Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Emergency Debate: Appointment process and the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson

We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the We now come to the emergency We now come to the emergency debate.

12:43

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)

- -

13:17

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

13:32

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

13:46

Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )

- -

the right honourable and gallant Friend for Goole and Pocklington for securing this debate and for laying out the serious questions which need to be answered. So we can properly

13:48

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

13:55

John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)

- -

14:00

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him some advice. Please do not I was just try to give him some help and advice, but they are. Well, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course. Actually it is advice for the member opposite. Those who lick the member opposite. Those who lick the feet of the unworthy gain for themselves nothing but a dirty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tongue. Joking apart, this is really a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joking apart, this is really a very serious moment for our country and for Parliament. Whether you like and for Parliament. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is of incredible importance to our incredible importance to our country. He is just about to arrive here. He just must think that we in here. He just must think that we in this country are complete plonkers, frankly, for the way we have handled frankly, for the way we have handled all this.

First of all we had a very good relationship the previous ambassador. She was just swept ambassador. She was just swept aside. And then a man was appointed aside. And then a man was appointed who had produced in the past, all right, that man is a skilled operator and has built up a operator and has built up a relationship. President Trump himself is probably rather embarrassed about his relationship embarrassed about his relationship with Epstein. And then he finds all over the media this is dragged up over the media this is dragged up the day before one of his most important visits, which is of great important visits, which is of great importance to his country and our country.

And he knows they are going to be very difficult questions in the press conference. The President the press conference. The President of the United States must be absolutely furious about what is going on. So this is a very serious moment for us and we have to take it extremely seriously. And I hope, I'm sure the government does. I will just repeat what I said in the Urgent Question on Thursday, I have seen so many of the scandals. And it is usually not the original scandal or alleged scandal that is the problem, it is the cover-up.

And therefore, to try and be helpful to the government, we have already heard from the chair of the foreign affairs Select Committee, it is just an absurd part of our processes that if there is a monumental scandal where we have a public inquiry and officials, Ministers, everybody must be dragged... Every document must be produced for the public inquiry but governments can just brush aside a Select Committee. I just tell them, again I'm trying to be helpful now. Obviously a bad mistake was made and even worse mistake is being made if you are not honest with Parliament and you do not release every single document.

And there are so many questions that need to be asked. And could be answered. If the government, foreign office, was honest in these questions. Why was Mandelson chosen, given his known past associations with Epstein and his previous sackings? Word the risks misjudged all did the existing vetting process -- vetting process fail? Did the Prime Minister not know the full extent of the emails? know the full extent of the emails? We have no reason not to take his word, obviously tells the truth but this raises serious questions about what assurances of information he receives, from whom and whether that constituted adequate due diligence.

What exact checks were carried out at the appointment stage? What was know by whom and when? If some of the unsavoury aspects of former ambassadors friendship with Mr Epstein were nobly deemed worth the risk, what criteria were used to make that decision? Was the Propriety and Ethics Team sufficiently rigorous? Was any personal institutional or political bias instituted? The government have stated commitments on transparency, integrity and protecting victims of abuse of sexual violence. Having a senior representative like an ambassador whose past communications appeared to mitigate, defend or minimise a convicted child sex offender must run counter to these values and was that considered at that stage of the vetting process? How does the government reconcile this with its stated position? Why was the appointment made knowing there were links without understanding the full extent? Why was the Prime Minister publicly defending Lord Mandelson up till the revelations emerge? Only to sack him, less than a day, when the media pressure rose.

Was he sack for the content of what was revealed or merely because the situation became embarrassing? Lord Mandelson was appointed arguably the most important diplomatic role in His Majesty's to Pulisic service. This is a time of intense international pressure, so as I mentioned already, President Trump is operating levers of power in a way we have rarely seen in the post-war world. What assessment has the government made of the damage done to Britain's diplomatic standing by having such an important ambassador removed abra the under scandal? Light is the best disinfectant and the public have a right and this house, through its Select Committee has a right to be informed.

Ministers must ensure us that the full record of Lord Mandelson's communication with Epstein be disclosed and soon. We must also be told whether any of the information the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or any other minister had provided to the public has turned out to be inaccurate, whether intentionally or in good faith. While the ambassador has been sacked, this incident is far from over. There are too many questions which remain unanswered. It is the obligation and the responsibility of government to ensure that Parliament and the public are given a full and frank explanation of this matter.

14:06

Rt Hon Stephen Flynn MP (Aberdeen South, Scottish National Party)

- -

I often think it is a great pity in this House that the cameras tend

14:07

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

to just be trained on the individual speaking because it meant that the public did not get the opportunity

14:07

Rt Hon Stephen Flynn MP (Aberdeen South, Scottish National Party)

- -

public did not get the opportunity that we did earlier on to look at the faces of the Labour MPs as this debate began. To see the glum, serious look on their aces as they recognise the significance of the situation that faces their Prime Minister here and now. And I'm sure Minister here and now. And I'm sure it is a glum, angry, serious work might look that is shared not just might look that is shared not just by the Treasury Frontbench in the building here today but those who building here today but those who are in the public domain across broadcasting stations throughout the course of last week.

And if I may, the Chief Whip is no longer in his the Chief Whip is no longer in his place, but I would like to think that on Sunday that was the first that on Sunday that was the first occasion when he was happy to be in his new role. He so he did not have to appear on the Sunday media rounds as the Business Secretary to defend as the Business Secretary to defend the indefensible, to tell us all in the public domain that Peter Mandelson has singular qualities Mandelson has singular qualities that nobody else on these aisles, nobody else on the planet, possibly has, that make him fitting to be the has, that make him fitting to be the ambassador to the United States of ambassador to the United States of America.

What a pitiful state to find ourselves in. What a pitiful state for the Prime Minister to find himself in. And this is mired in politics, I hate to say. Because this is a political decision by the Prime Minister. He chose to stand at that Dispatch Box last week and not tell us, but tell the public that there was nothing to see here. He had absolute confidence in Lord Mandelson. It is the Prime Minister who chose to ignore the facts that were plainly in front of him, not four weeks, not hours, not four days, but for months.

He was the man who appointed Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States, the man who said to an FD journalist earlier this year to (BLEEP) off, his quote, not mine, because he was being enquired about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That was what Lord Mandelson said, he said it was an FT obsession, well, guess what, it is our obsession now. And we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. The Prime Minister is not about the scrutiny of the House of Commons, neither is he above scrutiny of the public at home.

But the greatest scandal of all is the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appointed a man to that role knowing that that man had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, despite the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had been convicted in 2008 in Florida. Convicted for having 14-year-old girls mass debate him. And the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thought it was fitting for the best friend of the individual to hold the highest diplomatic office in the United States of America on behalf of the people of these aisles.

What a complete disgrace. And the only thing that seems to have caused any consternation for the Prime Minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period, Peter Mandelson appeared to think Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. Which draws us to the conclusion of Peter Mandelson had thought Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a friendship, thought he was guilty, he would still be in post. What has happened to the moral compass of this place, of the office of Prime Minister, where we can simply accept a rationale such as that? How can any victim of child sex abuse in these aisles or elsewhere have confidence in the structures that we put in place when the Prime Minister of the 90 kingdom...

And the Minister shakes his head. Is it an intervention he wants to me? Is there something he disagrees with in that assessment of those fat? Or does he want to present the additional detail to this house, which makes any of that untrue whatsoever? -- Those facts. I'll tell you who is shaking their head, the public at him and his Prime Minister for the decisions they have taken. We are going into recess, all of us are mindful of the fact that this House is shutting down.

But when we come back, we expect answers. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, he hopes this is going to go away. But I and every other member who is sitting in this House right now can assure him that it is not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for a moment, please be seated. Colleagues, there are children in the gallery, let's keep our language tempered and make sure we have been moderate in everything that we say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we say. Thank you. It is a pleasure to follow on from the honourable gentlemen, the speech is just me, gentlemen, the speech is just me, and indeed, the very fact that my right honourable friend was able to outline so clearly what today is about. And what today is about is an about. And what today is about is an exceptionally serious matter. We are talking about the appointment of

14:12

Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)

- -

somebody who would have to have the highest security clearance. Higher than a lot of Ministers. Having sensitive information going across his desk at the same time. And yet at the same time, in the public domain, was known that this individual was severely compromised. And that should raise a question for everybody. The Labour backbenchers, the government backbenches have been following today's debate in a state of despair. And I actually admire them for that because they understand the gravity of the situation we are talking about.

And as the honourable gentlemen just drew out, the Minister sat on that Frontbench for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven has done nothing but treat this debate so far with contempt. He was smirking at my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. He has been shaking his head against some of the allegations made which are in the public domain. And that speaks to an apparent attitude going on the heart of this government. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who is going to have to respond to this debate.

We worked closely together and he is a good man. But he has been sent to the slaughter today. This is a decision that was made around the Cabinet table. This is a decision where the Minister last week had to come to this House and announce that the Prime Minister had instructed the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. Where is the Foreign Secretary? This is one of the most serious issues this House has debated in this Parliament and they have sent the Minister once again to answer these questions.

And to be fair to the Minister, any questions can be put and he is not going to be able to answer them. And that is why he has been sent here today. Because he can push it off into the distance. And I say again, I have nothing but respect to the Minister, we worked closely together and he has always been honest and upfront and I know he must be dreading this today. Because on Thursday, he came to this House and literally, maybe he can tell us when he actually did know that the ambassador had been withdrawn, because beforehand he certainly looked like a man who was slightly worried about what he had to go into this House and do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I talk to my constituents and it is a fact that the last few days they've talked about little else. they've talked about little else. Alluding to what the leader of the SNP in this place, this issue is not SNP in this place, this issue is not going to go away. I hope politicians going to go away. I hope politicians realise that because it is going to get bigger and bigger as time goes on. And to take the point made by the honourable gentlemen, these questions are going to have to be answered, there's no two ways about that.

And when the general public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. And when the general public speak so affirmatively that went all of us, we know this bigotry. Let's not shy away from this is about. This is about a man that about. This is about a man that defended a convicted paedophile, which most people know would fail which most people know would fail any vetting process because you would be compromised, the person would be compromised, the person could be compromised with defending some of the most serious criminal some of the most serious criminal offences.

We know in the public domain how much he was in hock to this convicted paedophile and yet process of -- processes were driven. The honourable member for Rugby raked up the past and said things raked up the past and said things that quite frankly the resignation of the director of communications is of the director of communications is very different to the withdrawal of an ambassador with top-secret access. But let me say that when we were in government we did not exactly not have our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through.

And may I remind the House that what did Boris Johnson as a Prime Minister was not all the allegations that used to be thrown from outside the house, it was when he said to this House that he was not aware of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher. And then it turned out that he had evidence that he was aware. We know that this Prime Minister stood about Dispatch Box on Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and he did not have any documents when we now know that his office had them.

So the question has to be answered, when did he know and how can that be shown that he did not know beforehand? Because this party moved against that Prime Minister when it became apparent that he did know and I look at those Labour backbenchers and those who are giving opinions in the press and say to them do you have the courage now to move against a Prime Minister who has done exactly what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in this country and this party move against him when those allegations became clear that it was not I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman. He refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. All of those ways was not having an independent ethics was not having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time. Whereas this Prime Minister has had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whereas this Prime Minister has had an independent ethics adviser and acts on the advice. The reason I took that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reason I took that intervention because I know the right honourable gentleman would not be able to help himself. The reality is, the Prime Minister made all this about appointing an ethics adviser, and done this. But when asked the and done this. But when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, would you sack a minister who BBC, would you sack a minister who has broken the ethics code, he could not answer. He obfuscated as he always does. This is smoke and always does.

This is smoke and mirrors. This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. It is not good enough to say today. It is not good enough to say we did not know. I come back to it, we did not know. I come back to it, we are talking about people who were we are talking about people who were subject to a paedophile, who watched someone who defended that paedophile get put one of the highest offices in the world. Carrying some of the in the world.

Carrying some of the greatest secrets of state. And yet this by Minister said, it is fine we will override it. I don't want to go beyond the six minutes I was allowed, so I will just ask these questions to the Minister. Some of them have been implied. I'm afraid I won't. I don't want to test the patience of the House. A lot of people want to speak. The question the Minister has to answer today is, decisively, who knew what when. He has to answer who made the decision to award the ambassadorship to Peter Mandelson? What lobbying took place to do that, why was such a distinguished and acid such as Cameron Pearce, who any of us who've been to America and they know when they met her she was one of the most respected and capable ambassadors, and it cannot be true to say that she would not have been able to carry out the task which members sitting around the Cabinet table

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today feels the man was worth the risk. Sr John Whittingdale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. There have been some very powerful speeches in this debate from both sides of the House. One of the things which is apparent is that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important

14:19

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

14:28

Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

the Prime Minister on Lord Mandelson's appointment. And the Prime Minister stood by it confirming that rigourous background checks had taken place. This entire situation has left a nasty taste in the mouth. To put it mildly. That the ambassador to the US, the most coveted ambassador position in the United Kingdom by many metrics, was seemingly OK with the moral turpitude of the man I will not mention. Even following his conviction. This casts a long shadow on Britain's place in the world.

The timing and nature of this, not that it could ever be anything other than terrible, is catastrophically bad. The optics are dreadful. While we should be demonstrating moral leadership, in an increasingly volatile international climate, we have been discredited by scandal. The president of United States lands in this country today for his unprecedented second state visit. Whilst the Prime Minister wined and dined him, will he be taking a principled stand on the matters of great importance to the people of this country? Will he be pressing on Gaza? Will you be making progress on our long-awaited trade deal to insulate ourselves from Trumps tariffs? Will he be supporting our NATO allies in making the case for better US engagement with the defence of Ukraine and shoring up Europe's eastern flank after the Russian incursions to Poland and Romania? If not bad enough, this murky affair has been thickened by the fact that a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed they failed to clear Mandelson, and the links to the man I refuse to name would compromise him.

Downing Street pressed ahead with the appointment anyway. It is vital the Civil Service commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the code by failing to complete over the regulations sooner. If it is true, it raises wider questions about what other advice from the social security services was neglected. Why did Downing Street officials fail did Downing Street officials fail did Downing Street officials fail ... Sticking to the line of confidence in Mandelson only to defenestration a few hours later.

Why was the Prime Minister not on top of his brief? And if it is the case that key details and information were withheld from the Prime Minister, why has no one been outed and swiftly given the boot? In the late 1920s, there was a famous German philosopher called Karl Popper. And he famously said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It is my sincere hope that this is not the case for this government, for whom I have usually a degree of respect.

There are so many questions. And we on these benches and my constituents of Tiverton and Minehead demand answers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I must admit, when we had this debate was granted, I

14:32

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

14:37

Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage. Because this Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the best pal of a paedophile. Someone who advised that paedophile, when in prison, to use that time in prison as an opportunity. Truly shocking. And there are two separate issues here that require proper examination.

Firstly, the judgement of the Prime Minister and then secondly, did he inadvertently mislead the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition? Let's look at the judgement of the Prime Minister. We know now that he received a two-page document, as he made the personal decision to appoint Noel -- appoint Lord Mandelson, outlining some of his links to the paedophile. And yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. So he made that appointment in that knowledge.

That is woefully, woefully incompetent judgement. He then made the judgement last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson's links to this paedophile, he made the judgement as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic, not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgement. And then, he made the judgement to come to this House and say that he had confidence in the man over whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it was inappropriate to ask the detail about.

The whole point of lawyers and barristers is they do that DD, that diligence, but no, not our Prime Minister. Which brings me on to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, twice he said he had confidence in Lord Mandelson. And yet he knew the day before that as a cache of emails that he did not want to know the detail of about Lord Mandelson's links to Epstein.

And then, the day after, he fired him. How is it credulous to believe that you can have confidence in a man even those two facts within a 24- hour period? Even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that full due process had been followed during the appointment. We now learn that this is not the case. Because actually, the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large.

And therefore, those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint or it was carried out afterwards, it was not carried out during. And for that reason, I regrettably conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled this House of Commons and the British people. And I think, therefore, that this Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew, when, why he made this decision is and why he chose not to ask the detailed forensic investigations at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the appropriate time. Just remind members to temper

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just remind members to temper their speeches and we do not at any point accuse other members of this honesty. I know the next member will honesty. I know the next member will get that right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get that right. There are three moments when both sides of the House come to this chamber with the same question on chamber with the same question on the mines, how did it get to this? the mines, how did it get to this? The Prime Minister is very proud of his record as the Director of Public Prosecutions. His skills, to

14:42

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

Prosecutions. His skills, to prosecute, to interrogate and to investigate. Skills that are absent here. The Prime Minister will also be more than familiar with the basic legal principle caveat ental, buyer beware. This can be translated across-the-board to many scenarios and essentially means you are to do your research and ask pointed questions. On this point, the Prime Minister in interviews exposed himself yesterday. He claims he did not know the content of the Bloomberg emails but yet he knew they existed.

Where was the inquiry? He knew an investigation was launched by the Foreign Office but not content, where with the enquiry? He was waiting for answers from the disgraced ambassador even though his Chief of Staff, we understand, was in contact with him for much of the previous day. Where was the enquiry? In the knowledge that there were outstanding questions unanswered, anyone, not just a lawyer, would have drawn breath and paused before giving such a vote of confidence in the former ambassador during PMQs.

It is wilful ignorance at best, political belligerence at worst. The Prime Minister now says, had I know... "Had I known then what I know now, I never would have appointed an" That the former Foreign Secretary has said the truth is all the issues were weighed and at that time it was known Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein but the scale and extent of that was only known last Wednesday evening when the Prime Minister surveyed those emails.

But we understand that the Foreign Office contacted Number Ten on Tuesday and an investigation was opened. So something does not add up. There is such a lack of clarity on this matter and where there is a lack of clarity, we need transparency. A proper due diligence exercise relies on the disclosure given, as he will be well aware from practice. It is time to disclose. So I am sure, therefore, the government will oblige with the requests from the Leader of the Opposition to provide the House with all correspondence and documents on the Mandelson files.

The matter, however, goes beyond judgement calls of both the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, given that both are involved in the appointment of ambassadors. It is also a matter of ethics. What is deemed acceptable behaviour when in positions of power. The Nolan principles are integral to all of us who serve the public. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Principles that apply as much to the former ambassador as to the Minister. Mike Prime Minister. Under leadership it says holders of public office should actively promote and robustly the principles and challenge for behaviour wherever it occurs.

Given the known record Peter Mandelson even before the details of the email came to light, does the Prime Minister believe that this principle has been met? On this basis, will the Prime Minister be referring himself and others involved in the appointment process to the independent ethics adviser? The role of ambassador in Washington is a crucial one, entrusted with the most sensitive information and shaping our reputation on the world stage. It is not too much to ask that its appointee embodies the that its appointee embodies the

14:45

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

Let's be crystal clear. This is an emergency debate about honesty, integrity, and the crediting of this Labour government. It is about what the Prime Minister knew and when he knew it. Regarding Lord Mandelson links to Jeffrey Epstein. The public deserve the truth. And instead they have been treated to evasion, delay, and as my constituents have been very clear, a cover-up. The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well known, we have heard it this afternoon.

The vetting process surely should have raised red flags. The Prime Minister oversaw the appointment, and where is he today? More happy to talk to the BBC than at the Dispatch Box. He told us he had confidence in Lord Mandelson even as the questions mounted, and the damning Bloomberg emails were about to surface. That surely was not an accident. It was a choice. One goes to the heart of the Prime Minister's judgement. Let us remind ourselves what those emails revealed.

Mandelson offered words of support to a convicted paedophile. These were not casual contacts sustained and deeply troubling links. Yet when pressed on what he knew, the Prime Minister story shifted. First perhaps ignorant that awareness of media inquiries, then the claim had not seen the contents until the last moment. And all the while, the Prime Minister is chief of staff was in touch with Lord Mandelson much of the day before PMQs. So which is it? This House deserves answers to the most basic questions about a scandal engulfing the Prime Minister and his own ambassador.

But this is not an isolated lapse. Two of the prime ministers most senior appointment unravelled in recent weeks. It seems to me that Labour likes to lecture us all about integrity, but in little more than a year in office, they are mired in scandal. Putting loyalty to insiders ahead of the basic decency the public rightly expects. While the government is tying itself in knots, our country faces grave challenges. Last week, Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace testing NATO's resolve.

Bond rates here at home have hit the highest in 30 years. Illegal migration wrote crossings reached record numbers in this year, 2035, and in the West Midlands, been strikes : into their sixth month while Labour MPs from the region sit silent. In my own constituency, swathes of our precious green belt are under siege because of labours planning reforms. These are the issues my constituents expect this place to be focused on. Instead, the Prime Minister is distracted by a scandal of his own making.

So let's get back to the central question, what must now happen? I thing the answer is simple. The Mandelson Epstein files must be released in full urgently, and without caveats. That means the two page vetting document the evidence behind it, it means all correspondence between the chief of staff and Lord Mandelson. It means the communications between the Foreign Office, Number 10, and our embassy in Washington about the Bloomberg files. That means any other documents presented to the Prime Minister in making the appointment.

This House and the public that we serve have a right to see them. Recess will be upon us within literally hours. But this scandal cannot and must not be sent into recess in the hope that this failing government can sweep it under the carpet. The longer that Labour refuses to publish the files, the more damning the conclusion becomes. And the more damaging to democracy in our country. And to the trust of the public. The opposition went into last year's election on the slogan of change.

Every day they are demonstrating it, it is change for the worse. At the moment when we should be protecting clarity, strength, and integrity on the world stage, we are instead led by a Prime Minister distracted by scandal and paralysed by poor judgement. It is time to end the rumour, publish the files, and finally put his country before narrow party interests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nothing less will do. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

14:50

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to use the few minutes that I have to focus on how it could be that the Prime Minister of this country, just last Wednesday, came to tell this House that he had confidence in the friend of the paedophile, Lord Mandelson, in his role as king ambassador for this government. He said that not once but twice. When the Leader of the Opposition rightly asked him. He said, "I have confidence in him.

I have confidence in the ambassador. " Those were his ringing endorsement of Lord Mandelson. I want to examine the circumstances that then prevailed when he said those words. What is confidence? Confidence is that you trust someone, confidence is that you have faith in them. Confidence is that you have belief in them. So that is what he was telling this House in respect of Lord Mandelson. That was on Wednesday. And yet on Monday, we know, as a matter of public knowledge, that the Bloomberg emails had been published.

The Prime Minister since has made some startling claims. He has said that when at PMQs he was answering, he knew that questions were being asked. He told us that at Prime Minister's Questions, he only knew of media inquiries about the emails. And he knew that questions had been put to Lord Mandelson. Our Prime Minister is a KC. The natural instinct of a lawyer is to interrogate. The training of a lawyer is to equip them to interrogate.

And yet this House is being told that when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said, " I have confidence in Lord Mandelson, " though he knew that questions were being asked, he didn't interrogate and himself ask didn't interrogate and himself ask about what. When he was told that he knew there were media inquiries about emails, if we are to believe this, he did not ask, "What emails?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What are they say? " Your Muamba is making a fantastic suite. The Prime Minister said he suite. The Prime Minister said he had confidence in him, did not say pending an investigation or suspension or that he would look suspension or that he would look into it or follow process. He said he had confidence was the why does my honourable friend think he did my honourable friend think he did not say he will look into the situation seriously and said he had confidence specifically at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dispatch Box? That is the most troubling thing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the most troubling thing about this. He inevitably had a Monday night's publications, knowledge of questions that had been knowledge of questions that had been asked, knowledge that there were media inquiries and emails, and yet, media inquiries and emails, and yet, the credibility of this House is to the credibility of this House is to be stretched to be asked to believe that he, a trained lawyer, never interrogated any of it. Never asked, interrogated any of it. Never asked, what emails? What they say? What questions have we asked? He came to questions have we asked? He came to this House blind, we are asked to this House blind, we are asked to believe, to all of that.

Not only in the appointment of Lord Mandelson do the appointment of Lord Mandelson do we see serious flaws in the judgement of the Prime Minister, but if that is truly the situation, that he came to this House with a limited but an interrogated knowledge of these matters, then it raises further questions about the Prime Minister's judgement on all this. I fear this House has many answers yet to receive. As a matter of regret to me as it is to others that the Prime Minister is not here today to answer those demanding and alarming, and yet simple questions.

Questions that yet simple questions. Questions that go to the very heart, not of the Prime Minister is confidence in Lord Mandelson but to the very heart of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether this House and this people can have confidence in the Prime Minister. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The UK has a proud tradition of appointing career civil servants as appointing career civil servants as ambassadors. Our senior diplomatic ambassadors. Our senior diplomatic service is respected worldwide, and travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee this year, we have heard Committee this year, we have heard high praise for our " Rolls-Royce Civil Service. " Professional, Civil Service. " Professional, reliable, globally respected. And one strength of the British Civil Service is in the clear separation Service is in the clear separation between politicians and officials.

between politicians and officials. Since the Trevelyan report in 1854, Civil Service impartiality has been Civil Service impartiality has been a key feature of a permanent Civil Service, the reputation of the British governor depends on it. The distinction has served us well distinction has served us well across the decades, and applies in the staffing of our most senior the staffing of our most senior diplomatic posts. And yes, there have been occasional exceptions, the have been occasional exceptions, the former chief of staff of Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton when he Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was premised.

He was appointed first as ambassador to France, and now serves as his Majesty's Ambassador. He had gained experience with Baroness Patton in Hong Kong and later Lord Ashdown, when he was high representative in Bosnia. So plainly somebody with enormous international experience. Crucially, this political appointment of Baron Llewellyn gave evidence. He was called to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2017 to give evidence shortly after he had been appointed. Contrast that, the British way, with how the United States exits ambassadorial appointments.

It is common for American presidents to reward political donors or Political Analyst with ambassador posts. Donald Trump's choice for the new ambassador to London is a case in point. The ambassador to London is an investment banker, a donor to the Republican Party, and not a career diplomat. As of 3 September, Donald Trump had appointed 67 ambassadors in his second term. 61 of them are political appointees, more than 90%. Yet in the United States such appointments are subject to big scrutiny.

Every US Ambassador must first appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee submitting detailed disclosures on their background, their finances, and their potential conflict-of- interest, before facing direct questions at a public hearing. In United States, only after this confirmation hearing does the nomination proceed to the full Senate, where the confirmation vote is required. It ensures A-level of transparency and accountability that is absent from the system here in the UK. Our system is set up the appointment of senior civil seven who receive vetting on a rolling basis.

The Foreign Affairs Committee was not afforded the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson, either in public, before his appointment, or subsequently. We saw this with the appointment of Lord Mandelson, neither the professionalism of the appointment of a British civil servant nor the scrutiny associated with the political appointees in the US system. We should also look hard at what has happened to US UK relations since Lord Mandelson took up his post in December. On Ukraine, Lord Mandelson's line was closer to the US and the UK arguably, prior to his appointed ambassador.

He spoke frivolously about whatever happens on the fringes of Ukrainian territory. That was not the British government's position. After being appointed in March this year, Mandelson said that President Zelensky should be " More supportive of US peace efforts. " The remarks were so out of step that ministers were forced to clarify his comments did not reflect British Government policy. Or the Middle East we know that the UK and US governments have taken different approaches to the conflict. It leaves us wondering, in what circumstances the UK position has not been portrayed correctly in Washington, DC? Trade is another area of concern.

On first April this year I gave the first reading of the US UK trade agreement, the Ten Minute Rule Bill arguing. The parliamentary scrutiny of any trade deal. While parliamentary scrutiny of any transatlantic, partnership the United States is essential, so it is with appointments to the role of ambassador. My instinct is that the UK ambassador to the US should be a professional British civil

**** Possible New Speaker ****

servant or official. I thank the member. Does he not agree, he has made the theoretical agree, he has made the theoretical argument, that the previous ambassador was a brilliant ambassador was a brilliant ambassador I would never have made the mistakes that Lord Mandelson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made and should not be replaced? I agree with the right honourable gentleman wholeheartedly and gentleman wholeheartedly and gentleman wholeheartedly and It was rumoured Karen Pearce was

15:00

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

It was rumoured Karen Pearce was willing to stay in post for at least another year and she would have represented us in an excellent manner that was characteristic of her. The Prime Minister has extensive powers to appoint senior officials will stop usually for Civil Service commissioners lead this process to ensure the selection is on the basis of merit. The constitutional reform and governance act, CRAG, allows the Prime Minister to bypass that check on his power. And in this case, it has had disastrous consequences.

As I conclude, I have two questions for the Minister. One, will the government commit that in future any political appointment to a senior diplomatic role will go before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Rute and before the appointment is confirmed? before the appointment is confirmed? -- For scrutiny. Will the Government amend clause 10.3 of the crag to ensure that diplomats like senior civil servants are appointed on the basis of merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.

15:02

Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)

- -

I would like to thank and congratulate the honourable member for securing this emergency debate. The focus of the debate thus far has primarily been in three areas. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein's appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandelson prior to him being appointed. And then the judgement of the Prime Minister in both appointing and then firing Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. And quite rightly the House in this debate has focused on those three areas.

But I want to add 1/4, which I personally find as chilling as the other three. It is this, that since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leveraged colour blackmail. Can someone, and we do not know who, had politically fatal contraband on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office. -- Leveraged, blackmail. I am amazed the Home Office is not going to have full lockdown and damage limitation mode having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been being blackmailed that entire time.

And if it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, they would have done that. All they do know now is that someone had, and we do not know who, politically fatal contraband on him the whole time. So, I do not know if the Minister is aware and the Member for Hon attended talk about some of the behaviours of Lord Mandelson in office and that is a bit I am concerned about. -- Member for Honiton. I don't know if he is aware that Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to times radio recently, in which he said that Lord Mandelson had been lobbying Number Ten Downing Street on behalf of a single defence manufacturer for Britain to buy an unmanned military set of equipment, a major buyer, without a competition.

Bypassing UK SME and expertise. Now, I'm not going to put two and two together. But it does seem extraordinary to me that someone who is mental be promoting British interests overseas -- meant to be promoting British interest overseas is instead promoting overseas defence capability to number 10. Do not get me wrong, we buy a lot of kit from America but it is the absence of a competition that skews the pitch and it is odd behaviour. And so I would hope that when the Minister gets an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures Number Ten and the Foreign Office are taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandelson did when our ambassador, in order to establish the extent to which the politically fatal complement had skewed his judgement and his behaviour.

15:05

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

The now former UK ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with convicted paedophile. A relationship that's come as no surprise to anybody except, it would appear, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knew of Lord Mandelson's relationship Alexei, the former Foreign Secretary to and yet his appointment was felt to be worth the risk. Despite warnings from resident tramps co- campaign manager who criticised the replacement of the former ambassador as replacing the professional University and an absolute moron.

-- Trump. Even the Select Committee chair asked him to come before her committee to allow my colleagues to hear directly why the premise had appointed him, with the face pressed up against the Cabinet window like Tiny Tim out of the car, I'm surprised she can be heard. The Minister for the Overseas Territories looking sheepish and is placed on the Frontbench was emphatic. We absolute convince Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington he stated. Yet the whole time the government was aware of the security warnings of Lord Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein cross the line of what was acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial employment stop the president of the United States rose for a second state visit tomorrow and yet we now suffer the embarrassment and Andy city --...

His girlfriend was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. An aspect of this that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mandelson's relationship Julie Maxwell. The New York Times described it as a stinging embarrassment that cast a shadow over the planned state visit. How is the Prime Minister allowed this to happen, ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him anyway, embracing the risk and then having a block in his face? Prior to entering Parliament I worked for Barclays bank and in 2021, the bank CEO resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he mischaracterised his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I actually raised a complaint with my managers that was roundly ignored, never advancing beyond Managing Director level, such as the squeamishness ran the story was I was furious that Barclays still paid the 2.4 million salary and £120,000 pension contribution whilst Binder penetrated for his relationship with Ihsane. -- Whilst Binder fairness traitor. While the financial world saw fit to watches hand, this label government welcome Lord Mandelson without command. -- Labour Government. Those who maintain a relationship Epstein, visited Ireland, have long since been deplatformed, deemed too toxic for the position of power.

-- Visited his island. The Prime Minister wrote shot over these concerns. He is the decision-maker in chief, 20 the responsibility of difficult decisions the most difficult decisions. Appointing ambassador to the United States is not the political banana skin that should bring down the government and yet here we are, the government is teetering on the brink. Yesterday the Prime Minister gingerly began climbdown over his handling of the Mandelson sacking. When it came to the chamber last Wednesday he robustly defended Lord Mandelson, playing to the baying crowd, even claim the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on.

Interesting to see him in the smoking room last night between boats, wasn't it? Last Wednesday the Prime Minister -- Prime Minister stated that full due process was followed, he said it twice. If that is true then the Prime Minister knew the full scope of Mandelson's relationship Jeffrey Epstein, he did not know and your information came to light, and either the betting standards of the government are incompetent or the claim of full due process is inaccurate. -- Vetting standards. He said he confidence in the ambassador.

The Prime Minister's expiration yesterday stated there were three reasons... The nature and extent of the relationship being far too different to what I'd understood the position at that point of appointment. The questioning and challenging of the conviction which as I say goes to the heart and counts across the what this government is doing on violence gets the girl and unsatisfactory nature of the responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquiry is made of him by garment officials, I took the decision to remove him.

Can the government they are precisely what the full due process that was followed? The premise claims he did not learn the competent -- content of emails until after PMQs, did Lord Mandelson failed to disclose this during the vetting interview? Was there a vetting interview? Did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the Prime Minister sustained wilful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ignorance of? His speech reminds me of an earlier episode of UK US relations earlier episode of UK US relations when Donald Rumsfeld referred to known knowns, unknowns and known- known knowns, unknowns and known- unknowns and whilst the government might be forgiven for not holding Peter Mandelson to account for those in unknown-unknown, does he agree with me it is unforgivable that they have traded and state Britain's have traded and state Britain's diplomatic relationship with the US on known-unknowns?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on known-unknowns? I think it is incredible that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is incredible that such lax vetting has taken place from this government with regards to what is such an obvious conflict of what is such an obvious conflict of interest. The nature and extent of the relationship, we knew about Mandelson's closeness to Jeffrey Mandelson's closeness to Jeffrey Epstein when the book was published, when Lord Mandelson described the when Lord Mandelson described the convicted people as his best out and signed off his many pages praise with the line yum. What else the Prime Minister Lambie on that? He claims the only new of his association that would appear to be questionable.

The questioning and questionable. The questioning and challenging at the conviction, was challenging at the conviction, was Lord Mandelson asked about his opinion of the conviction of his best pal during his vetting interview? Did he do) felt or ever felt the conviction was unjustified? Either he was not asked, incompetent vetting, he did not disclose, not a suitable appointment, or he did disclose and it was ignored by the Prime Minister put which is it? The unsatisfactory nature of the responses, the only aspect of the investigation we are get to, the Prime Minister must publish this new information so this House can fully understand if his answers are unsatisfying now or not before, that would suggest full due process was not followed in contradiction to what the Prime Minister claimed last week.

This whole sorry episode is set to do rather visit of the United States president tomorrow. We are long way from the Cholmondeley mono me, when the -- family mono me when he handed the letter to President Trump, I wonder how he will expense to the president tomorrow. The Prime Minister noticed days are numbered. The new shadow Cabinet knows his days are numbered, the backbenchers know his days are numbered. Perhaps the Prime Minister should try and talk to them regularly and not just cosy up to the smoking room when he needs their support.

If the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister cannot exercise the judgement of the office, he must resign. That is the end of the backbench contributions, colleagues are spoken

15:12

Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )

- -

15:29

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I come to David Davies to windup. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to first say to the Minister, I think everyone who spoke in the House remembered the victims. After the sound of the political gunfire is long forgotten, they will still be suffering the scarring of what happened to them as a result of Mr Epstein's behaviour. And I would say to him that, without U-turns or whatever, you should say to his prior Minister that the next possible duty at that Dispatch Box, he should apologise to those victims for the government has done.

The second thing, he is of course highly respected in this House. I see him there almost the last line, full of arrows as he stands there trying to arrows as he stands there trying to It is a position a number of us have been in ourselves, I have sympathy. The simple truth is I found it really hard to reconcile what he said, about this clearance process, with what I know was unknown, by the agencies, as long ago as the 2008.

About Mandelson's behaviour. Connections and the like. And the possibility, one of my honourable friends talked about contraband. The clear possibility of comparable and. I find it very difficult to reconcile with what he said. And all I can say to him is simply two possibilities. One is, as often happens with direct vetting, the agencies produced to the Minister a series of risks and the Minister, in this case of the Prime Minister, I assume, decides if those risks are worth taking.

That is one possibility for stop the other possibility is that the vetting process is completely broken and somehow or other it did not detect all of these things that were in plain sight. That strikes me as implausible. I am afraid what he told us doesn't seem to figure. Particularly when it adds to the chairman of the select committee's comments about the propriety and ethics teams report being produced effectively without the FCDO's input. Which again is absolutely astonishing. Now, the House itself has been remarkably inadequate.

I think one exception is sitting over there. -- Remarkably unanimous. The Leader of the House and made her characteristically sharp speech and she said, almost uniquely, the leader of every other party agreed with. That we need, we need the information. We need the accountability. What does that mean. My honourable friend the Member for Brownhills, we need to release all the documents. Not to hide behind security, there is no security issue here, in terms of the national interest.

The issue is this system working? And we cannot know unless we see those documents. We need the Ministers involved and the advisers involved to appear before the relevant select committees and answer questions on this matter. Now frankly if he wants to hide behind security, they can always do that in camera, as long as it is done properly and they have the opportunity to test some of these assertions. He and others got a good deal of good advice from a number of people, most notably the Father of the House.

Others too. When they said that these problems are bad enough, when they are in the original error, but they get worse in the cover-up. They get worse if you do not actually admit what has happened. So honesty is not just important in this. It is also a survival characteristic, for the Ministers involved. I have to say to him today that, as I said, he is the last Spot on. The answer is that we all probably have. I'm gonna finish as I started, I reminded him of that bill they announced today.

The first words on the Order Paper say, a build to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness. To make provision for the enforcement of that duty and the dealings of enquiries and investigations. To require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct, within all parts of the authority. While that is what we expect. And frankly if we do not get the answers, by the sounds of things get the answers, we will return to this matter.

I suspect some opposition within its own party will return. And when he passes that bill I guarantee be seeking to make sure that Ministers are covered by it to, and then, next year, look what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happens. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many of that opinion say Paper, as many of that opinion say I. As many as are of that opinion, I. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. I give the badgers The Ayes have it. I give the badgers a few minutes to swap over, for the 10 minute room motion. Colleagues 10 minute room motion.

Colleagues Miss Gilmour, Mrs Aubrey. This is Miss Gilmour, Mrs Aubrey. This is not the time or place. We come to

15:36

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)

not the time or place. We come to the 10 minute rule motion. Removal of the two child limit and I called Kirsty Blackman.

15:36

Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)

- -

15:50

Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

Centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such anti-aspirational approaches to public finances. We cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill by pursuing policies that will push it pursuing policies that will push it up by billions. Let me speak directly to the British public who are conservative minded. If your are conservative minded. If your political beliefs are rooted in political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you support parties that want to can you support parties that want to take your hardened money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibly? Only the Conservative responsibly? Only the Conservative party stands with you, we believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned, we believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency.

Our approach people in dependency. Our approach is clear, as the shadow Secretary of said, a future Conservative said, a future Conservative government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, benefits for foreign nationals, fixed the sicknote culture and introduce face-to-face assessment to stop people gaming the system. We stop people gaming the system. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibly and where work, personal responsibly and self-reliant our quart to our national ethos. As I said last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system.

We should highlight the importance of getting a job, promoting better financial management and upholding assistant where hard work triumphs over idleness. We will vote against this Bill today, we are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about the out-of-control system and the financial realities facing our country. We await to our constituents to protect the public purse, we await to hard-working families to uphold fairness and we are it to future generations to build a society built on effort, enterprise and aspiration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the Ayes, Kirsty Blackman and Graham Leadbetter, Tellers for the Noes,

15:54

Division

16:06

Points of Order

question, can I ask you Madam Deputy Speaker whether there had been any indication from the government as to whether they intend to, either answer that question on the floor of this House or to perhaps write in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the near future. Can I thank the honourable member for having given notice of his point of order, he will know that that is not a matter for the chair, however I'm sure the government from bench I'm sure the government from bench has heard his point of order and will be exhorting the Cabinet office will be exhorting the Cabinet office colleagues to respond as soon as possible. the clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentencing Bill second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move moved. The reasoned amendments, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reasoned amendments, in the name of Robert Jenrick has been selected, Minister to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second reading. Secretary of State. I beg to move moved that the bill

16:08

Legislation: Sentencing Bill: Second reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move moved that the bill now be read a second time. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was my pleasure to open this debate today. My first since being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. It Secretary of State for Justice. It is an honour to look back on this and to take up this brief. Justice has always been at the heart of my has always been at the heart of my politics over the last 25 years.

Far politics over the last 25 years. Far from being abstract it runs through every aspect of our lives, our education, our health. And the opportunities people have succeeded. opportunities people have succeeded. It has shaped my life and study in practising law. To serving as a practising law. To serving as a Minister in the Department for Constitutional affairs and of course the shadow justice secretary. And during David Cameron's period as Prime Minister, being asked to conduct an independent review on racial disparity in the justice system.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I grew up as a working class and sought to many young black men and up on the wrong side of the wall. I represented Tottenham during the 2011 London riots, addressing first hand the disruption caused when peaceful protests were hijacked by violent criminals. During the Lammy Review I also saw the state of our prisons are operating close to maximum capacity, putting the public maximum capacity, putting the public at risk of harm. Public protection knew exactly why we have introduced the bill before us today.

At the the bill before us today. At the heart of it is the threat that the previous Conservative government previous Conservative government left us with. That our prisons could left us with. That our prisons could run out of places, entirely. With nowhere to go for dangerous nowhere to go for dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts are capacity to make arrests, courts are unable to hold trials and a breakdown of Law & Order unlike breakdown of Law & Order unlike anything that we've seen in modern anything that we've seen in modern times.

And as Deputy Prime Minister and justice secretary I will never and justice secretary I will never allow that to happen. Because the first duty, Madam Deputy Speaker of the public is to keep the public the public is to keep the public safe. Of course I give way.

16:10

Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)

- -

16:44

Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)

- -

17:09

Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

17:33

Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)

- -

straight and narrow?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to my comments on recall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to my comments on recall. I spent my career supporting young offenders out of crime and into employment. Investment in rehabilitation is key. Rehabilitation prevents reoffending, Rehabilitation prevents reoffending, prevents victims, which prevents misery and improves livelihoods. I misery and improves livelihoods. I hope the government has heard loud and clear where we stand on this issue, and we stand ready to work issue, and we stand ready to work with them to improve this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to speak in this debate today as a former police officer. I saw first-hand were the justice system failed both justice system failed both communities and victims. Repeat offenders simply cycling in and out offenders simply cycling in and out of custody, victims living in fear and presence simply being at breaking point. That's why we need breaking point. That's why we need urgent reform and while I welcome this government's delivering the most significant changes in over a generation.

Last summer, prison overcrowding reached an all-time high. System is stretched to crisis and we cannot let that happen again. Independent sentencing review exposed what many of us working in the system knew all too well. There were too few prison spaces, to little support for victims and to little support for victims and to short prison sentences. Just 500 new places were built in the last 14 years. 10,000 offenders had to be released early as a result.

That's unacceptable, and sustainable and it must not happen again. -- On sustainable. -- unsustainable. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. The 10,000 additional prison

17:35

Matt Bishop MP (Forest of Dean, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The 10,000 additional prison places and the 10,000 additional prison places category D are both rated at red because the supplier has gone into administrative. Does he share my concerns about what the government is doing to make sure that that stays on track? that that stays on track?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would share those concerns but I have complete confidence in my I have complete confidence in my frontbench colleagues. More so than in the previous government. Building new places alone is not enough. If we are serious about cutting crime we are serious about cutting crime cupboard must change the way the sentencing works and future proofed justice system -- and future proof the justice system. Violent offenders were released earlier. offenders were released earlier. They were serving short sentences that did nothing to change their behaviour and nothing to make our behaviour and nothing to make our communities safer.

I also saw the opposite. I saw how the community sentences, the tough and visible sentences, the tough and visible once that we are talking about, give offenders the chance to change course. I remember offenders being course. I remember offenders being sent to clean graffiti, the rubbish and for the first time making a and for the first time making a positive contribution to the very communities that they had once damaged. For some vulnerable offenders, a short prison stay is not deterrent but a danger. Exposes not deterrent but a danger.

Exposes them to harden criminals, pulls them into more violent lifestyles and leaves them further down the path of leaves them further down the path of reoffending. That is why this bill's reoffending. That is why this bill's presumption to suspend short sentences in favour of unpaid work in community service style punishment is important. Done properly, these sentences can foster community cohesion and that will make offenders invisibly repay the public for the damage they have done. They can reassure victims that wrongdoers are held to account and they can deter crime by breaking the cycle of reoffending that short sentences too often feel.

Another part close to my heart is that victims and survivors deserve a system that keeps them safe and listens to their fears. Too often they do not have that. This is why I welcome the provisions for victims and the bill, such as domestic abuse being called out in court. Specialist domestic abuse courts will mean stronger support for victims and proper rehabilitation for abusers. Victims of rape and sexual offences will have access to judges sentencing remarks and better information.

Above all of this, the purposes of sentencing were now plays the potential victims at the centre. I will continue to fight for transparency. After experiencing crime, victims should not have to wait to face a justice system that leaves them in the dark. We need to do more victims, such as allowing them to have unfiltered victim impact statements and say what they want to drink sentencing, but this is a step for another bill. In conclusion, I saw in my policing days victims left unheard and unprotected.

Sentences failed to deliver justice or reduce crime. This bill begins to put that right. We are building the prison places, reforming sentencing and putting victims, finally, at the centre of justice. That is what the public expects, that is what the public deserves and that is what this Labour government will deliver. The bill is about turning sentencing from a revolving door into a system that protects victims and cuts crime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We do, of course, need prisons and we need more prison prisons and we need more prison places but I find the Conservative places but I find the Conservative case absolutely incoherent. We talk about being tough on crime but yet they closed police stations, they closed courts, they cut police officers, and they completely failed to deliver the kind of prison number places that they speak about. Talking tough without delivering the goods frankly doesn't work. The goods frankly doesn't work.

The country has had enough of it and we need to move on. But I do recognise that courts do need to make greater

17:40

Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)

- -

that courts do need to make greater use of community sentences. Courts need to be agile, they need tools that are going to deal harshly with persistent offending. Community sentences can do that. Defaulting to prison every time in a kind of -- and a kind of fetishising of prison and a kind of fetishising of prison cares nothing about the victims of the offenders who come out of prison. Those who are sent there for short stays, petty criminals who go in and learn more about crime than they ever learnt in their whole lives, and come out again and reoffend, we had nothing from the Conservative benches about the concern of victims, any concern about reoffending.

Why not? It's not convenient for them. Community sentences demonstrating that people are paying back to the community and paying back to society can be a tougher sentence and can be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right sentence. Does he agree with me that actually requiring an offender to actually requiring an offender to really look at the root causes of that person's behaviour, of why they that person's behaviour, of why they are offending, is actually far from the easy option Which? To face up those life difficulties is a very those life difficulties is a very difficult thing to ask somebody to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do in a really effective way, stopping them from being in the cycle of reoffending? The honourable lady makes a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady makes a very compelling point about the depth to which that kind of sentencing can which that kind of sentencing can go. Again, the lack of concern from Conservative benches about reoffending, from short-term prison stays, is surprising to say the stays, is surprising to say the least. Coming down hard on crime means we need to bring back proper community policing, we need quicker justice and we need better and tougher supervision of community tougher supervision of community sentences.

As was set out in Lib Dem sentences. As was set out in Lib Dem manifesto. My Honourable friend from Eastbourne has referred to our Eastbourne has referred to our position on this bill which I wholeheartedly support, and he does a tremendous job and doing so. In my constituency, I'm working with local businesses and with police to try and stamp out shops that are illegally trading. Time and again, police and trading standards rate premises, find counterfeit cigarettes or unlicensed alcohol, including sales to underage youngsters, but having spoken to the police about it, they find the only person they can put before the courts is the individual behind the counter.

A fall guy for the shadowy layers of owners who hide behind the business. Conniving and cowardly forces are employing vulnerable people and putting them behind the counter who have little grasp of the law and regulations applying. Or criminal behaviour deserves to be published punished but sentencing the fall guy for up to 10 years as provided for in the trademarks act does not deal with the menace of dangerous goods being sold to children. The convicted man or woman often deserves less than their employers.

Well the employers, the shadowy buses, simply open a new business under a new name and carry on trading illegally with a different fall guy behind the counter. Back in 2008, research by the British Medical Journal found that the smuggled tobacco kills four times more people than illicit drugs combined. -- All illicit drugs combined. There are alarming results. Each cigarette is packed with up to 80% more nicotine and amidst 130% more carbon monoxide, and were still -- more still, many contain other impurities such as rat poison, traces of lead, the advice, human and animal faeces and asbestos.

It's a menace that we have to deal with. For those who are trading honestly, like my constituents who are running shops, POS -- POS and businesses -- pubs and businesses and who pay their taxes, why should they be forced to compete with criminal enterprises which it takes months to process and closedown those premises? Isn't it time to change the law to one striking this out. Why must it take months for such orders to be granted? By The police officers in my constituency who I know are as frustrated as I am be empowered to close down premises forthwith and overnight? I hope the Minister would meet with me to discuss this aspect of the legislation.

I will explain to this I will explain this to him after words -- I will explain this after words -- I will explain this to him afterwards. In conclusion, whilst better supervision is needed and tough community sentences including tagging are welcome, we are not decreasing reoffending in the way that prison overdoes. -- Prison often does. We need to strengthen the powers of the police and councils not only to prosecute individuals at the counter but to close down the premises the police now are repeatedly flouting the law.

If we don't, we risk punishing the least powerful while allowing the real criminals to keep their gains, keep harming children keep evading keep harming children keep evading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I write to welcome the bill for many of the reasons already highlighted by the justice secretary and colleagues earlier in the and colleagues earlier in the debate. My honourable friend, the debate. My honourable friend, the member for Hammersmith and Chiswick

17:46

Grahame Morris MP (Easington, Labour)

- -

made many of the points I wish to make. So, because of the shortage of time, I don't intend to repeat them, though I would like to reinforce them. I believe this bill is a bold step towards easing the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and repairing a criminal justice system so badly broken by the party opposite's agenda of economically illiterate austerity. However, concerns have been raised with me, via trade unions, including one representing probation staff, especially around the extra work available mean for their members.

available mean for their members. So, respectfully, I say to the Minister on the frontbench, the Ministers on the front bench and the justice secretary, I do hope they will fully engage with the justice unions. As the bill progresses to address these legitimate concerns in good faith. Robust community sentences can, in the right circumstances, contrary to what many of the members on the opposition benches have been saying, can offer a better and more effective alternative to prison. Provided they are supported by new tagging technology.

But only if that is done correctly. And at questions this morning, I thought the justice secretary gave some excellent responses to concerns raised about the existing contract of the previous government, inside the circle. And indeed, the government's own assessment suggests a change will be required. And those changes are going to require hundreds of additional probation officers in order to keep the public safe. Early release for good behaviour is honoured by the unions, providing prisoners are sure they are turning their lives around and addressing the issues behind their offending.

Again, early release comes at a cost and the cost of the Probation Service. The measures in the bill have also been welcomed by people working in the sector, probation staff have long complained that the rehabilitation activity requirements and post sentence of supervision, leftovers from the previous government's failed privatisation experiment, are both ineffective and time-consuming. They are therefore relieved to see the bill abolished them for good. Although it is true this will free up more staff time, the bill still puts additional pressure on the Probation Service.

Yes, the extra resources already announced by ministers will help bring more staff into the service, but what is going to make them stay? Attrition rates, the rights of people, skills probation officers, leaving the service, are really appalling. Unsurprisingly, with unbearable workloads for staff, on top of 15 years of pay cuts and the degradation of the service provided over by the previous administration. I am also told that the government still haven't made a formal payoff are to relation staff this year.

I would respectfully encourage ministers to reflect on how best to hold onto these key workers who perform such a vital and demanding role. The bill will also benefit from stronger safeguards around attacking and -- Tagging and unpaid work to make sure the beneficiaries are the public at large, not profit hungry private corporations. And we did here, in this House, many times recently, including at questions this morning, about circle's catalogue of contractual failures. Especially with electronic monitoring for sub so as we expand the use of tagging, we should try our hardest to reduce private sector involvement, partially because it has proved such a costly failure in the past and partially because this new form of punishment should be harnessed and used for the public good and not for public profit.

The government have earmarked an extra £4 million a year at least for this attacking expansion, but this money must not simply be used to line the pockets of rip-off failing privateers. In conclusion, I believe we must work harder to prioritise public good, not private profit. If we want to turn our Criminal Justice system around. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this Labour government share this ambition, and I hope they will all work closely with their own frontline workers, in the Probation Service, to fully realise the benefits this bill will potentially It is becoming increasingly clear that we see uses crevasses across sentencing offences, comparatively trivial offences receive stiff penalties while serious crimes appear to go relatively actually unpunished.

There is an increasing feeling that the punishment rarely fits the crime, but the law is soft, the commonality has impunity, and the injustices hard to come by. But IT is example in my constituency. Michael was a keen cyclist and had been cycling with a group of four friends for a number of years. He would head off, before 8am, go out for three to four hours, written by lunchtime, he wrote over Cambridge, usually covering between 35-50 km on a right, as a keen cyclist myself, I write the same Rosen same sort of distances and I know what joy it is to get out of my bike at the weekend.

16 March last year, Mike and the group went out as usual, his daughter recalls what happened as the family waited for him to return. I had gone to mums around 1225 and

17:54

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

we settle shortly after, mum did think it was unusual that wasn't back yet, but he did like to talk so back yet, but he did like to talk so thought he had had an extra cup and cake at a stop. My phone started to ring. Mum picked it up and answered, ring. Mum picked it up and answered, as she noticed it was dad's friend, Tim, calling. I pulled over soon as Tim, calling. I pulled over soon as I could, Tim said there had been an accident and dad had been knocked off his bike.

The family made their off his bike. The family made their way to the scene of the accident. We were stood in the street outside Wetherspoons, not having a clue what Wetherspoons, not having a clue what was going on. Lots of the public were walking up the street and allowed to walk up by the scene of the accident, to get where they needed to go. After a while the officer came to talk to us and asks officer came to talk to us and asks us to sit in the back of the police car where we were told dad had been knocked off his bike and died from his injuries.

The postmortem his injuries. The postmortem subsequently outline, Mike had been crushed across the chest and could not be resuscitated. It was not until December 2024, nine months until December 2024, nine months later, the CPS charged the driver, death by careless driving. A further six months later, on 27 June, 2025, the driver, Denis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty, he was banned by pleaded guilty, he was banned by driving with immediate effect. He was given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and was ordered to pay court charges of around £200.

The sentences within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal 13 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a world of grief. After sentencing, he continues to live his life with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive, giving a few hours of unpaid work. How is that justice? Mike's tragic and untimely death is certainly not an outlier, but the outlines for death by careless driving far too lenient, given the impact such a tragedy has one family and loved ones.

The fact is determining cult ability is careless as well as dangerous, the largest objective and the difference is OK, but the fact of reducing seriousness is quite difficult to understand. A good driving record has taken to account upon having killed someone through carelessness. The inexperience of the driver is taken into account. Efforts were made to assist or seek assistance for the victim, taking into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A lack of maturity is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness.

A mental disorder or learning difficulty is taken into account. A deprived background is taken into account. The prospect of education are taken into account. What prospects does the victim have? Or their family or their dependents. These mitigating factors make a belief, this is a crime that devastates lives. Anyone here who lost their partner, child or parent to the carelessness of someone driving, would they be content to see someone leave court with no more of an inconvenience than getting a lift home? The sentencing starts as a lenient order, the bare minimum must be a custodial sentence and must not be suspended.

If we were to trivialise a crime of a serious outcome, ultimately taking a life, even through carelessness, what price differential sentences for more serious crimes? I would not wish anyone to suffer the trauma of ensuring a tragedy like this. Those who sadly do should at least take comfort that justice has been served. We must stiffen the sentence for death caused by careless driving, we must eliminate these ludicrous mitigating factors that offer to much opportunity for offenders to avoid justice. We must make sure the victims and their families get justice.

To prevent others from suffering a lack of justice that Mike and his family

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have enjoyed, I will be tabling an amendment to address this, to ensure that Mike's death is not in vain. When it is government came to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When it is government came to power last year, we inherited a power last year, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. After 14 years of Tory neglect and underfunding, our prisons were at breaking point. If prisons were at breaking point. If we had not acted, prison places would have run out within weeks of would have run out within weeks of our prisons were full, violence rises, putting prison officers at risk, when no souls are available, risk, when no souls are available, prisoners cannot be held in custody, this means van loads of dangerous people are circling the country with people are circling the country with nowhere to go.

This is the appalling situation you conservatives left us with. It rather than letting this happen, this government took decisive action, in ensuring the future of the system, by introducing this landmark piece of legislation today and there are many forwardthinking measures in this forwardthinking measures in this

17:57

Sarah Coombes MP (West Bromwich, Labour)

- -

forwardthinking measures in this bill. This is about creating a sentencing system, which punishes those that commit crime, ensuring victims and justice served. It is also about creating a system that works for rehabilitating those who have committed a crime uncritically to prevent reoffending. -- And critically to prevent reoffending. I want to focus my remarks on what the honourable gentleman over there just talked about, vehicle crime. Since becoming an MP, I have heard countless stories from families and individuals who lost loved ones or who have had loved ones seriously injured on our roads for some horrific stories of grandmothers killed in hit and runs.

Tiny toddlers who whose lives have been cut short in individuals fleeing the scene. These are let down by huge backlogs in the system for years. I haven't working closely with the charity who are actually mentioned earlier, who have opened my eyes to all the ways the system is failing. I was shocked to find out, may be similar to the case just mentioned, even after someone has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, they are often allowed to continue driving until they are found guilty which can take years and years.

But the thing I found most shocking is that once offenders are released from prison, they often have incredibly short driving bans. One such case is a woman who end up in prison after taking the life of a man in my area. Martin was an experienced cyclist, who was killed by a woman who was on her phone. The entire journey, sending messages, taking pictures, using social media behind the wheel. The first call she made after hitting Martin wasn't 999, she killed her sister.

That was the first call. That driver was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison, but following her release, she will only have a driving ban of five years. A band that I come and Diane, Martin's wife, think is far too lenient for the suffering that she has caused. Another indication of the historic failure of the system is the credit rate of reoffending in our country. We know that half of all crime in the UK is committed by just 10% of offenders. A campaign group has been highlighting examples of chronic offenders who commit crime again and again.

Unfortunately, serious driving offences face the serious same issue. Data has shown that nearly 20% of offenders convicted of dangerous driving in 2024 had committed a similar offence before. Of those, 6% had done several convictions for dangerous driving. And actually, the worse the offence, the higher the reoffending rate. While nearly 20% of dangerous driving convictions RE offenders, less than 5% of those convicted of careless driving and had a conviction before. I think the length of bands given to those who committed these serious offences needs to be much longer.

Let me give you some examples. One man hit a 13-year-old girl in a 60 miles an hour hit and run. The child suffered life changing injuries. The perpetrator already had a conviction for dangerous driving, yet when he was released from prison, he only got a five year driving ban. Another case, a woman who was doing 60 miles an hour, smashed into a taxi, when insured, under the influence of cannabis, and she had a baby in the front seat.

It was her second driving conviction that week but she was given a driving ban of just two years, five months. Jane, campaigning journalist, led me to one of the very worst cases I have heard of. Grant Meredith was doing more than double the limit in the Black Country, when he most down and killed a 64-year-old pedestrian in January 2023. The driver sped away and tried to cover his tracks, he went on the run four weeks and hid in a country hotel, the most shocking part, he was already disqualified from driving.

Following the crash, he was jailed for 15 years, and banned from driving for 17 years. Even though the judge described the case as one of the most serious of its kind in recent times, the offender still didn't receive a lifetime driving ban. I think most of the public would be shocked that some of these people are ever allowed behind the wheel again. Yet the reality is just one % of people who were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving have their licences revoked for life in 2024.

I think the public would also be shocked to realise harmony people with 12 points on their licence are still on our roads. In 2021, research found one in five people were spared an automatic ban when he reached 12 points by claiming exceptional hardship by saying that they needed their car saying that they needed their car In my view, if you require a licence for your job, you should X -- you should be exceptionally careful. I'd really encourage the ministers to look at how we can tighten up the rules around this loophole and lengthen driving bans as this bill moves forward.

The final point I'd like to make is how important it is that this bill uses a driving bans as part of community sentences. Driving is a privilege, not right. Often vehicle crime is linked to other types of crime. It is absolutely correct that for those who receive a community sentence or are released on licence and driving ban as part of the options available to a judge to ensure a tougher sentence. At the heart of this bill is the question of how we deliver justice for victims, tough punishments for perpetrators and protection for the public.

After years of failure by the party opposite, I'm proud that this government will take a strong -- the strong action needed to fix our prison system ensure that the criminal justice system in Britain is working once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot deny that clause 4 of the bill is a step forward for victims, however, I believe it can victims, however, I believe it can go further by mentioning physical go further by mentioning physical and psychological harm. By adding an explicit reference to protecting explicit reference to protecting victims, it makes clear justice is not just about deterring future not just about deterring future crime of punishing the offender but also about safeguarding those who have already suffered.

It's not about only recognising the harm

18:04

Edward Morello MP (West Dorset, Liberal Democrat)

- -

about only recognising the harm that's been done but the very real need to shield victims from ongoing

18:05

Sarah Coombes MP (West Bromwich, Labour)

- -

future harm. Four months ago, in my constituency in west Dorset, 14- year-old Isabella was lured to a

18:05

Edward Morello MP (West Dorset, Liberal Democrat)

- -

cemetery by another girl she already knew. When she read, someone already had a phone app recording. They knew had a phone app recording. They knew had a phone app recording. They knew what was about to happen. She was savagely attacked, stabbed repeatedly, her head was smashed on a concrete step. The physical attack a concrete step. The physical attack was horrific but what followed was also the video of Isabella's attack circulating across social media and private what subgroups. Children who did not even know Isabella watched did not even know Isabella watched her brutal assault from their phones.

What might have been one terrible moment has instead become a lasting trauma. This is exactly why strengthening clause four matters. It is also about the lasting psychological harm, the accumulation psychological harm, the accumulation -- the humiliation that follows four years after the attack. The bruises years after the attack. The bruises may have healed but Isabella has may have healed but Isabella has not. It's an example of a wider problem. 70% of young people report problem. 70% of young people report having seen a real world violence online in the past year.

That means that countless children across the country are being victimised twice. First in the violence itself and then in the endless replaying of that violence on phones and social media. Clause four gives us the opportunity to send a clear message, that the law stands with victims. We should go further. It would mean that judges and magistrates past sentence, they treat cases like Isabella's not as a single moment of violence but as an ongoing and deliberate act of cruelty that continues long after the assault

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ends. I hope the government will use the opportunity to strengthen the clause. I'm glad to support a bill put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm glad to support a bill put forward for put forth by the only forward for put forth by the only party which is serious about reforming our criminal justice reforming our criminal justice system. I see this as a barrister with several years of experience. Having been in full-time practice up until last July, I saw the chaos first hand in our prisons. Leaking, first hand in our prisons. Leaking, inadequate court buildings. Judges and barristers doing more for less.

and barristers doing more for less. We must deliver meaningful justice for victims, punish perpetrators and rehabilitate offenders so they rehabilitate offenders so they become better citizens, not deter criminals. We often talk about the government's inheritance from the government's inheritance from the Conservatives but I would argue that the probation system is the area of the public realm that is most

18:07

Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)

- -

affected by the Tories and where they did most damage. They had 14 years and they created 500 prison places. The number of frontline prison officers fell by 31% and they decimated the probation service. The so-called transforming rehabilitation reforms was often taxpayers bailing out failing private companies. There is nothing more serious than ensuring law and order and the Conservatives became the party of lawlessness and disorder. It will take time to fix our prison and probation system and this bill begins this vital work.

There so much I strongly support in this bill. I particularly welcome the commitment and the bill to transition to unearned progression model for standard sentences, inspired by reforms and taxes. -- Texas. The principle on which this reform is based is relevant to how long they will stay in prison. This ascent. If they reoffend and breach the terms of release under the system, the system will come down on them like a ton of bricks. The inescapable fact is that we sent too many people to prison who then become better criminals.

The point of prison is, of course, to face punishment as part of taking personal responsibility for their actions. Most people in prison, I believe, can be rehabilitated. People must be accountable for their actions without us becoming cynical about human nature. I also strongly support other measures in this bill, such as the expansion of tagging to monitor offenders in the community, which has been shown to cut crime. Another measure I support is the streamlining of deportation for foreign national offenders.

I have a recent constituency example which shows why. In June, three men from Folkestone and Dover were convicted of raping a child. They were together sentenced to around 54 years imprisonment. It was an utterly horrendous case. They were foreign nationals. Under existing laws, they can only be deported after serving a minimum term of their custodial sentences, which is often around a third or half of it. But why should the British taxpayer But why should the British taxpayer pay for this? Clause 32 of this will answer that question by allowing the Home Office to remove the offender from prison at any time and subject them to deportation action irrespective of how long they have spent in prison here.

I support this commonsense measure, which could have been enacted by the party opposite. Yet another example of a measure that could have been enacted by the party opposite. I will take the intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a party political edge on the Honourable gentleman's remarks. I'd like to ask a serious question. Presumably there need to question. Presumably there need to be safeguards to ensure that when people are deported before they have served their sentence, that sentence will actually be served in the country to where they are deported. Can he explain what sort of Can he explain what sort of guarantees there will be that these people will not get off Scott free after deportation? I'm sure there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must be some such safeguards. I don't think anyone is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people will leave their sentence early from the UK and just walk free in a country of just walk free in a country of origin. There are a whole range of roles around that which will apply in any event. This is perhaps a measure that the honourable member measure that the honourable member can take up in committee. I have no doubt whatsoever that that measure, which will still be subject to the safeguards which are already in existence within the deportation existence within the deportation process or the justice process so that justice is done.

That is the whole point of this will. There is whole point of this will. There is much I would welcome in this bill and I'd like to ask the Minister a and I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions. How can we put the strongest possible safeguards for victims? How do we ensure that our probation service is well resourced and able to support the expansion of community sentences? And what additional measures are ministers looking into to support more effective rehabilitation of prisoners who have addiction and mental health conditions? I welcome this will.

It's a serious and radical response to our prison crisis as well as the crisis of reoffending, which is costing our society more and more in every way, and every day. I would invite and every day. I would invite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members to vote for the bill today. As a former magistrate of 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a former magistrate of 20 years, I hope I speak with some authority and have something to contribute to this reading today of the... The second reading today. the... The second reading today. This bill is based on review -- This bill is based on review -- recommendations from a recent recommendations from a recent review. It does nothing to reverse the current trend for walk justice and enables further privatisation -- and enables further privatisation -- politicisation.

-- woke justice. The bill will take years to implement. In the meantime, it puts the public

18:12

Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)

- -

In the meantime, it puts the public at risk. The bill makes life sentencing mandatory for some offences like murder. -- Some types of murder. The British people want to know that life means life. That murderers, terrace, rapist, hate preachers and paedophiles will be sent to prison and never allowed out to threaten the safety of the British people again. And that they will face harsh conditions in prison. That prison is punishment, not a soft option.

This bill does nothing to defend our democracy and enter the area of two-tiered justice in this country, where free speech is a crime punishable by a more severe sentence than sexual assaults or paedophilia. This bill continues to facilitate the special treatment of defendants according to their racial, cultural or religious racial, cultural or religious identity. This bill allows... I will make some progress, please. This bill allows for the even earlier release of criminals into the community on licence from 50% time served to a mere third.

The implications for public safety and general and the safety of women from general and the safety of women from repeat offender -- repeat offenders is concerning. There would be a reduced sentence of 56 days, as opposed to serving full term of their sentence. This would apply to criminals cancer -- convicted of several -- convicted of serious offences. This is a betrayal of justice for victims and brave women who have gone through the harrowing experience of the trial.

And what of this bill's intention to eradicate custodial sentences of less than 12 months? This effectively removes the ability of the magistrates court to give out a custodial sentence. It leaves only community orders available as a means of rehabilitation and punishment. By the time a streetwise defendant has pleaded mental health problems, declared their own Universal Credit, there are very few options available to the sentencing bench and now even less without custody. These elements of the bill are designed to free up prison spaces, as opposed to administering the justice that the British people want to see convicted criminals face in return for crimes There are no concrete plans to increase present capacity, no policy on deportation, this bill is all about leniency and not about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reality of the dangerous places prisons currently are. I give way. I do thank the Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do thank the Member for giving way, she is speaking from great authority from her experience as a authority from her experience as a magistrate. She says there is no concrete plans, could you talk about her party's plans to increase present capacity? Talk about how much that is going to cost and when that capacity is going to come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

online? My honourable colleague, I was going to call him honourable friend, going to call him honourable friend, but not sure that is appropriate. I could do, but as you know, Reform's policies are building prisons. Let policies are building prisons. Let me finish my speech. Thank you. This bill proposes increased powers for the probation service, such that the probation service, such that probation could shorten the length of a community order, it is entirely appropriate for the Probation appropriate for the Probation Service to be able to alter sentences given by a magistrate or sentences given by a magistrate or judge.

All of this is open to abuse, it means the already stretched Probation Service can release Probation Service can release convicted criminal's from it its books, increase capacity, rather than the rehabilitation of accomplishment has been successfully completed. -- Or punishment. This is vague and open to interpretation for stoppages not tough enough does not address the problems our judicial system is facing. For that reason, I will not be supporting it. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to, with regard to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to, with regard to the honourable lady's contribution, in 97, I don't know whether my honourable friend was with us then, honourable friend was with us then, but we were concerned that that the prison population was 40,000. It is now 80,000. And it's going to now 80,000. And it's going to 112,000 predicted, if we continue on the current flightpath, if you like. I would just say to the honourable lady, we are all straining here to lady, we are all straining here to do our best, to try and make sure all of our constituents are safe and there is a just and effective system there is a just and effective system within our society to deal with crime and injustices.

I suggest to crime and injustices. I suggest to the honourable lady, based upon what I have heard, from her understanding I have heard, from her understanding of the bill, it would be worth her while to sit down with the ministers, just to take her through ministers, just to take her through some of the detail of the bill, because I generally think, she is because I generally think, she is completely misconstrued. I say that not in any knockabout way, I just not in any knockabout way, I just think it is worthwhile.

We want, in this piece of legislation in

18:20

Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)

- -

particular, deceive we can build as much consensus as possible to reassure people out there that this reassure people out there that this House cares about their concerns. I declare an interest. I am the honorary life member of the prison honorary life member of the prison officers Association. There is no financial relationship or nexus on financial relationship or nexus on that. And I have said this before, they made it clear, there is no benefit to me whatsoever, I would benefit to me whatsoever, I would not get a south facing cell or an extra pillow or anything like that.

extra pillow or anything like that. It is a privilege. I just want to It is a privilege. I just want to make four or five points very quickly because I know there are others who want to speak. This others who want to speak. This shadows, to a certain extent, my honourable friend from Islington and my honourable friend from Hammersmith. On the management Hammersmith. On the management process, everything we are getting, process, everything we are getting, in terms of the advice from those representing the prison, probation officers, exactly as my honourable friend from Hammersmith has said, friend from Hammersmith has said, the shortfall I have seen is about 10,000 staff.

The morale within the 10,000 staff. The morale within the service itself, remember they have gone through privatisation are then gone through privatisation are then brought back as a public service, the morale is pretty low but they are very committed professionals. But having wages stagnate for a long period of time has its effect on the recruitment and retention is a real issue now that we need to address. I would not underestimate the stress they are currently under at the moment. That is why we welcome the additional resource that was provided but actually there is a demand for more waiting to take on board realistically.

One of the issues, with regard to resettlement, that has been raised with us as well by probation officers and others is actually, because of the cutbacks in local government and elsewhere, other funding regimes, one of the sector bodies that they relied upon for reference of some of their clients, if you like, to them, no longer either operating more often staffed of resources for alarm. Of time. But a lot of the voluntary sector bodies were specialists in their own way. Particularly with regard to drug abuse.

That had been taken place. -- Taking place. Secondly, in regard to prison for I agree with my honourable friend from Hammersmith, we need more about the details of the earned progression, but the reality at the moment, if you speak to a prison officer, they will tell you, it's almost impossible at the moment. Prisoners cannot access the courses that are needed. We haven't even got the staff that would go to themselves and accompany them to the rehabilitation course as education et cetera.

And again, the pressure staff are under is immense. I just want to raise one specific issue that has come up, that the prison officers Association has raised has in regard to the school -- A skilled worker, it has had its impact on the number of staff working in our prisons. I was not aware of this to be honest, beforehand, but there was particular recruitment campaigns in Africa and elsewhere, West Africa brought here and now -- Where staff have been brought here and now, they fall foul of the new regime, it is a just cause prisons, it is a whole range of other services as well, but it needs looking at again.

The other issue that has been discussed is supervision of unpaid work. I am really worried there are discussions about privatising again. In London, we had the experience of a Circo a number of years ago, and frankly it was an absolute disaster. Again, I am worried that, again, it could be interpreted as simply exploiting prisoners for private profit as well, in some instances. The other thing I would like to raise, there was not much reference in this bill to children.

And I was the weather we will be coming back to that. -- I wonder whether we will be coming back to that. Because we might be in a situation where children are serving longer sentences and some adults, unless we look at the regime for children as well. Can I say one other thing in relation to children as well, raised by a number of the organisations. The publication of a prisoner's or convicted person's photo. I can understand the motivation of that. But I often believe the family serves the sentence just as much as the prisoner.

And as a result of that, prisoner stigmas attached to the whole family, and what we have found through our experience is that children have suffered because of the perpetration of crimes by the parent. Way to be very careful about how we use that identification process. I think we need to do it wisely advocate the whole implications of it, for the whole family. Some final points on the issue of race. I know my right honourable friend has been goaded by the opposition on this, but the work he did in regard to an exploration of the justice system did highlight discrimination within the system.

We have to admit that. It is not about two-tiered justice, it is trying to get fair justice for everybody and the reality is, all the statistics demonstrate, for the same crime, if you are black or you are Asian, you will get a harsher sentence. And you will almost certainly have a harsher regime as well when it comes to prison itself. I think what we need to do now is follow-up the work my right honourable friend it and be open and transparent and get all that out there again and examine it, only neutralisation errors for the justice system there is itself a final point from me, I share my views with the honourable friend from Hammersmith.

On IPP. We have been after this for a few years, that has been a recommendation on re-sentencing, the government rejected that, they were worried about being branded on releasing prisoners into the community again. And there would be risks. Pre- sentencing exercise was how you manage those risks and minimise them. And every time we have this debate and we do not move further forward, what happens is, well, we have had suicides of those IPP prisoners and I worry that unless we speed up the resolution of this problem, we will have an injustice and Lord Blunkett, who introduced the system, has absolutely condemned it subsequently and said it is one of the worst mistakes he ever made in politics, would render those injustices continuing to be more harm, both for the prisoners themselves but also those who have had constituents who have a cure to this.

The Hamas -- You have had to endure this, the harness for their families as well. They serve the sentences just as much as the individuals concerned. So we might need to re- consider some form in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the future. Deputy speaker, a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, just like my honourable friends for Forest of Dean and Folkestone and Hythe, I Dean and Folkestone and Hythe, I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal system on victims, and communities, and our country as and communities, and our country as a whole. And because of this I can a whole. And because of this I can say hand on heart that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this bill, and the transformative this bill, and the transformative reforms it proposes.

Changes which will target reoffending and address

18:26

Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)

- -

will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful lasting way. I would like to use my time today to talk specifically about probationary -- Probation resourcing. I would like to ask members of the House to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but having heard from others on the other side of the House, I think it is just worth reiterating what she looked like.

-- What last year looked like. The crises we inherited from the previous government. Prison is nearing maximum capacity, Probation Service understaffed. Stretched to the brink of collapse. A court backlog of over 73,000 cases, and to what effect? Justice delayed, justice denied. And a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under resourced system, nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals. Difficult decisions were taken to manage these issues, regain control of our prisons, and ensure the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets and I am pleased the government acted quickly pleased the government acted quickly and decisively.

However, we must never find ourselves in that position again and that is why it is now our time to look forward. To look at how we can create a system which breaks down the cycles of reoffending. That enables a victim to secure swift, fair justice. And always has space to lock away society's most violent and perverted offenders. These are precisely the provisions this bill drives through. Measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders.

And towards a system which puts these aims at the heart of it. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release. A clear sign of a system not working in the way it should. And it is not cheap. It is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year, per prisoner. These are shocking statistics. And only confirm what I witnessed a year in and year out when I worked at the CPS.

Here, I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system often committing the very same offences. And Madam Deputy Speaker, throughout my years working for the CPS, I am old enough to have been saddened to see these regulars later joined by their children, families, and entire generations caught up in ruling cycles of reoffending. -- Gruelling cycles. This bill is a presumption to extend sentences for 12 months or less, subject to certain extensions, and create a pathway to improve community sentences with more effective measures.

Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I commend the honourable lady in the wisdom of what she is saying and putting forward. For the Minister's record, forward. For the Minister's record, there are many things in the buildup we see as important and commendable, we see as important and commendable, but we do have to say, if you don't but we do have to say, if you don't mind me saying so, we do have some concern over reducing the custody of offenders, it is sufficiently grave offenders, it is sufficiently grave for us as a party and myself here, representing, to properly support the amendment.

And put that forward. the amendment. And put that forward. I am sorry to say that. I have to put it on record. Many things are good, but that is not good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good, but that is not good. I thank the honourable member for his intervention and I am saddened his intervention and I am saddened to hear that is his position. But I am afraid it doesn't change my view am afraid it doesn't change my view of the bill itself. Strict and stringent measures will be in place, Madam Deputy Speaker, to encourage rehabilitation. This will be encouraged by a simplified probationary requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each rehabilitation activity for each offender, on a specific and individual level.

Every offence is different. Under this system, different. Under this system, tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. This means putting measures in place, best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation, and deter encourage rehabilitation, and deter The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36% and 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements. This approach works. Let me -- let it be clearly stated that in the system, offenders are far from free to do whatever they like.

They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions which will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction and towards gradual reintegration into society. Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our probation services and I'm pleased the government has committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited a thousand new probation officers with 1300 more to come. However, is voiced in previous debates when the recommendations were first announced, the government must be prepared to provide further resourcing to the probation services if necessary going forward.

I'm honoured to sit on the Justice Select Committee. A part of our work has been to speak to probation officers. Two things were made clear. First, the fact that officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offenders. Second, that regardless of all the goodwill in the world and no matter how hard they were, probation officers cannot do their jobs of the -- their jobs effectively without proper resourcing. It's clear that the probation service has been working on extremely limited resources for years.

We cannot let that continue. As a wrong -- as a young prosecutor, I worked as part of the committee justice initiative in Nottingham. That initiative was based on the red-hot community Justice Centre in red-hot community Justice Centre in Brooklyn. It adopts a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person's offending, with agencies such as housing offices, -- officers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the process together. This approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences but also enhancing public confidence in the government.

This award-winning centre is still running today. Sadly, the Nottingham community Justice Court is not. Despite early signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes. Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in this bill and importantly, the review itself noted specifically that probation officers, and I quote, "Should be provided with the time and resources necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content and probation requirements." Cross- party law reform and human rights charity, Justice, has also outlined concerns, including a deficit of around 10,000 service staff in August of this year.

They suggest that despite more services -- that despite more services -- officers being appointed -- officers being appointed, the target has not been met. I have seen firsthand what happens to great projects and well evidenced initiatives with -- when they're under resource. In order to deliver proper justice, they need to be supported to do so. Therefore, will stay open -- welcome this bill -- while I welcome this bill, I am compelled to urge the Minister to make sure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in this bill will ensure our criminal justice system will keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crime. I'm pleased to speak in support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill which seeks to make our society safer through more effective sentencing of offenders, whether in sentencing of offenders, whether in custody or in community. I declare interest as Chair of the APPG and interest as Chair of the APPG and Justice Select Committee. I also declare a prior professional

18:36

Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)

- -

declare a prior professional interest. Sentencing is one of the ultimate powers of the state. The power to punish by depriving a citizen of their liberty. And also protects the liberty of others by preventing crime whether through deterrence or rehabilitation. The history of our prison system tells us that when present neither deters nor prevents, it fails. This bill draws on the review conducted by draws on the review conducted by David Cork. -- Gorke.

We have far too many people in prison. The number has doubled. That arise in inmate numbers has not been caused by an increase, it has been largely caused by an increase in the use of short custodial sentences and by the increase in release of those who increase in release of those who increase in release of those who have reached their pearl. -- parole. The Gauke Review Found that 58% of all custodial sentences...

It also found that the recall population has more than doubled over the last seven years. In recent months, the Justice Committee has heard shocking evidence about the everyday impact on the prison system that is running red-hot. We've heard about education system -- sessions that cannot be delivered due to lack of space. We've heard about substance free wings that are used to house inmates who may not need those services but simply need a cell. We've heard about repairs to crumbling buildings that cannot be completed because there is no space available.

The bill before the house today seeks to tackle this by reviewing short sentences and resetting sentencing culture. It will do this by a presumption to suspended sentences. presumption to suspended sentences. And by extending the availability of extended sentences. It will strengthen community justice and reversed the powers of our probation services although I note the comments made by my Honourable friend next to me about the resources needed to sustain that. The bill will seek to make it easier for domestic abusers to be flagged across the justice system, and that is also be welcome.

That said, there are some proposals in the bill that will require close attention at Committee Stage. For me, they involve the procedural mechanisms for flagging domestic abusers, that they must be robust. Definitions of excess wealth when applying income reduction will need to be seriously considered. I hope that ministers will be able to engage on these questions as a means of strengthening this much-needed bill, as this is a much-needed reset of sentencing processes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak today about how the Sentencing Bill will bring some common sense to sentencing and will common sense to sentencing and will bring an an evidence-based approach to stop reoffending and protecting

18:40

Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)

- -

to stop reoffending and protecting victims of crime. That is the primary duty of government. To protect its citizens from calm. -- Harm. Victims and survivors will be at the heart of sentencing and punishment will hit -- suit the crime. One example is moving from the exclusion zone system which prevents offenders from entering specific areas where the victim might be to restriction zones that will limit the offender's movement to an agreed-upon area. For too long, the burden has been on the victim, with survivors moving house, switching jobs, changing bus routes to avoid the person who hurt them.

Restriction zones means it's the offender whose life is reshaped, not the terms. Technology will track compliance, and breaches will mean prison. Survivors will help to design these zones alongside probation officers so it's not romance with their freedom, not the attacker's that is the priority. It's more than finds it can be dodged. This bill introduces the, whether it's driving bans, travel restrictions or sexual harm prevention orders. It moves past a one size fits all approach. It allows judges to deliver personalised punishment, hitting criminals where it hurts them.

Short prison sentences don't cut crime. They don't stop reoffending. Don't just take my word for it. Don't just take decades of evidence that there is for it. May be the benches opposite will accept the word of a former screw. My constituents said to me, "Short sentences don't do nothing." The bill is what we have been advocating for for a long time. Of the money that we currently spend on a short sentencing is not spent on hospitals, schools, healthcare and treatment, were to -- where the root causes of crime can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addressed. I will happily give way. I'm trying to go along with the thrust of her argument but I just thrust of her argument but I just wonder whether it is as absolute as she suggests. Admittedly, people who she suggests. Admittedly, people who undergo short sentences may be repeat offenders. This is particularly true of people like particularly true of people like shoplifters. But if you are a store, which is a victim over and over again from the same shoplifter, even again from the same shoplifter, even to be relieved of that shoplifter rating your premises for a period of rating your premises for a period of eight or 10 months must be some sort

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of salvation, mustn't it? I thank him for his intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his intervention. I agree that shops, retail premises absolutely need relief from absolutely need relief from shoplifting. What I'd like to see is permanent relief from that shoplifting. I'd like to see is the shoplifting. I'd like to see is the causes of shoplifting, quite often drug use, quite often organise drug use, quite often organise criminal behaviour, I want that to stop. I don't just want to check people in prison for a bit and then people in prison for a bit and then allow them to reoffending and.

We need sentences that give offenders proper access to rehab, to mental health care, to support the tackling of the root causes of crime. Public safety is the bottom line here. Judges will have discretion to hand out prison sentences of less than 12 months, set for domestic abusers. They will be able to make sure that survivors have the confidence to rebuild their lives knowing the perpetrator is behind bars. Rapists and criminals who commit other serious sexual offences will spend their custodial term in prison.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rapist and sexual offenders will spend less time in prison as a result of this bill. Does she know that? that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank him for his question but I don't think is correct. Actually, don't think is correct. Actually, something else. I understand the Honourable gentleman has some personal experience here and I appreciate that he has very strong feelings on the matter. Perhaps he would listen again to my prison would listen again to my prison remark former prison officer who remark former prison officer who welcomed those changes -- my former prison officer who welcomed those changes.

I will not give way. I think the Honourable gentleman is think the Honourable gentleman is perhaps not sharing -- showing the perhaps not sharing -- showing the house the respect it deserves. I appreciate him allowing me to appreciate him allowing me to At the core, these reforms do two things at once. They keep dangerous offenders where they belong, in offenders where they belong, in prison, protecting the public, but without the waste of locking up without the waste of locking up low-risk offenders.

I know that the opposition really struggle with this. It is simply true. The Honourable gentleman disagreeing doesn't make it any less true. The victims of crime in my constituency deserve better than this current, crumbling justice system. They deserve better than overstuffed prisons that just turn out more and more customers are criminals. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak today about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak today about justice, not just punishment, rehabilitation, dignity and the transformative power of second transformative power of second chances. For too long, our criminal justice system has been shaped by justice system has been shaped by short-term thinking and criminal posturing, I think we have seen a fair amount of that in this debate.

18:46

Paul Davies MP (Colne Valley, Labour)

- -

We are changing that. This government is committed to a smarter, fairer approach to sentencing, one that protects the public. Supports victims and gives offenders a real chance to rebuild their lives. That's why this bill matters. It enacts key recommendations from the Independent Sentencing Review, a major turning point in how to deliver justice. This landmark legislation will ensure our prison system never again ensure our prison system never again reaches the brink of collapse. It introduces an exemption against short custodial sentences over 12 months, except in cases of serious risk.

Or a breach of court orders. Instead, we are expanding the use of community sentences and giving judges greater flexibility to tailor punishment of the individual. As has been mentioned already, we are investing in technology to monitor offenders outside prison. This has very much been shown to reduce offending. Overall, reoffending rates, into a 23, were 26.3%. Far too high. With short custodial sentences being a significant problem. Over 56% of offenders serving less than 12 months go on to reoffend.

Young people, and especially vulnerable, those aged 18-20 have the highest reoffending rate, at 36.2%. Followed closely by 15-17-year-olds at 32.6%. Offences top the list, with 48.4% of individuals reoffending. And this highlights the deep link between social economic hardship and repeat crime. These figures underscore the urgent need for targeted rehabilitation, education, unemployment, support, to break the cycle. One of the most pressing challenges of literacy. Over half of the U.K.'s prison population struggles with basic reading. According to the Ministry of Justice, 57% of adult prisoners read below the level of an average 11- year-old.

It is incredible to think In 2022-23, 65% of those assessed were at entry level is one to three in English, below the lowest GCSE levels. Poor literacy is closely linked to higher reoffending rates. And diminished chances of rehabilitation. However, we can look to other countries for some of the inspiration in this area. In Brazil, the remission for reading program offers a powerful example of how education can transform lives. Introduced in 2012, it allows prisoners to reduce their sentences by reading books and writing reviews.

Each approved review is four days of sentence remission, up to 48 days per year. It is not just about reading, it is about rehabilitation. As one teacher involved in the program said, this is about requiring knowledge, culture, and be able to join in the universe. The program fosters literacy, empathy and self reflection. It gives prisoners a new perspective and a pathway to reintegration. The Philippines have also followed suit, with Read Your Way out Initiative, this was launched in 2023.

Again, prisoners can reduce their sentences, this time by 15 days for every 60 hours of reading, studying, teaching or mentoring. And 30 new prison libraries have been created to support the scheme. These programs show that, where possible, what is possible, rather, when we treat prisoners rather than -- As people rather than offenders, capable of growth. If the government could adopt a similar scheme to the program in Brazil, across our entire prison state. This initiative would make our justice system smarter, safer and more humane.

It will provide an opportunity for change, while still being tough on the causes of crime. Of course, this aligns with the principles set out in the Independent Sentencing Review shed by Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. Let me be clear, dangerous criminals will continue to be locked up for a very long time. For those who can be rehabilitated, we must offer home. Helping them improve their literacy as one way to do this. The Conservatives left us with a broken system we are building a humane.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to declare an interest, as a former prison officer, I'm still a member of the officer, I'm still a member of the Prison Officers Association. Having served as a justice PPS, until only

18:52

Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )

- -

served as a justice PPS, until only last week, this is the first time I have been able to speak on these departmental matters in this chamber since I was elected and so I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to my friends and former colleagues at HMP while Wyant Moreland, who I served with prior to the general election, there are some of the most dedicated people I know and as the second prison officer ever elected to this place, want to use my time on these benches to make sure their voice is heard.

I also want to acknowledge the work done by the former Lord Chancellor, the right honourable member for Birmingham Ladywood, and Scunthorpe, as well as the Minister for patient in the other place, for the work they have done to get us to today, and which the very best of luck to the new minister to the New Minister Ave, Lord Chancellor in their role. I am proud this government has had the backbone to take the bold but necessary steps to reform our sentencing and justice systems in this country.

An context of this debate, is incredibly important. Because over the last year, I have heard the Shadow frontbench criticise this government month after month and it has been frankly galling. The sheer audacity of them to sit there, knowing what they have done with their faux outrage, they nearly brought our prison system to the point of collapse. And it is frankly beyond comprehension. Under them, we saw huge rises in violence, self-harm, drug abuse, overcrowding and an abject failure to build the spaces we needed.

And rather than deal with the crisis, Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than face up to the challenge, they call the general election. This dereliction of duty, I am afraid, is not just something we can shrug away because they are not in power anymore, something I can pass over. Because a catastrophic handling of this scale means they should be held accountable. Their decision-making or lack of it has put the safety of our prison estate in huge jeopardy, and has had a real horrific consequences for staff and consequences for staff and prisoners, and for one will not forget the legacy, and I don't think anyone else will either.

In relation to the bill today, I want to firstly shine a light on the additional measures focused on victims. They should always be at the centre of our minds when discussing the justice system. Gratingly reception zones, and members, better than identifying perpetrators and domestic abuse, and creating rehabilitation and release. I hope the package of rights of victims is a great step forward in ensuring their rights and voices are heard. I'm also pleased that within this legislation, there is recognition that prison behaviour should dictate whether or not they are released as part of the progression model.

And whilst it is important we are able to manage population numbers it should not be at the detriment of supporting good behaviour and punishing bad. The additional powers to send a number of days adjudication level is important, and I would be keen to explore more in detail with the Minister, we can use and approve the adjudication system to enforce this, and as a trade adjudication and liaison officer myself, I am sure he will be pleased to hear I have many views on how we construct in this system, so the prisons who are violent, and Frankie, the chief trouble causes, face maximum penalties, we're capturing those prisoners who should not be benefiting from the model.

I ask that ministers ensure operationally experience voices and consult at every level of the implementation in this to ensure we have maximum impact in this area. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware in the very limited time, but many other colleagues wish to get in tonight, so while I will not go into further detail on the bill today, I do want to say this. These reforms are not just about cutting prisoner numbers. As we will still have more prisoners at the end of this Parliament than we had in the last.

But it is about making our prison system safer, more manageable, and in doing this, will give the space for prisons to focus once again on rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and driving down the number of victims. I also hope the success of this bill, that in time we are able to give extra focus on supporting groups of people who are often overrepresented in the system. Not least care leavers. It is estimated at 50+ -- That 50% of young offenders at the prison population are care experience.

This is not something that we, as a society, can accept. Change must come and I hope that reforms in this legislation will allow the space for this to happen over time. We must make sure that our prisons are safer for prison staff, we must drive down reoffending rates to prevent victims, and we must recognise the approach of the last government did not work. These reforms are bold, yes, but they are long, long overdue and I congratulate the government on taking the first steps to get a grip of our prisons and Criminal Justice Act system more widely, so we never find ourselves in a place where the prison system is on the point of collapse again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I along with my colleagues very much welcome the move to favoured much welcome the move to favoured community sentences over short custodial sentences, as outlined in the Sentencing Bill. As we know, and has as been outlined, short-term has as been outlined, short-term sentences often lead to reoffending. This of course places a much-needed emphasis on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation plays a vital role in addressing the root cause of

18:58

Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

- -

addressing the root cause of offending. There is a wealth of research on the risk factors associated on offending and reoffending, with drug and alcohol offended see -- Dependency among the most common factors. With research most common factors. With research on this factor, I am concerned in gambling and crime. Gambling disorders can and do lead to criminal offending, often out of desperation for commission on crime and grumbling created harm has highlighted clear -- Gambling crater Thomas Tyler to clear links, with robbery, domestic abuse and criminal damage.

And drug offences. And whilst gambling can be a fun activity for some, a gambling disorder can very easily take over an individual's life. Rates of suicide are significantly high, disordered gambling can ruin families in gambling disorders push people into debt and subsequently into crime, I am concerned gambling disorders are not treated with esteem, the substance addictions in a criminal 's assistant for some while there are requirements to support those with severe drug and alcohol dependencies, these do not apply can in a statutory way, to gambling related offences.

And I do see there is a potential gap in this bill that could be addressed in committee stage. Gambling disorders share similar cognitive and mental health characteristics and substance addictions. Gambling is officially recognised as a mental health disorder in both the World Health Organization's international list of diseases and the statistical manual of mental disorders, sitting alongside traditional substance addictions. Addressing problem gambling in the criminal justice system must be treated as a public health and rehabilitative issue in much the same way we address drug and alcohol addiction.

The gambling, as introduced in April, will fund treatment research, and prevention into gambling harms, and I credit the government, and the NHS, for working exceptionally hard to support those suffering from this cruel addiction. However, however I am concerned that departmental silos may hinder the effect of delivering support within the Criminal Justice Act system. The Sentencing Act 2020, mandated with offenders convicted of drug and alcohol related crimes, in part 10, subsection 19 one of the act, it states the offender must submit to drug rehabilitation treatments which may be resident treatment or non-resident treatment.

Unfortunately, it did not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislate... 7 o'clock motion, minister to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. Unfortunately, no such legislation Unfortunately, no such legislation mandates for gambling related offences. Again, I suggest that this offences. Again, I suggest that this bill could potentially correct this is progresses through the house. In is progresses through the house.

In a survey, 99.6% of stakeholders supported sentencing options that supported sentencing options that mirror those used for drug and alcohol addiction, including options that contribute to rehabilitation activity requirement days and community sentence treatment requirements for individuals sentenced to a community order, where the offender has consented to receive treatment for substance misuse. This is not offered to those with gambling disorders. There is a clear need for greater intervention. In a report at the University of Staffordshire, 41% of people under probation supervision reported regular gambling.

I just want to commend the heartfelt support that my colleagues on this side of the house have expressed for all the probation officers and the prison officers working extremely hard and their need for resources to help and support offenders in rehabilitating. In 2023, there was an estimate that imprisonment cost associated with camping was equivalent to an hundred and 73 an hundred and 73 million per year. I want to thank the Minister for our early conversations. I ask the Minister to consider the merits of treatment for individual sentence for gambling related offences because of a gambling disorder, and I query as to whether a proportion of the gambling levy could be ring fenced to fund this treatment.

19:03

Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)

- -

Put your place... Put yourself in

19:04

Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

- -

the place of a victim of crime. You want to go for a walk with your

19:04

Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)

- -

want to go for a walk with your family or to the pub or to the other side of town that you are worried that the perpetrator might see you that the perpetrator might see you there. You want to go out for a night out or to support your foot will team, but you are worried what will team, but you are worried what they might do or how you might react if they are there as well. So you do not. They are the one who was convicted, but you still feel like a convicted, but you still feel like a prisoner.

They received a sentence but you are being punished, and it happens too often. I've come across happens too often. I've come across cases like these are not just as an cases like these are not just as an MP but also previously in my time as a barrister. So this is a bill whose a barrister. So this is a bill whose time has come because it is turning that injustice on its head. Currently, some offenders can be Currently, some offenders can be excluded from certain limited areas but with this bill, they can be but with this bill, they can be restricted from all areas apart from the limited area.

Whether it's the pub or the match are driving around, pub or the match are driving around, expanding community punishments and licensing conditions will ensure that it's the offenders who face restrictions on what they can do and enjoy and not the victims. I don't need to tell my constituents in Derby North about the situation in heritage -- inherited from the Conservatives. A broken justice system, prisons full and in crisis, severe criminal court backlogs and decaying infrastructure. Too many of them live the reality of having to deal with thousands of antisocial behaviour incidents that we see in our city every year.

There is a need to tackle prolific and persistent offenders, with strict monitoring and coordinating support. And the expansion of supervision courts are designed to do just that. It is hugely welcome from those I've spoken to her work in our criminal courts, who have said to me, "Roll this out as fast as possible." And the additional 700 million this government is investing in our probation service and the recruitment of the thousand trainee probation officers and the 1300 more to be recruited in the next six months is rebuilding our probation service.

Rebuilding after the Conservative government's vandalism, there failed experiment in privatising probation, pushing it to crisis and then having to bring it back to public hands. Probation officers work incredibly hard to keep our communities safe. I am grateful that this government is investing in their essential work. Can I also take this opportunity to thank those who work in our prisons? The number of prisoners will, of course, still go up. The government is building more prison places, something that the previous government all but failed to do.

And there will be more offenders behind bars under this government than ever before. So we need to turn prisons from creating a better criminals to from creating a better criminals to better citizens. The earned model rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour in our prisons. It is giving an important tool to break cycles of offending, the cycles of offending that we have seen for far too long. And when offenders stop offending, our communities are safer.

The Minister, a businessman who throughout his career and enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break those cycles, as someone who knows better than anyone how to make this work. I visited prison recently to see how their increasing the work that prisoners there undertake, from creating furniture and doing laundry and other public services, working on reading and writing or undertaking work for the private sector, giving them the skills to secure work on release, and utilising and increasing the opportunities for offenders to work in prison can build upon the really important measures in this bill.

To reduce reoffending by giving purpose, skills and instilling a work routine. I will be making this case an adjournment debate on 15 October. I'm grateful for the opportunity to highlight these three aspects of the approach. The intensive supervision to tackle antisocial behaviour and prolific offending, measures to help and the revolving door of offending, and new restriction zones and community punishments to give freedom back to victims. This bill was born of necessity because of the mess the Conservatives left our prisons and our criminal courts and.

Well born of necessity, I am excited about the transformative difference of this bill will make so that fewer offenders reoffend, victims are offenders reoffend, victims are where they must be, the focus of our criminal justice system, and community -- communities are safer as a result.

19:09

Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill because in so many ways, it epitomises what this government has had to do over the last 14 months. We inherited a prison system in crisis, something which evidently did not catch attention of the then ministers. Despite rapidly ramping up prison building as a national infrastructure priority to address the failed legacy of the Conservatives whose reputation is as the supposed -- whose reputation as the supposed party of law and order is in tatters.

That is why generational reform of sentencing is needed to ensure our legal system is fit for the future. That's the responsible thing to do, which is why it is so unedifying to see the party of Disraeli disgracing itself today with the scaremongering and party political point scoring we have heard from the Conservative benches over a bill that will clean up the mess they created. Turning to the specifics of the bill, the changes to early release will ensure . It is indisputable that over many years, we have seen an erosion of discipline and order in many of our prisons, as evidenced by the amount of contraband breaking into secure facilities and the number of assaults on prison officers.

The changes in this bill will ensure that possession of a mobile phone or violent behaviour can at once to a sentence and there won't be any limit to this is additional time can be added consecutively. Far from being soft on criminals, the clear message of these changes is that if you cause disorder and intimidation in our prisons, you will spend longer behind bars. When it comes to rehabilitation, we have to be pragmatic and do what works. My view is that primary purpose of sentencing system is to punish offenders and make them repay society for their crimes, but also pragmatist.

So, if as the justice secretary outline, the reoffending rate is skyhigh, particularly for those first serving short custodial sentences, then we have a duty to look at this again. That is why it is right that the consequences proven to be more effective are used. With vital carveout for dangers and prolific offenders so judges can ensure victims are protected. On that point, this government efforts to fix the mess the last government made of tagging will help us to protect victims with exchanges, like a pilot of tagging before prisoners reach the gate for release.

That will be coupled with the measures like restriction zones which will be so important for victims, often women who have so much to fear from offenders, often X partners or family members. And one of the first surgeries are held as an empty, I spoke to a constituent who lived in constant fear of her manipulative, violent ex-partner who she felt would kill her. She had a restraining order in place but she felt there was no protection at all because your ex-partner would repeatedly find out where she lives I knew exactly how to get around the order.

I know many Honourable members have heard stories like this one. Now come with this bill, it will be the offender who feels that sense of geographical restriction which is how it should have always been. On that point, I also welcome the proposed reforms to community sentences so that rather than a one fit size all -- one size fits all approach, there will be a broad range of approaches that can be tailored to nature of offending and what would act as a deterrent to them.

Finally on the requirement that Lord Chancellor is consulted, this was a firm commitment made by the previous Justice Secretary and new guidelines included the offenders ethnicity being taken into account. She stated that this government would take legislative action urgently to address this and that this bill, that commitment is being put into effect. In concluding, the measures in this bill are necessary after the abject failure of the last government. They will ensure all of our constituents can once again have the assurance that they are effective, fit for purpose and on solid footing for the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a privilege to speak in this second reading. It's also a historic second reading, being I believe the first piece of legislation introduced by Deputy legislation introduced by Deputy Prime Minister who is a graduate of the King School in Peterborough. I'd like to welcome the Justice like to welcome the Justice Secretary to his place as well as my honourable friend. As an MP who honourable friend. As an MP who represents a prison and a Crown Court, I very much alive to the issues this bill covers.

The failure issues this bill covers. The failure not only of full presence but of criminal justice system on the point of collapse, with backlogs, crime of collapse, with backlogs, crime and punished, into many people often justice denied, I just wish, having justice denied, I just wish, having listened to the many important listened to the many important contributions, that we had more members from the opposition benches here to bear witness to the legacy here to bear witness to the legacy they have left this country which this government is beginning to unpick.

I also hear about these issues regularly in my surgeries. issues regularly in my surgeries. Families worried that justice will not serve but also of a broken not serve but also of a broken system. I warmly welcome the speed with which my right honourable friend is grasping the present crisis with two hands. The prisons crisis is also a crisis of public trust in our public services. It is crucial we have a justice system that punishes offenders and supports victims.

And to make better use of time, I will not repeat many points but focus on one particular aspect and talk in favour of rebuilding our broken probation system. One of the biggest challenges facing society is that our prisons still turn out to many repeat offenders, particularly of young people. Recent data shows that someone leaving prison is employed within six weeks of release, their likelihood of reoffending is cut by half. A powerful sense a testament to the impact and meaningful nature of impact and meaningful nature of work.

Too many offenders have been failed. They should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed but we also need to give people a chance to contribute to society as well as doing their time. This is an issue that interest me greatly come about through my faith but also the values I have. It also matters greatly in Peterborough. My constituents through the huge efforts have secured meaningful employment for over 60% of individuals who have come through their scheme and have produced work experience and opportunities for others.

I also like to draw the house's attention to the work I've house's attention to the work I've The co-operative group started a scheme that offers apprenticeships, with guaranteed employment in the rail sector upon release. This is an initiative that aims to address the real skills shortages this country display needs to fail, but also reduce offending, providing prisoners with qualification and work experience before they leave prison. This scheme speaks to something I hope this households day. But by providing clear employment pathways, we can break the cycle of reoffending.

We can fix

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our prisons and rebuild our country. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak. We are all here, every single one of us, because we want to deliver justice for everyone of our justice for everyone of our constituents. As a former police officer, it has been really welcome here of the lived experiences of

19:17

Tristan Osborne MP (Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)

- -

barristers, criminal prosecutors, people who work in our prison service, because it is their expertise that makes this place, to deliver for our people the way it is. As a former police officer, I know this government has inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. After 14 years of conservative neglect, I can see why the early release scheme has been in action tonight, with them absent over the I/O. Probation hollowed out, police numbers were seesawed, cut in at the early part of the tenure, only to grow later after crime had risen,.

Truth is, they know this, they left prisons full at the end of their term, and they have never apologised for that derogation of responsibility. A party of law and the disorder is there, it is their failure and it will be something that no matter the gimmicks of the Justice shadow front bench, whether it be chasing people in sheep stations or climbing lampposts, that record will be on their watch. That is why this bill has been so urgent. We know the prison places are growing, 14,000 more prison places towards the end of the decade, a government finally stepping up, and listening to the public when it comes to putting people in prison.

We also know that it cannot be the only solution. And that we need to adopt other approaches. That is why this Sentencing Bill is so necessary. It recognises that capacity must be built, yes, but also the sentences must be reformed. So that the right people are behind bars for the right length of time and the public can have confidence in justice. Our prison should not be a revolving door forever more prison experience and criminals rotating through the system. And we need to change that.

This bill takes a clear right approach. Dangerous offenders. And be clear about this, dangerous offenders and those opposing the highest risk, will continue to serve long sentences. No ifs, no buts. But for most offenders, we move towards unearned progression model. Behaviour in custody will determine how much of the sentences served. This is an experience we learned from the States that works and I look forward to seeing it developed in action with ministers that will consult with the professional bodies and prison staff.

And I welcome the reforms in the way we are dealing with this, listening to professionals, like the Times Criminal Justice Act Commission, and David Gauke, so we can look at a provision that looks at these outcomes and I believe that this shift is not about being soft, it's about being smart and ensuring punishment is effective. I'm cautious of time, this bill is not perfect and I look forward to the committee stages where we can improve upon this, working with all members of the House.

It learns from the failures of the past and there are many, but it builds on the findings of an independent review and it balances punishment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deterrence, rehabilitation and I hope members will support it today. That is the end of backbench

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the end of backbench contributions, I come to the shadow minister. Thank you, grateful to colleagues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, grateful to colleagues on all sides for the contributions today and I welcome the Minister to today and I welcome the Minister to his post. I think the first time at the Dispatch Box. Is that correct? And I have spoken before, and wanted And I have spoken before, and wanted to see more justice for victims of serious crimes is one of the primary serious crimes is one of the primary reasons I sought election to this place. It is true to say that I don't think in my lifetime there has

19:21

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

don't think in my lifetime there has ever been a government for which I could say there has been a universal delivery of this. The decades, cross parties, I think 41, our justice system has followed shortly so I'm sure many members of all parties can relate to crimes taking place and being appalled at the sentences given. That is not new but the question we have to ask ourselves today is we making it worse or better? Would more victims get what we consider justice as a result of this bill, or less? Since Labour came to power, we have quite rightly been holding them to account over measures they have already taken to let people out of prison earlier, the members on both sides will be familiar on the debate we have had about pressure on prison places and where responsibility for that lies in what can be done about it.

We have had consistent debate about that. Members opposite point to our present prison building record, and I point out that the pressure of the present building they left from the last Labour government was worse, and foreign nationals in the population, a lot of it was generated, there is much more to it. They pointed out they had to take emergency steps, the measures they have taken have not been permanent changes to our sentencing framework. But I say to members opposite, today something very, very different.

What this bill is doing, is very different. As demonstrated, by the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and others, I am not sure that members opposite have fully recognise what the government is asking them to support today. There are measures to be welcomed in this bill. The new restrictions owns, the measures to better track domestic abuse cases that I know the member, the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, supported. There are a number of other reasons why do not support this both a preferred members raised criticisms, including the shadow justice secretary, in short sentences, community sentences, Parole Board reform, Sentencing Council.

But I can honestly say I'm not surprised members opposite you not agree with those particular criticisms. I do not believe members opposite can sincerely think what I am about to talk about next is something that they would knowingly want to support. I am going to read out a list of offences. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration. Inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity. Paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13.

Kidnapping and full specimen with the intention of committing a sexual offence. Creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. I hope members opposite felt as comfortable as I did reading and forced to consider those offences. I will be done again. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13, kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children.

There are in fact even more of these sort of offences we need to have in mind this evening. And why do we need to consider these offences? Because despite what some of the members opposite have accepted without ill will, have said to the contrary, the bill for this evening for all of the thinks it does the members my support, will mean one thing for the vile criminals that commit those sorts of offences, it will mean for them that they are let out of prison earlier.

Not as a temporary measure, in response to a short-term prison crowding challenge that we have her debated and recognised, but a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws. Members supporting this bill will be putting their name to a bill that will forever change our sentencing laws to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. The number for Doncaster Central talked about legacy. I cannot honestly believe that members opposite want to support a bill that would allow rapists to get out of prison earlier.

And that would allow paedophiles to get out of prison earlier. This is not political posturing or hyperbole, or scaremongering, as the Member for Cannock Chase described it. This is not an unfair interpretation or misrepresentation of the bill before the House today. Rapists and paedophiles. Those are the people members will be voting to let out of prison earlier for support this bill this evening. Is that really what members opposite came to this place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do? I do thank the shadow minister for giving way and he is reading out for giving way and he is reading out a series of crimes that are reprehensible, and I am sure every member of this House would want anyone committing those crimes would anyone committing those crimes would have the book thrown at them. But in have the book thrown at them. But in the spirit he will read that list out, the 2.6% charge four people arrested by read that his government oversaw, is there anything you want oversaw, is there anything you want to say to the House about that particular tanning figure? Because there are people today who haven't even been let out of prison early even been let out of prison early because they never got there in the first place, what is he stating that? -- Particularly damning that? -- Particularly damning figure.

Here, he will have noticed that I said at the outset of my that I said at the outset of my remarks I have never been entirely in support of all the policies of the government of either party, when the government of either party, when it comes to these issues, and he has every right to make those criticisms but I say to him, those criticisms but I say to him, those criticisms do not make any change to the vote he has been asked to change tonight, they don't make any change to the they don't make any change to the policy will be putting his name to a supporting.

There is no excuse for the things he will be changing, on a the things he will be changing, on a permanent basis, not a temporary basis, to deal with the short-term prison crisis, on a permanent basis. And I don't really think that is what any of their constituents want. These are profound and permanent changes to our laws and changes I would argue are the exact opposite of what the vast majority of victims, their families want to see, and they will sit there until the next election.

They will need to justify themselves to their voters. That is what Labour members are supporting this bill tonight and I really don't believe the majority of the members opposite really deep down want to do that. If after this reality has now been spelt out to them, it would for members to support this anyway. They will tell them they are already concerned about the limited time they spend in prison, undermining justice. Sometimes we have heard from members of this House about the horror of rape and other sexual offences, we have heard about the victims of grooming gangs, heard about the horror of all kinds of sexual abuse, not once do I recall campaign or concern, in the answer to this to make offenders like that spend less time in prison for top I accept there is a different debate to be had, with different cohorts of offenders and different offences.

There is always a tension between prison time as a punishment and helping to rehabilitate attenders -- Offenders and as others have raised I agree, I don't think the bill strikes the right balance in the area but I respect those members opposite and indeed the members opposite of the public, to draw the line to me, for certain offences, but we are not joining --... Or but we are not joining --... Or young man from a broken home. The members for the Forest of Dean, the number for Peterborough, the number for Bury North, very many of them, coherently and sensibly raised the debate we have about how long those individuals spend in prison and how we rehabilitate them, but we are not talking about these sorts of people.

We are talking about rapists and paedophiles, criminals who sexually assault children, criminals who create sexual images of children and circulate them around the world, criminals who snatch unsuspecting women walking home through a park and drag them into the bushes and raped them. Those are the sorts of criminals Labour members will agree should be let out of prison earlier if they support this bill. And we should be clear, not a single voice among victims representatives support this element of the bill, not a single one Victims' Commissioner doesn't support it, the domestic abuse commission doesn't support it, just as for victims doesn't support it, victim support doesn't support it and the Victims' Commissioner for London doesn't support it, but apparently we will see this evening that Labour MPs do.

Let me also clear up any confusion they might be about the circumstances to which these violent and sexual offenders will be released early. Members innocently may have been to believe that prisoners will have to jump over considerable hurdles to secure these early releases. In fact, the former justice secretary told us that they will need to earn a release, the reality of these proposals in the bill make it clear what a complete sham that suggestion was. Actually, they will actively need to break prison rules to run the risk of losing early release.

That isn't owning anything. That is doing what the majority of the public do every day, day in, day out, without any reward, just behaving yourself, not breaking the rules. But apparently, if a rapist or child abuser does it, Labour thinks that should entitle them to walk away, with the proper punishment they have been given for their crimes. In fact, despite what they told the press in an attempt to manage the news, of this terrible set of policies, to give the impression that large discounts, sometimes many years of prison time, could be quickly reversed for bad behaviour, that this was a radical departure for the amount of time they are choosing to let people out certainly as radical, mechanism to keep people in is nothing of the sort.

We have seen in the detail of this bill that will simply make use of the existing prison punishment legislation. I wonder if Labour members opposite know the average number of days in prison that is typically added by the punishment regime. The latest HI could find, the additional number of days given to a prisoner who breaks the rules is 16 full stops 16 days. When sentences for rapists and child abusers are going to be discounted by many months and years, they run the risk of having a handful of days added backbreaking prison rules.

Shameful. -- Added back for breaking prison rules. The number four West Bromwich talked about a case of a 15 year sentence and how those victims would feel for the person concerned not getting a lifelong driving ban. However going to feel when they are told instead of serving 15 years in prison, that person spends five years in prison? The current state of this government is a blessing for Labour MPs tonight, there are many other issues receiving media coverage, the political survivor, the Prime Minister himself is in question, so they may get away with putting this through a notice this evening, but this is just the first stage.

The timetable for this bill is as short as the government could make it, just a day committee for the whole house, which also means many victims groups will not get to come before the House and voiced their objections and one day, full report third reading. They clearly hope this bill will go through its future stages are noticed by their constituents, that they will not know Labour MPs want to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier, that is the reality of this bill that you are voting through to let rapists and paedophiles out of What shameful is that you are prepared to vote for that policy this evening.

Shame on all of them. I know the leader of the opposition and I will do our best to make sure their constituents do know and hold them to account and understand the choice they make in the end. I don't believe that is a choice that many of them want to make, if they listened carefully to the position I've set out. We've seen Labour backbenchers exercise their power. They can do that again, not tonight -- if not tonight, at future stages.

Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying a child under 13 for sexual activity, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. Tell your website you won't support people responsible people being let out of prison early for those offences -- tell your whips.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You and your, we have to stop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You and your, we have to stop. Members opposite should do their jobs and advocate for all victims of jobs and advocate for all victims of crime and vote against these horrendous proposals this evening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

horrendous proposals this evening. I see we have a fresh Minister. Congratulations. Welcome.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Congratulations. Welcome. Thank you. I'm delighted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm delighted to deliver the closing speech. This is a piece of legislation that will a piece of legislation that will tackle the system we inherited from tackle the system we inherited from the Conservative government. I want to thank all members from across the

19:34

Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)

- -

to thank all members from across the house for the contributions. Some more thoughtful than others. This should be an agenda that enjoys support across the chamber. Most of today's debate has been measured and helpful. This bill will ensure that victims and prevention of crime are prioritised. This bill achieves that in. It is necessary to fix our prisons crisis and it is desirable as it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safer. As my Honourable friend said, it takes us back to the central purpose of sentencing.

Punishment that works. sentencing. Punishment that works. Let me deal with the Conservative amendment. They say this bill puts the public at risk. Without it, we face the threat of prison is running out of places entirely, with no spaces to look up the most dangerous offenders, which is what their legacy was when they left office last July. They say it will undermine the confidence of victims but nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going unpunished.

They say that the probation service cannot cope. It certainly could not cope under the Tories, a botched part privatisation the cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds. Were beginning to rebuild that service. We will increase investment by up to 700 million. That's a 45% increase. We are recruiting. We hired 1000 trainee probation officers in our first year and we are on track for 1300 more this year. It is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of an independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary.

I take this opportunity to thank him for all his work as Team at the Ministry of Justice. It is a great shame that the opposition have attempted to play politics on this. They could have adopted a more mature position, appreciating the difficult context in which this government took office. They could have drawn on previous conservative traditions as to rehabilitation and prison reform, to support an agenda that aims to cut reoffending and keep our communities safer. Instead, they are more interested in social media clicks than a serious government.

It is their mess that makes this legislation so urgent. It is their failure to deliver appropriate present places, it is their failure to confront reoffending rates. It is their mess that the government is cleaning up. As for Reform, while I listened to the speech from the honourable member, I say with respect that she has obviously not read the bill. She was given ample opportunity to set out what Reform's position on this out what Reform's position on this Lent on her role as magistrate.

Her behaviour as a magistrate fell below that expected of a magistrate. The issue of probation was raised by the chair of the Justice Select Committee whose expertise in this area will no doubt lean upon... We are very aware of the pressures the probation service faced, especially after the damage done by the last Conservative government. That's why we're investing £8 million in new technology to deal with the administrative burdens. This will allow officers to focus on where they can have most impact.

They told us how important that technological change could be to the work they do. We are increasing funding. £700 million. 45% increase. Also hiding more probation officers. The member for Easington raised the issue of trade unions and the challenges that this new sentencing regime were placed on probation officers. I can reassure him that myself and the Justice Secretary will be having conversations with the trade unions throughout this process. Electronic monitoring was raised by a number of members including the chair of the Justice Select Committee.

There are significant challenges and how we ensure the tagging works but we know that tagging does work. There is clear and reliable proof. Reoffending rates are reduced by 20% when tagging as part of a community sentence. That's why we're investing £100 million, 30% increase in the biggest expansion of tagging since 1999. The member for Eastbourne spoke passionately, as he always does, about victims. In my submission, this legislation stripped those production from victims in our systems of the government inherited prison system which is in crisis.

As I said before, but it's worth repeating, if a person's collapse, it is victims who pay the price. It's not just about building the capacity and stabilising the prison system. This legislation aims to go further. This will appraise the statutory purposes of sentencing to make it clear that judges must consider the protection of victims during sentencing. This is really important perform and I'm pleased to hear the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of the bill. In terms of domestic abuse, again, I praise the honourable member for Eastbourne for his work and his campaign regarding the domestic abuse flood.

I've listened to the arguments he has made today and I will certainly no doubt be having further conversations with him in the future. Domestic flag is a massive improvement to ensure that protective services across government, local government and Whitehall, have better powers to track domestic abusers and keep victims say. I'm pleased that that measure has received so much support. I would push back on the argument that referred today about short sentences. Were not abolishing short sentences. Judges will have the power to send offenders to prison when they want to when they have reached a court order, where there is significant risk of harm and in any exceptional circumstances.

And I know I want to put this on record that many domestic abuse cases, short sentences have an important role to play. They will continue to have role to play under this legislation. Very briefly because I'm aware of time, we have heard from my honourable friend the member for Forest of Dean who brought great expertise from his experience in the police and spoke about the depressing reality of reoffending in our communities where offenders are cut, there put in jail for a few weeks, that they come out and reoffending in.

Alongside the sentencing reform, we need better rehabilitation in prisons. That's why my right honourable friend the member of Colne Valley -- the member for Colne Valley raised the issue of gambling. Before closing, just a couple of shorter issues, if I may. The right Honourable member for Huntington and the member for West Bromwich... Forgive me, I got carried away. They raised important and very serious cases of driving offences. I want to reassure them that I've heard their speeches and I will be following with -- up with them.

The member for Hayes and Haddington raised a number of important issues. Youth sentencing is outside the scope of this will. I want to reassure him that I will be looking into the consequences for youth sentencing of this legislation. There are few more acute crisis than that which this government inherited in our prisons. Last summer, the government took Mrs difficult but necessary decisions to keep the system afloat. -- Difficult but necessary decisions to keep the system of food. -- Keep the system system of food.

-- Keep the system afloat. We must stabilise the prison estate and prevent reoffending. We must deliver punishment that works. We know it is possible because the evidence is clear. We must have a laser focus on public protection and reducing reoffending. It must be a system that incentivises offenders to become better citizens, not criminals. We must act swiftly when they breach the conditions of their release. We must enforce the law with technology where possible. It is a great shame, as I said before, that the opposition have chosen to chase social media traction rather than engage responsibility with the matter.

The Conservative party have stuck their head in the sand rather than facing up to the legacy they left. This bill faces up to the challenges head-on and delivers change to keep our communities safer. I commend this bill to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. Order. The original question was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. Since when an amendment has been proposed as honourable paper. been proposed as honourable paper. -- As on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in

19:44

Division

20:12

Petitions

20:16

Adjournment: Professional standards in the police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

police. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister to their place today as well. I requested

20:16

Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

- -

20:30

Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)

- -

Gregory, for the work they do. And of course, for Lisa and her son, and the campaigning Lisa has been forced to do because of the situation she has found herself in which must be absolutely devastating for her as a mother and for her frustration which was very well described through the honourable gentleman's speech. I think we all felt the frustration think we all felt the frustration I think the topic of professional standards in its widest sense in policing is enormously important.

He made the point, and was quite right to do so, that confidence in policing has been tracking in the wrong direction in recent years. Always worth having the humility to accept that politicians have it substantially lower trust level but we have seen policing trust go down in recent years. The most recent figures in the Crime Survey for England and Wales show a small increase to maybe there are shoots of improved confidence. But that has followed several year-on-year declines.

When we inherited this government, public trust had been shaken but a very high profile cases, as he will know. And the lack of neighbourhood policing, the visible reduction in neighbourhood policing was badly eroding that sense of trust. And crime at the same time has become more complex. You have very intensive investigations into long-standing crimes, the explosion of fraud, online crime, and high expectations rightly from the public that crimes will be dealt with without the resources to necessarily do that.

I am really keen to carry on the work of the previous Policing Minister, to make sure our standards are as high as they can be in policing. We owe it to the vast majority of excellent police officers doing a brilliant job that we make sure those standards are high. The previous Home Secretary announced last year some reforms to police standards which oversaw a raft of legislative changes which strengthened the misconduct, vetting, and performance systems. This included laying new regulations to enable Chief Constable to dismiss those officers failed to maintain vetting.

Which I know is separate to the issues that he is talking about but I think it's part of the same picture. Having a force where the leadership drives standards, whether it is through vetting, whether it is through recruitment, or through the professional standards teams and valuing their work and ensuring that the work they do is front of mind of the police chiefs is really important. So we have made some changes already on that front. We are going to continue. We are going to put the betting standards on a statutory footing, and regulations which we expect to lay this year will do that.

There is also the bill that is going through Parliament at the moment. And that is strengthening the misconduct performance systems as well. So when for example officers full-service resort of the high standards expected of them, they are swiftly identified and robustly dealt with. Including a new presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct. That will also change the landscape there. The honourable gentleman mentions very upsetting crimes, when it comes to violence We have to work hard and do better.

And the former Home Secretary announced plans last year to strengthen the requirements on forces to suspend police officers who are under criminal investigation for matters such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. Strong progress

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has been made and I expect new legislation on this as well later this year. I would like to thank the Minister for giving way. I alluded Minister for giving way. I alluded to the fact that sadly we had lost an awful lot of police officers who have deep knowledge, and a lot of our police officers are relatively our police officers are relatively new to the position. I would welcome some reflections from the Minister some reflections from the Minister about how we can build that long- term knowledge back into the police force because that can drive better standards, where services are being standards, where services are being provided, rather than looking for where things have already fallen over.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over. Thank you. I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention. His absolute for that intervention. His absolute right of course. We saw a collapsing in numbers of police, and a huge recruitment under the last recruitment under the last government, and -- we lost a lot of officers, we gained a lot of new officers, and of course there is a turnover of officers that is higher turnover of officers that is higher than I would like it to be because for lots of reasons, it is a whole other debate about keeping our other debate about keeping our workforce where it is.

His absolute right, you have to have people the experience and expertise, and that is what we want to try and develop through for example our neighbourhood policing plans, where we want an increased number of people working in those neighbourhood roles, wants his people to stay in position. In previous years, neighbourhood policing was very much a turnaround profession where people would work a short period of time and then move on to something else. We want neighbourhood policing to be seen as a brilliant thing to do in the long a brilliant thing to do in the long term, and that will help I hope, it is our intention that the expertise that the officers develop around their communities, they would be better police officers as a result.

So he makes a good point. I don't have all the answers but it is key that we try and get expertise and people to stay in the force for the whole of their career. The Angiolini Inquiry is considering a range of issues in policing, and the safety of. We are already working to deliver recommendations from part one of the inquiry, and of course we will look carefully at part two when that comes out. The honourable member mentions the challenges in Devon and Cornwall police in recent times.

Of course we all know those, and I want to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made by the force under the leadership of the Chief Constable James Vaughan. The force has recently come out of the engaged state of monitoring by the inspector, and this is a clear indication that there is progress. I would hope that the professional standards team are also on that journey of progress, and I am sure when I meet the Chief Constable, I will talk to him and raise the debates that we have had today.

In relation to the complaints system, the honourable gentleman quite rightly talks about the frustration that his constituents feel. And of course people who are dissatisfied can apply for a review to the Police and Crime Commissioner or the IOPC, it depends on the nature of the case. I was interested in the suggestion of other forces policing each other as it were. I think the white paper that we are looking at the moment we are hoping to publish in the autumn of the police reform is considering some of these things.

There are lessons we can learn from local government. The lessons we can learn from elsewhere, about how we make sure our policing is done in a way that, where there are problems, there are good and effective ways of trying to resolve them. I also hope trying to resolve them. I also hope that our police are available to our members apart. They have good relationships, they speak to each other, because that in and of itself is important. I would not undervalue the role of a member of Parliament in raising this.

It is very important and hope everybody would have good relationships with their local police. The Police and Crime Commissioner of course has an important role in this space as well. They are the ones directly elected. They are the ones responsible for holding the Chief Constable to account, for the performance of the force, and the Police and Crime Commissioners are responsible for the appointment, suspension, and removing Chief Constable. And their ability to determine which office is best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

placed to lead the force is... I am an MP from Sussex, we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am an MP from Sussex, we are about to go through the reorganisation and creation of a reorganisation and creation of a Sussex mayor. The role of the Police and Crime Commissioners is going to become redundant as part of that process. How does the Minister think the new mayoral responsibility is going to work in practice, will it be the same as it currently stands with PCCs or will it be different?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with PCCs or will it be different? The honourable lady makes an interesting point. We are moving to a system of increasing number of a system of increasing number of mayors, and the functions of Police mayors, and the functions of Police and Crime Commissioners roles into the mayoral authority. And that varies from place to place in terms of what responsibilities are in force the larger devolved mayoral force the larger devolved mayoral combined authorities are more developed, have bigger teams, and we will see the systems developed over will see the systems developed over time.

But it is an interesting time. But it is an interesting development, and that I think it can work. When I have worked with mayors you have that policing function, you have that policing function, they have a deputy mayor who has the Police and Crime Commissioner role, Police and Crime Commissioner role, and it works very well. I think it can be a powerful thing. But of course, people don't like the change in the changeover, and if the honourable lady is identifying the problems and challenges, happy to have conversations and pick that up.

I should conclude, or we will run out of time. I want to end by thanking the honourable member for securing the debate. Remember again his constituents for whom he has brought these issues to Parliament, and I would like to think that, as we move towards reforms across professional standards across the whole of policing, was recognising that a lot of the challenges we have been matters of resources, not great people who are doing the policing was it is often a question of time and resource.

But it cannot be right that people have to wait long periods of time and feel such frustration. Of course I will look at his case if he wants to write to me with more detail, very happy to look at it in more detail. Can I thank him again and thank every body

**** Possible New Speaker ****

else who has made useful contributions tonight? Thank you. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". The ayes have

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page