plays a vital role in reducing reoffending, with rehabilitation offered in the community. Sixty-two per cent of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, but only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence or a community order. We do not need to send offenders to prison to become better criminals; we need to support them to become better citizens. Creating a rehabilitative system will, in the long term, reduce costs, protect victims and ease the pressure on our public services. The work of our justice system should be centred on that goal, for the good of all.

To that end, new clause 12 would allow and facilitate access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support for prisoners held on remand before their sentencing hearings. As of June this year, 20% of the prison population are on remand and yet to have their sentencing hearings. With court backlogs at an all-time high, we see offenders arriving at their sentencing hearings, receiving their sentences, and then heading straight home because of the length of time that they have served on remand. Remand prisons are often overcrowded, and typically suffer from understaffing and inadequate facilities. These prisoners should be offered the same level of support as sentenced prisoners if we are to reduce the levels of reoffending.

We are, of course, supportive of the identifier that was included in the Bill following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), in collaboration with the Government. I commend his hard work and determination to make tangible changes for those who have experienced domestic abuse, providing greater confidence that their abusers will be dealt with suitably in the system, and I thank the Government for their constructive engagement with him on this issue. However, our campaign does not end there. New clause 8 would ensure that domestic abuse was treated as an aggravated offence, reflecting the severity and the long-term impact of such crimes on victims. New clause 9 asks the Government

“to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes”

to tackle violence against women and girls, for individuals sentenced to offences such as assault, battery and actual bodily harm when the victim was female.

We have also tabled a number of amendments relating to the Probation Service, because none of this means anything if probation is not properly resourced. I know that the Government will refer to the £700 million of additional funding, but it is not yet being felt on the frontline of probation, where the situation remains as described by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation earlier this year. According to the inspectorate, the service

“has too few staff, with too little experience and training, managing too many cases.”

Without maximum caseloads, we open ourselves up to a higher risk of human error and also a more cautious approach to recalling, because staff simply do not have the capacity to manage people in the community effectively.

Probation officers believe fundamentally in rehabilitation and in supporting offenders to reintegrate into society, but I must raise some serious concerns around the removal of the existing short-term and standard recalls in favour of a 56-day blanket recall for all offenders except those identified through a multi-agency public protection arrangement.

For example, under the current guidance, somebody who might be engaging with mental health services in the community but not attending their probation appointment—somebody who is therefore non-compliant with their agreement—would be recalled for 28 days under a fixed-term recall. That means that, if they are in temporary accommodation, as we know a lot of people coming out of prison are, the likelihood is that the accommodation will still be there when they have served their fixed term, and they can re-engage with the programmes in the community that they were already on.

Under the new arrangements, though, in the same circumstances, somebody recalled for 56 days would be coming out and, in effect, starting again, having lost their accommodation arrangements and their place on the community programme with which they were engaging, as places are typically only held for up to four weeks. The likelihood of them then going on to reoffend—in a cycle—will increase, and we will see the same people being recalled.

At the other end of the spectrum, if a serious offender breached their licence by intimidating, harassing or stalking their victim, instead of receiving a standard recall, which would last until the end of their sentence, they would be returned to serve just 56 days. Those who in probation are classified as medium-risk offenders—that covers the majority of offences related to violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers—would not come under the Government’s proposed exclusions relating to MAPPA levels 2 and 3.

On Monday in this Chamber, we spoke at length and there was consensus across the House that we needed to do more to support victims, but the recall measures in the Bill directly contradict that desire. There is a serious omission, which we are extremely concerned will lead to the release of dangerous criminals on to our streets, who will then continue to reoffend. New clause 31 would ensure that offenders who have committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall, and I implore the Minister to go away and look at that proposal.

This Bill provided a great chance to address some key issues in our justice system, and it showed signs of life, taking an innovative approach to some issues, but it ultimately lacks vision and, expectedly, funding. I thank Members for their engagement, and encourage them to support new clause 12.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to support this vital Sentencing Bill, which represents a significant step towards protecting victims and delivering justice.

I would like to draw Members’ attention to new clauses 8 and 31 and amendment 1. The Conservatives claimed to be champions of law and order, yet their record was of lawless disorder. After 14 years in power, they increased sentence lengths without planning the prison places to uphold them, delivering just a few hundred spaces while violence, drugs and chaos spiralled across our prison estates. They left our justice system on the brink, and forced the early release of more than 10,000 offenders in secret, shattering public confidence.

This Government are taking a different path. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since Victorian times; 2,500 new places are already open and we are on track for 14,000 by 2031. We will ensure that we will never again run out of prison capacity. We must also make prisons work. That means punishment that cuts crime through earned release, tougher community sentences, intensive supervision and proper rehabilitation that turns offenders away from crime for good.

Central to making sentencing work is protecting victims, not just at the point of conviction but every day thereafter. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for highlighting the important issue of domestic abuse in new clauses 8 and 31. The Bill introduces a powerful new mechanism under clause 6, “Finding of domestic abuse”, by ensuring that, once the court is satisfied that an offence involves domestic abuse, it must declare that is the case in an open court, permanently recognising the heightened harm to victims. This activates stronger protections, which can include electronic tagging and exclusion zones, ensuring that offenders can be tracked in real time and kept away from victims’ homes and workplaces.

The “Loose Women” Facing It Together campaign has powerfully shown the real human impact of domestic abuse and the urgent need for continuous protection. The measures in the Bill meet that need, ensuring that abusers cannot return to intimidate or control and that victims are safeguarded, with the full force of the law behind them. These landmark reforms will end the crisis that we inherited, and restore faith in a justice system that protects the public and puts victims first.

Since my election, I have been campaigning tirelessly on the issue of tool theft, a crime that devastates the livelihoods of tradespeople across our country. There are too many to list in this House today, but I expect that we all know someone who has been a victim of this crime. The rate of suicide among construction workers is the highest of any profession—four times higher than that for any other occupation. In December 2024, I laid a ten-minute rule Bill before the House that called for tool theft to be recognised as a significant additional harm and for courts to consider the total financial loss to victims. That would mean considering not just the value of the tools themselves, but the cost of repairs and the loss of work, and the ripple effect on businesses and families.

Having worked closely with Justice Ministers over the past year, I am pleased to see that the Bill recognises the additional protections needed for victims, for which the sector has been calling. This Bill, with its provisions requiring courts to consider the full impact of theft on victims, its new restriction zones that can ban prolific thieves from construction sites and tool retailers, and its tougher community sentences, delivers transformative protections for tradespeople. Although the Government do not support amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I thank him for enabling a discussion on the wider impact of crime.

I am pleased to note that the Bill requires courts to consider the full impact of crime, including psychological harm. It recognises what victims of tool theft and, indeed, all crimes have been telling us all along: harm does not stop when tools are stolen or a crime is committed. The psychological harm of losing one’s livelihood, the anxiety about future thefts and the mental health impact of not being able to work are real harms that must be considered when sentencing offenders, and the Bill delivers in this regard.

These reforms will protect the public through tougher sentencing and tighter monitoring, cut crime by stopping reoffending before it happens, support victims by recognising harm and preventing future abuse, and build a safer society with less crime and, ultimately, fewer victims.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clause 20, regarding the introduction of a child cruelty register. Tony and Paula Hudgell are my constituents, and I have had the honour of getting to know both of them—especially Paula, Tony’s adoptive mum—extremely well. One special aspect of our job as MPs is getting to meet incredible people doing incredible things, often behind the public gaze, but in a decade and a half as a Member—I am showing my age now—I have personally never come across such a courageous, driven and united mother-and-son team. That is what they are: a team, especially given Tony’s young age of 11.

New clause 20 would introduce a child cruelty register, described so eloquently and passionately by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who is also a great champion of victims. It underlines what our job is really about: changing and improving the lives of our constituents, keeping them safe and protecting the most vulnerable.

When Tony was just a little baby—41 days old—his birth parents, Jody Simpson and Anthony Smith, abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of his injuries for the rest of his life. Smith and Simpson were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a judge at Maidstone Crown court—at the time, the maximum that the judge could give. They served eight years, and were released quite recently. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentences, but after that, there is nothing—zero. There will be no management, no monitoring, and no reporting requirements if they change their names, start a new family, move county or have more children, and their case details will be archived, leaving a terrible and dangerous gap in our child protection system.

16:15

I was a legal aid family lawyer for over 20 years prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, and I specialised in child abuse and domestic violence work. Most days of the week, I would attend various county courts around the south-east of the country, obtaining non-molestation injunctions and occupation orders, mainly for women and children. Some perpetrators went to prison following criminal proceedings, but upon release far too many would go straight back to their former homes and abuse their families all over again. It was like a vicious circle. The point I want to make is that prison can of course be a good rehabilitation, but, tragically, many upon leaving prison remain a risk. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can, when we have the chance, to manage and eradicate that risk.

The child cruelty register would require people convicted of certain child cruelty offences to provide personal details and information to the police. The information would be kept on record, allowing the police and probation to continue to manage and monitor those who remain a risk after the completion of their sentence. Experience has shown me—and it really has—that people who commit serious crimes often move around, including by moving county, and they deliberately avoid detection by not registering with health services, social services and other agencies. The notification requirement in the new clause would serve as a good single identifier to help stop some families slipping through the net. In other respects, the register would operate in a very similar manner to the sex offenders register.

I would like to end my speech with a message from Paula. She said:

“No child should ever endure what Tony went through. The suffering he experienced as a baby changed all of our lives forever. For the past seven years, I have fought tirelessly for a Child Cruelty Register because I believe that those who commit such horrific crimes against children should never be allowed to simply disappear from the system once their sentence ends. A register would mean proper monitoring, accountability, and protection—not just for Tony, but for every child in this country. It is heartbreaking that, right now, known abusers can change their names, move to new areas, and form new relationships”—

or have more children—

“without any requirement to tell the authorities. That is a loophole that puts children at serious risk.”

As Paula’s MP, I repeat again that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to do all we can when we have the chance, as we do today with this Bill, to eradicate that terrible risk.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to speak in support of new clause 36, which would require offenders to comply with an earned progression scheme before being subject to release. I think that is an important opportunity to enhance the Government’s ambitions for this Bill, because shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and car break-ins continue to plague my constituents in Accrington town centre.

Increases in levels of town centre crime and break-ins are often caused by offenders released early who have failed to receive the rehabilitation they require. They often have drug or alcohol addictions, and they are back on the streets trying to feed those addictions, and stuck in a cycle of lose, lose, lose—for my residents, for the police and for the taxpayer. Although we must be tough on crime, we must also tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the system delivers for victims and stops the revolving door of our prisons that serves none of us.

The reforms to the community order requirements will lead to less crime and safer streets for my constituents in a number of areas. The Bill will provide a more tailored and effective approach to punishment and rehabilitation, because courts will have expanded tools to tailor community and suspended sentence orders to better fit the individual offender, the offence and the risk posed. The Bill adds new community requirements to the list of options attached to a community or suspended sentence order, such as prohibitions on driving or attending pubs, bars, clubs or public events, and being restricted to geographic zones. That enhanced flexibility means that sentences in the community can be more meaningful and effective—not just a series of generic tasks, but specifically calibrated to the offender’s behaviour, the harm caused and the need to protect the public and victims. It ensures that community-based sentences are not perceived as light or ineffective, but carry real conditions and consequences.

The Bill also strengthens public protection and victim confidence; in fact, bolstering protection for victims and communities is one of the key aims of the reforms. By allowing restriction zones, bans on attending premises that sell alcohol or public events, and driving prohibitions, the Bill enables courts to impose orders that explicitly guard against certain behaviours or contexts associated with risk. Those measures reassure victims that offenders remain under meaningful restrictions and that community sentences carry real weight and oversight, rather than being a passive “watch and wait” approach. In turn, that helps to maintain public confidence in our justice system and supports the principle that people who offend should face real consequences.

Furthermore, the Bill supports rehabilitation while reducing the unnecessary use of custody, which must be for the most violent and serious offenders. It complements the broader move to ensure that custody is used appropriately—not as a default for lower-level offenders, but reserved for cases where it is necessary for public protection. By strengthening community orders and equipping the courts with more tailored requirements, the Bill supports the case that many offenders can be managed in the community through conditions that deter, restrict and rehabilitate. For far too long, the evidence has shown that it is those changes that will tackle the ongoing problems that the courts and prisons are facing, as well as the ongoing issues with that low-level but incredibly damaging crime happening time and again in our communities.

Such approaches help to reduce prison overcrowding, better align our resources, and focus custodial capacity on those who most require it. At the same time, the reforms encourage compliance—for example, by introducing a community sentence progression scheme, under which offenders who fully comply with the requirements and complete their sentence may have their community order terminated early.

There are practical benefits for communities, offenders and the Probation Service. For communities, community orders become more visible and meaningful. The added conditions reflect the reality that punishment and supervision in the community should be not lesser than custody, but different. For offenders, the structured environment of a community sentence with tailored requirements offers the possibility of real change through supervision, conditional freedom and accountability, rather than automatic imprisonment, which can increase harm and reoffending. For the Probation Service, the Bill’s provisions also include strengthened investment in community supervision, better tools for monitoring and enforcement, and clearer mechanisms for rewarding compliance.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant advance in our justice framework, offering modernised, flexible and robust community sentencing options that strengthen public protection, shore up victim confidence, support rehabilitation and make more effective and efficient use of our resources. The new community order requirements and community requirements are central to that: by giving courts more precise, meaningful powers, they ensure that justice is done in the community as well as through custody. I am confident that they will make a real difference to my constituents in Hyndburn, who are rightfully frustrated that they see the same people causing the same problems, and no real solutions to the crimes that those people are committing.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

As we return to consideration of this dreadful Bill, we debate amendments and new clauses that are designed to mitigate its worst effects, in particular new clauses 43, 21, 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed, and new clause 1.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests.

As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable.

In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true.

If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased.

When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities.

As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today.

As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.

16:30

Furthermore, every time we make the case for second chances, we displace the proper attention we should give the victims. That is what several of the amendments seek to address, particularly those in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. As I have said before and am not afraid to say again, he has been a champion of victims and he deserves great credit for being so.

In advancing the amendments before us, we must make a principled case for just deserts. Just deserts essentially mean that people get what they deserve. Those who choose by any means to get what they want, including by violence, deception and harm to others, deserve to be punished. It is so obvious—so intuitively right—that it is what the overwhelming majority of decent, law-abiding people feel. It is what our constituents expect us to recognise and to act on. Those who suffer from the fear and reality of crime are frustrated, to say the least, that the old order—the liberal orthodoxy that has dominated public discourse for too long—does not recognise that plain fact.

I think it was Chesterton who said,

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

We hear a lot about tolerance, but we hear far too little about convictions. That old order is out of tune with popular sentiment and out of time, yet the Sentencing Council perpetuates those prejudices. That is why it must go. It represents that old bankrupt order.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Does the right hon. Member realise that the Sentencing Council does not just pluck out of the air its sentencing recommendations? It consults widely with a variety of organisations, people working in the criminal justice system and the public before coming to its conclusions about the right sentences for offences. I would submit that there should be recognition of the work that it does.

[Sir John Hayes]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown.

The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished.

There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government.

Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place.

Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said:

“This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.”

Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well.

Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said:

“Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.”

On Monday, he said to the House:

“Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.”

He also said:

“He is back where he belongs: behind bars.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.]

If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments.

While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.

[Esther McVey]

I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed.

Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated:

“Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.]

Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime.

Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt

“the full force of the law”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.]

The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time:

“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.”

My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.

16:45

My amendments 16 and 25 would provide a number of exemptions to the presumption of a suspended prison sentence based on the offending history of the criminal in question—for example, where someone has committed a particular serious offence that would be covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme or one that required a mandatory minimum sentence. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences, stalking, putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress, controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. The amendments would also prevent someone from being covered if they are due to be sentenced for three or more offences at the same time.

In addition, and crucially, the amendments would ensure that those who have been released early from prison and are out on licence would not be eligible for this presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence for offending again when they should really be locked up. Getting one “get out of jail free” card due to early release is bad enough, but getting a second one would be an absolute scandal, and yet that is precisely what the Bill proposes.

My amendments 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31 would remove the suspended sentence presumption for those guilty of firearm offences, burglary or terrorism-related offences, and those who fail to surrender to custody. I cannot believe that it has been necessary to even put these amendments down—surely it makes sense that those people would go to prison—but with this Government I have to table these amendments to this abomination of a Bill before the House today.

As the Bill stands, the presumption of a suspended prison sentence will apply to those for whom the starting point for their sentence is 18 months. Sentences of that length are not given lightly—someone has to have done something pretty serious for that to be the starting point. However, by pleading guilty and getting a third off, the offender may have to be kept out of prison as they then would be at the 12-month sentence point and be covered by the Bill. Amendments 32 and 36 would mean that this would not be the case as the sentence would have to be one of 12 months or less before the credit for a guilty plea was taken into account.

Amendments 35 and 39 would mean that anyone avoiding prison thanks to this Bill should have the maximum length of a suspended sentence given to them. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time. Amendments 14 and 23 would ensure that those given a suspended sentence are electronically tagged throughout in the hope that it might reduce them reoffending or make it much easier to catch them if they commit further offences when, again, they should already be in prison.

The Bill currently says that if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm, the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence would not apply. My amendments 33 and 37 would take that a stage further to include the public. Why not any individual as opposed to a particular individual? Amendments 34 and 38 would also take out the word “significant” so that any risk would be covered. If the court believed there is a risk to an identifiable person or an identifiable member of the public, they should be protected by ensuring that the person causing the potential risk to them is locked up. That does not seem like rocket science to me. It would be completely wrong to do anything other than protect those people from all kinds of unnecessary risk.

New clause 43 would mean that the Bill ceases to have effect two years after its introduction. If anyone is seriously supporting the Bill on the basis that it is a necessary measure to alleviate prison overcrowding, they should be happy to agree to the new clause in the light of how many prison places the Government will provide, including another three prisons coming on board with around 4,500 places. More importantly, we do not need a crystal ball to realise that the Bill will cause untold damage to the country. Offenders will be laughing all the way to their next crimes, and there will sadly be countless victims of those needless crimes. The public may not yet be fully aware of what is coming their way, but in two years they will have seen some of the consequences of the Bill, and many will want it to be urgently reversed. The new clause would make that happen.

When describing the botched release of release of Hadush Kebatu earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Justice said:

“Any release in error is one too many.”

I say to him that any “get out of jail free” card under this Bill is one too many, and it would certainly not have been an error; it would have been very deliberate by the Government. My amendments try to restrict some of the damage that will otherwise be caused by the Bill. It is absolutely clear that the Government are proposing to let a whole load of serious criminals avoid prison and run amok in our communities. Any right-minded person here today will vote wholeheartedly in favour of my amendments and against the Bill.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister, my former Home Affairs Committee colleague, to his place. I urge all Members to support the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), particularly new clause 11 on the suspension of driving licences during bail on driving-related offences, which is a common-sense proposal. I echo her praise of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign on tagging for domestic abuse crimes—a policy that the Government have adopted. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in urging the Government to go further than that by supporting new clause 8, which would make those aggravated crimes.

I tabled new clause 35, which has already received support from across the House, on behalf of the of the Saltern family from my North Cornwall constituency. Their campaign—known as Ryan’s law—was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Saltern after their son Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car after leaving the village carnival in St Teath. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan, administer first aid or even phone the police or other emergency services. Instead, Ryan—a father of one—was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened. What punishment was the offender given for that fatal hit and run? He avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four-month suspended sentence by the magistrates court.

The family of course acknowledge that accidents happen, but the driver left a young man dying in the road, did not even give it a second thought as he sped off—too cowardly to do the right thing—and did not spend a single day in prison for his crimes. I cannot imagine the pain that the family must feel. In response to that enormous injustice, they launched their “Ryan’s law” campaign and a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Countless other families have been affected by similar cases right across this country.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I would like to draw attention to two cases in my constituency, one of which I have spoken about before in this place, in which a lady called Lorraine lost her life. It involved somebody who was driving, possibly while looking at their mobile phone, and again, that person did not go to prison. It is tragic that my hon. Friend’s new clause has to set out things that to most of us would seem absolutely natural. Someone should not have to be told to stop, to report, and to phone the police—to do all those things. I think this new clause is necessary, but it is a terrible shame that we live in a world where people do not think that is the right way to behave.

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a horrible indictment on our society and our country that we have to table such a new clause. Sadly, however, because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of cases such as the one she rightly points out, unfortunately it is necessary.

Mark and Helen Saltern, and their daughter Leanne, have campaigned tirelessly for years on this issue. The family have set up RysHaven, a safe, dedicated space where grieving families of hit-and-run victims can escape to Cornwall to take a moment to breathe, process, and recover from their heartbreaking traumas. New clause 35, would introduce three new aggravating factors to the Bill. It would mean that offenders such as the man who hit and killed Ryan Saltern would have the failure to stop, the failure to administer first aid, and the failure to alert emergency services about the hit and run added as “aggravating factors”, specifically when it comes to sentencing those guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.

I also support new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). Death by dangerous driving should, of course, result in a lifetime driving ban—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said earlier, that just seems common sense. I urge colleagues from across this House to support my new clause. This is not just for Ryan and his family; the new clause is for the hundreds of hit-and-run victims across this country. I urge Ministers to hear me, and the thousands of loved ones who are left to suffer such injustice. Please right this gross wrong. If the Government will not accept the new clause tonight, I sincerely hope that they will give it serious consideration.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to.

New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age.

Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—

[Dr Mullan]

Or for the worse!

17:00

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed, change for the worse.

It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.

I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions.

I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.

[Dr Mullan]

I do not think that it said anywhere in the Labour manifesto that a Labour Government would cut prison time for serious sexual and violent offenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the case?

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed.

The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well.

Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote.

Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it.

As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board.

The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament.

I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice.

Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting.

Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029.

I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates.

Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour.

In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it.

We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Much of this Bill does not apply to my constituents, because in the main it does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, there is a key component of the Bill that is supposed to apply to Northern Ireland, because the extent clause says that part 4 applies—that is the part of the Bill that deals with the very important issue of deporting foreign criminals. My question to this House tonight is whether it will, in fact, apply to Northern Ireland.

Yes, this is said to be the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is therefore said that when this Parliament decides something, it is decided; when it applies a law to citizens of the United Kingdom, that is the end of the story. Sadly, though, I know—and this House needs to know, and needs to act upon that knowledge—that three times, this House has passed Bills that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, and three times, the courts in this land overruled Parliament and disapplied parts of those Bills from applying to my constituents and my part of the United Kingdom. Those were the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the soon-to-be-defunct legacy Act.

How can it be that this sovereign Parliament decides that it is legislating on issues affecting constituents across this United Kingdom and passing laws that it says applies to them all, but it turns out that they do not? The answer, sadly, is article 2 of the Windsor framework, because article 2 purports to trump this sovereign Parliament. In respect of Northern Ireland, it says that where there are EU laws—laws not made by this House, but in a foreign jurisdiction; laws that we do not make and cannot change—that bestow on citizens or those in Northern Ireland rights that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, those rights will trump this sovereign Parliament. That is a frightening reality that this House has been running away from ever since it agreed to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol that is now called the Windsor framework. It comprises a fundamental assault upon not just the sovereignty of this House, but the legitimate expectations of my constituents that they will be subject to the equal citizenship that is supposed to come from being a part of this United Kingdom. Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Windsor framework states that protections

“enshrined in the provisions of Union law”—

that is European Union law—are “listed in Annex 1”. Many of those provisions are about rights.

17:15

On top of that, we have the appalling prospect that in 300 areas of law—never mind rights—this Parliament cannot legislate for Northern Ireland, because a foreign Parliament that we do not elect will legislate for Northern Ireland on many matters touching on goods, trade and all other sorts of things. Rights ensconced through article 2 of the protocol can trump the will of this House.

Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement states that people can

“rely directly on the provisions…which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.”

That is delivered by section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives direct effect to such provisions automatically as part of UK domestic law, and states that other UK legislation must be read and applied subject to these EU provisions. That is what has happened, and that is how the three pieces of legislation to which I have referred have been overruled in respect of people in Northern Ireland, in the parts where that legislation offended EU rights and legislation.

Our Supreme Court has stated:

“The answer to any conflict between the Protocol and any other enactment whenever passed or made is that those other enactments are to be read and have effect subject to the rights and obligations which are to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 7A(2).”

In other words, if EU law says something different from our national law, then EU law applies. It was in the Dillon case that the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. Relevant parts of the Dillon judgment are before the Supreme Court presently, which will shed some light on how far the Court of Appeal is correct about the wide application of article 2 of the protocol. We await that judgment with interest.

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 was disapplied because it diminished asylum rights, as protected by EU law. The Dillon case makes it clear that it is the same logic that provisions applied by article 2 can trump this House. How does that apply to the deportation of foreign criminals? If that foreign criminal is an EU national, they already have the EU citizens’ rights directive, which gives them enhanced protection against deportation.

There may be two categories of people in the Northern Ireland courts. It seems beyond doubt that foreign criminals convicted who are EU citizens will have the added protection of the EU’s citizens’ rights directive. If they are not—if they are from somewhere else and they are a foreign criminal—they are also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have in Great Britain. That is because of the importation of the reliance upon the European charter of fundamental freedoms.

According to our courts, the European charter is there to assist the interpretation of the European convention on human rights. Article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined—there cannot be a provision for collective deportation—and, of course, the thrust of part 4 creates a scenario in which, when a foreign criminal is convicted in our courts, the presumption is towards deportation, and so it should be.

It seems to me that we are again entering into territory where although a very laudable, very necessary and very proper provision of this House—that foreign criminals should be deported from wherever they are convicted in this United Kingdom—is apparently the will of this House, it is a will that is to be thwarted by our subjugation, in Northern Ireland, to the outrage of overriding European Union law and provisions.

When I asked the Minister about this issue on Second Reading I did not receive an answer, so I will ask the question again. The explanatory document accompanying the Bill is totally silent on the impact of article 2 of the Windsor framework on its provisions. Is there a risk, and is it in fact the expectation, that it will not be possible for the provisions relating to the deportation of foreign criminals to apply in Northern Ireland? Is that conceded, is that the expectation, or is there an answer that can explain why that will not be the position?

Would it not be outrageous if a foreign criminal in one part of this United Kingdom faced deportation as the will of the House, but another foreign criminal convicted for the same offence in my part of the United Kingdom was cocooned from deportation? Would that not be an outrage to the sovereignty of this House? Would it not also create a magnet for foreign criminals, who, if they were to indulge in crime, would know that the best place to do so would be the place from which they could not be deported?

This is a serious issue. It is a serious issue for me and for my constituents, but it is also a serious constitutional issue that the House has yet to face up to. It does not just affect article 2 of the Windsor framework; it affects the very fact that there are 300 areas of law—shaping much of our economy in Northern Ireland and certainly controlling our trade laws—which are beyond the reach of the sovereignty of the House, and which lie at the whim and the wish of a foreign Parliament. That should offend each one of us, as Members of this House, and it should so offend us that we determine to do something about righting that wrong.

[Jake Richards]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that gives us the chance to put an end to the prison capacity crisis and build a better justice system. Let me be clear at the outset: this Government believe that prison can work, which is why we are undertaking the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. Many offenders must be sent to prison, some for a very long time and some for the rest of their lives. The Government have already opened 2,500 places since coming to office, and we have made a commitment to build 14,000 more. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, by the end of this Parliament, under a Labour Government, there will be more criminals in our prisons than ever before.

However, we cannot only build our way out of this crisis; we must reform sentencing to ensure that our criminal justice system is sustainable. The changes in this Bill will ensure that we never face the situation that the Conservatives left behind: the very real prospect that the most serious offenders would not face prison at all. In a competitive field, the state that the last Government left our prisons in was perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Tory legacy. It was so appalling that, when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), became aware of the scale of the crisis, he gave up and called an election. It was the last shameful act of a vandalising, incompetent Government. This Bill represents the work of a Government pulling up their sleeves and getting on with the job, however difficult that may be.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I really welcome this Sentencing Bill, because I think my constituents want not only criminals being punished for their crimes, but the prevention of future crime. It should be about not just punishment—which is rightly owed to a lot of people—but making sure that our communities are safe in the future. Could the Minister lay out how the intensive supervision courts in the Bill will help to do that?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Bill will not only stabilise the prison system, but go further and tackle reoffending. She mentioned the intensive supervision courts, but there are also our reforms to short-term sentences, which will cut reoffending. We know it will do that because of evidence that the last Conservative Government commissioned. That was why the exact provision on short-term sentencing, which the Tories are all howling with outrage at now, was in the legislation that the last Government put forward—completely hypocritical. My hon. Friend is completely right; this Bill represents a Government who step up to the challenge, rather than putting their head in the sand.

I want to turn to some of the amendments and the specific points of debate that we have heard today, starting with new clause 20, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). However, I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who has put her name to that amendment and with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking on numerous occasions this week in the build-up to the debate. The hon. Lady spoke incredibly powerfully about her own experience in the family courts, and I share that experience. Before coming to this place, I was a barrister who spent a lot of time on legal aid cases, representing local authorities, family members or guardians in exactly the types of cases that she mentioned. I share her concerns.

I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, Paula Hudgell, who has been campaigning for a child abuse register with such eloquence and passion for some time. Paula’s work, life and dedication to Tony and others deserves enormous gratitude from across the House. On the Government’s behalf, I thank her for all that she and her family have done and continue to do. I welcome the constructive comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, on this issue. I can be clear that Paula has identified a problem in the system, and we are determined to fix it.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on new clause 20 and a possible child protection register. My constituents Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls have been campaigning for stronger child protection measures after their great-niece, Maya, was murdered by her mother’s abusive partner. Does the Minister agree that measures such as a child protection register and Maya’s law can only help to protect our children—children like Maya, Tony and others? And what steps will he be taking to follow this up?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes. A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification after those sentences. The Government cannot support the change today because work needs to be done to understand the demand that different options would place upon different public services. It would be wrong to legislate now without a fuller—or even basic—understanding of whether we have the capacity to safely deliver the register proposed in new clause 20. There are numerous options before us, and it is right that any new system is tailored, in terms of who holds that information and the duties placed upon them, to ensure that particular risks are adequately and proportionately managed.

[James Cartlidge]

The position that the Minister seems to be articulating is literally bizarre. He has said that he fully agrees about the problem and with the remedy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). The Government have had 14 years in Opposition and more than a year in Government, and have introduced the Bill at this time. But the Minister is saying that, notwithstanding the fact they have brought forward this Bill after more than a year in office and agree on the problem and the diagnosis, he is still going to vote tonight—and ask his Back Benchers to vote tonight—against fixing the issue.

[Jake Richards]

We have identified a problem, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legislate when we have not had the opportunity to ensure that public services can complete the task. The hon. Member criticises us for not taking action on this issue now, but what about the last 14 years? What about the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which reported in November 2022? The last Government did absolutely nothing on those recommendations.

[Helen Grant]

I hear what the Minister has to say. Will he bring forward a Government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the Bill moves to the House of Lords?

17:30

[Jake Richards]

We will speak to Home Office colleagues and others to look at the possibility of doing that, absolutely. The hon. Lady has my word—as does her constituent, who is no doubt watching this debate carefully—that I will work at speed on this issue, but I do not want to make promises that the Government cannot keep, so it is vital that we do the work. We understand the burden that it will place on the services that will need to do the work to make sure that this is done, but I want to be clear that this is a problem. We accept that it is a problem, and we are going to take action to solve it. I will continue to have conversations with the hon. Lady as part of that process, and I welcome the offer of cross-party talks. I am speaking to colleagues in the Department for Education and the Home Office, and I would be eager, if it is appropriate and possible, to speak to Paula herself to ensure that we get this right. But as I said, we want to do that quickly.

I have asked officials in my Department to look at what can be done within the criminal justice system, which sits within the Ministry of Justice, to track child abuse offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I again thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling for her work on this issue. I look forward to working with her, and with other hon. Members who have shown an interest in this issue, to achieve an important change in safeguarding that is absolutely necessary.

I turn to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), which seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. She and I had a brief discussion outside the Chamber about this, and it is important to note that remand prisoners can already access such programmes where prisons run them. The Government accept that there is a lack of such provision in our prisons—something that we absolutely have to improve and work on—but we must remember that remand prisoners have not been convicted of an offence. They cannot be required to undertake any of these services, but it is an issue that I am very much aware of. I will continue to have conversations with her and other colleagues about that over the coming weeks and months as we look to improve those services within prisons.

[Andy Slaughter]

I congratulate the Minister on his Bill, which can undo the damage done to the prison system over the past 14 years of neglect and mismanagement, but while he is clearly in listening mode, let me say that it is capable of improvement. I tabled a number of amendments that were designed to improve the Bill in Committee last week. I will write to him to remind him what they are, but will he look at those proposals, which were made in good faith, to see whether changes can be made in the other place?

[Jake Richards]

As always, I welcome the contributions of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that he and I discussed before Committee stage last week. I have not returned to them in the last seven days, but we will no doubt do so in the coming weeks as the Bill progresses.

I will briefly touch on the issue of probation. A number of amendments have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and spoken to by other hon. Members. The Government accept that the Bill places an extra responsibility on the Probation Service. That is why we are investing £750 million in probation—a 45% increase, and the biggest upgrade to investment in probation for a generation. We are investing £8 million to improve technology, so that probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled by the burden of paperwork. We recruited 1,000 probation officers in our first year and 1,300 this year. However, there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will undertake that work in the coming weeks and months.

This Government have been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons. Ensuring that offenders work will mean that they can be rehabilitated and, when they leave prison, can enter society with the prospect of employment. Clearly, some of the details of how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out carefully. I am very happy to meet the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons, because it is absolutely vital. Labour is the party of work. We believe in the inherent value of work, and work in our prisons plays a vital role in rehabilitation.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.

I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if there turns out to be a distinction in that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, he will undertake to override that legislatively so that we do have equality right across the United Kingdom?

[Jake Richards]

As I have said, we do not accept that there is a problem, but if there is, we will look to fix it, because that would not be right. The scenario the hon. and learned Member painted, which we do not accept will happen as a result of this legislation, is not right.

Amendments 15 and 39 on short sentences are among several tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). They aim to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of short sentences. That is the wrong direction, and I will set out why. First, we need to clear up some myths that have been shared by the Opposition on this issue. Either they are being wilfully ignorant or they simply do not understand the Bill. We are not abolishing short sentences, as the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), wrongly stated in the House on Monday. He was briefly a corporate solicitor, and I would hope he knows better and that he had read the Bill before commenting on it.

Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. The Bill makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances. In Committee, the Government went further by strengthening this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the domestic violence protection order, were covered.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?

[Jake Richards]

In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.

[Dr Mullan]

I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?

[Jake Richards]

Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

I will finish this point before I give way, because I am dealing with the right hon. Member’s amendments.

More broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending among those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I have said already, research commissioned by the last Conservative Government—shadow Justice Ministers continue to cite it—shows that short sentences lead to more reoffending, meaning that tens of thousands more criminal offences are committed each year.

If the Opposition vote to drop this provision from the legislation—legislation that the last Conservative Government put forward—they will be voting for more crimes blighting our communities. They know that the measure is common sense because, as I have said, they proposed it; it was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and they are now opposing it for opposition’s sake. This provision on short-term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country, so we reject the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?

[Jake Richards]

The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.

I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is perfectly capable of legislating on this issue and letting the homicide work continue. He says that that would be “wrong”, but it is not wrong—it is just his choice, and it is the wrong choice.

[Jake Richards]

As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.

I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.

I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.

We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.

17:45

[Jake Richards]

I am getting increasingly confused by these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I outlined before, the Government are setting out very clear measures to improve discipline in our prisons. That is part of the progression model, learned from the Texas model, which has seen crime reduce by 33%, with 16 prisons closed at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad. The Opposition have no idea what their position is any more.

I will turn to new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The most serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown court, even those involving offenders aged under 18, and whether an offender’s identity is reported on is at the discretion of the judge. There is always a balancing act in the judge’s consideration between the principles of open justice and the welfare of the child, and it is right that discretion remains with the judge. I also gently say to the hon. Member that the scope of the Bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system; we will be taking steps to look at it in due course, and we may come back to this as part of that provision. However, the focus in this Bill is much more on the adult estate.

The same point also applies to new clause 1, again tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this new clause because it is an important issue. On parenting orders, it is right that those responsible for a child’s care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible. To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply with certain requirements for up to 12 months, and non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court.

While parenting orders can be a good option for some children, youth offending teams that I have spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities and programmes.

On financial orders, children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order. To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parent or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child. Whether they are used in each particular case is best determined by the court with professional advice from the youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on a child’s individual circumstances, retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation.

I undertake to the House today that I will look at this matter as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of the new clause. We therefore urge the House to reject this new clause, too.

I turn now to driving. There are an array of measures before the House that relate to driving offences, and there is an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and to strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences. New clauses have been put down by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), among others, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has raised this issue in the House.

It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence even if their offence did not relate to driving. However, I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House, and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and to do so properly and rigorously. I have organised a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to discuss this issue and to ensure that the points and individual cases raised in this and last week’s debates are considered in the Government’s road safety strategy, which is being developed. It is right that we undertake proper and further analysis of the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans.

I promise that I will ensure that this House is updated on the development of that work. I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure that they are consulted and kept informed, too. It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, but it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way that various new clauses seek to do.

I will turn now to new clause 31 on exclusions from recall measures, which was spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. A number of offences listed in the new clause are already excluded from the fixed-term recall provisions, while many others carry sentences that would be beyond the scope of the provisions. However, we understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chichester. There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring a sustainable system. Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. There are still challenges, looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those who are returned on recall. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that Lord Timpson and I are aware of, and we will make progress on it in due course.

I turn very briefly to new clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), regarding the awful Crown court delays we experience in this country—another element of the rotten legacy we received from the Conservative party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services will bring forward the Government’s response in due course.

It is an urgent issue, because all these problems—prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending—can be solved only if we have a functioning courts system. Sorting out and stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and dealing with the Crown court backlog will be at the heart of the Government’s approach through this Parliament.

[Ben Maguire]

There was one small omission there. Can the Minister confirm that legal aid provision, which has been brought up by several Members today, will be addressed by the Government?

[Jake Richards]

Yes. Legal aid is vital, and the right to legal aid is important. The Government understand that right and will continue to look at it. There are financial constraints, which we are all aware of, but legal aid is very important. We have made certain commitments with regard to employment tribunals, and we will continue to look at that over the coming months.

Amendment 7 would remove clause 20 regarding changes to be made to the release of certain offenders. Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system. When offenders are caught who pose a risk to the public, we ensure that there is capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward and a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the Tory Government. In July last year our prisons were essentially full, and the Government disgracefully could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they caused.

The changes that the Bill makes are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. What have heard from Opposition Members, carping from the sidelines, are wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say that we should build paperweight temporary prisons. Portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards? No thank you.

Let me clear: that would place the public at serious risk of harm. We cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This Government are building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years. Following the changes to be brought in by this Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before—2,000 more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, Reform has no serious plans to keep our communities safe.

The Tory position is even more absurd, if that is possible. Last week the shadow Minister began to apologise for the legacy that the Conservatives left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor it would not have happened. We had five Tory Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors in 14 years. I am not sure that giving another one a go would have made the difference. Meanwhile the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), says, “Deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all.” Completely unserious.

Under this Government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%. We have accelerated decision making on deportation, which can now happen when 30% of the sentence has been served. That is something that the Tories never did. Because of this legislation, we can go even further and deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. These are practical measures from a Labour Government who are cleaning up the Tory mess.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

My father is a retired senior prison officer, and I know at first hand the devastation that 14 years of the Tories brought on our prison system. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us as a Government to clean up the mess they left and fix the system urgently through reforms?

[Jake Richards]

I thank my hon. Friend’s father for his service. Prison officers across the country do a brilliant and important job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and while it has been important, the crowing from the Tories is galling considering the legacy that they left behind.

This Labour Government faced a crisis when we came into power last summer. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, and lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out. We took action, with plans to build 14,000 prison places—the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era—and 2,500 places in our first year, compared to just 500 places that were built during 14 years of the Conservative Government.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise, from his written response to me, that every single one of those 2,405 prison places was authorised by the previous Conservative Government and that the 14,000 prison places he planned to build will not be delivered because the firm that was due to build them has gone into administration?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member always makes that point, and he thinks it a good point. Towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, the Conservatives suddenly realised they had not done anything to our prisons—it was an absolute shambles—and they started to take action. We have actually delivered those places, with 2,500 in one year compared with just 500 in 14 years. It is shocking. That is not a good point, and he should not keep raising it.

The Government began an independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure that our system was sustainable. The Bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order on the streets. We will ensure that our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment that works. We will ensure that we will never again face the chaos of Tory misrule. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

17:55

Division 332

Ayes: 170

Noes: 328

18:09

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 16 September).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 12

Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand

“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.

(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:09

Division 333

Ayes: 82

Noes: 314

New Clause 19

Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after “duty,”, insert “or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,””—(Dr Mullan.)

This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.

Brought up,

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:21

Division 334

Ayes: 173

Noes: 323

New Clause 20

Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements

“(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).

(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing—

(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth;

(b) their national insurance number;

(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names;

(d) their place of residence on the date of notification;

(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and

(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—

(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);

(b) a change to their place or residence; and

(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.

(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—

(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and

(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.

(6) The relevant offences are—

(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);

(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);

(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);

(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);

(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;

(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—

(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);

(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);

(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and

(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”—(Dr Mullan.)

This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:33

Division 335

Ayes: 182

Noes: 311

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that there has unfortunately been a blip on today’s version of the Sentencing Bill’s amendment paper. While I did put my name to several new clauses, I did not put my name to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 or 35.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error.

Third Reading

18:45

[Jake Richards]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is a pleasure to speak at the Third Reading of this landmark legislation. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system.

It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), when they entered Government on 5 July 2024. Prisons were at breaking point, with a very real risk that the most dangerous offenders would not face custody at all and that our communities would be left vulnerable. They took urgent, necessary and decisive action to stabilise the system and keep our prisons afloat, and then they went further.

I pay tribute to David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, for his work in leading the independent sentencing review. It is a rigorous and serious piece of work, and while the Government did not accept all the recommendations, it is the basis of many of the provisions before the House today. We thank David Gauke for his work, and perhaps look somewhat regretfully back at what a serious Conservative Justice spokesperson looked like.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—and a particular shout-out for my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for her tireless campaigning on tool theft. Through their personal experience, or the experience of their constituents, hon. Members have powerfully raised issues that the Government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses.

The debates we have had on this legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative party is in complete denial, with not a single word of apology. It is their mess that this legislation begins to clean up. The Bill goes further than simply stabilising the system; it confronts reoffending—the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities—and learns from the Texan earned-progression model to encourage rehabilitation. Confronting reoffending and improving rehabilitation used to be policies that the Conservatives supported, but today they have provided nothing but opposition.

Meanwhile, Reform’s Justice spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), has not bothered to attend this debate at all, and inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black people on her TV. She should concentrate on coming up with workable policies; we cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform UK is simply not credible.

This Government, on the other hand, are getting on with the job and making difficult decisions to ensure that we can keep our promise to the British people: we will never let our prison system collapse like the last Government did, when even the most serious offenders might have avoided prison altogether. This Bill will ensure that our prison system is sustainable, while reducing reoffending and crime, and it will keep our communities safe. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:49

[Dr Mullan]

With the leave of the House, I will finish by explaining again that whatever good this Bill may do, the consequences for victims and their families’ sense of justice in this country are grave—the very same victims who want to see prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, and who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a swap. Victims of crime will welcome the changes and improvements that the Labour party says it can deliver, but they should not have to accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.

I say to Back Benchers that the Government can agree spending settlements and come up with plans, but they cannot create the changes in legislation that are needed for this Bill; Back Benchers do that. When the Government need MPs to change legislation, they can say no, such as the Labour Back Benchers who recently said no to welfare reform.

I remind Members what this Bill will do. This Bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles who are sent to prison will get out earlier. This Bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out earlier. It will mean that, in total, more than 6,000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier.

I ask Labour Members to imagine that, in a couple of years from now, they have secured all the achievements that they want in relation to the criminal justice system. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault comes to see them—perhaps somebody who feels that their experience was improved as a result of the changes that the Government say they are going to make and who, like many victims of sexual assault, has seen their perpetrator sent to prison for three years. That victim will come and see Labour Members, and say that the perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year—a third of their sentence.

That will be the reality for two thirds of the people sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country, because the Bill’s measures will mean that they get out of prison after a year. What will Members say to victims? Will they say what they say to me: “It was the Tories,” “I didn’t know,” or “We had no choice”? How hollow will those words sound to victims and their families? Whatever this Bill might do, the price that victims will pay is simply too high—much too high. The Government have no right to tell victims and their families that they must accept a trade-off: if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another.

I ask Labour Members to reflect again on the figures I have given them. They are the correct figures and they are the facts, no matter what those on the Government Front Bench have muttered as I have been speaking. I ask Labour Members to force this Government to make different choices. Do not support this betrayal of victims. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can mutter. It will come back to haunt every single one of you when victims ask you, “Why did you vote for something that lets thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier?”

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:52

Division 336

Ayes: 321

Noes: 103

Bill read the Third time and passed.