Sentencing Bill

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theft of Tools of Trade

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may speak in this debate only with permission in advance from the mover and the Minister, but they may intervene with the permission of the speaker who has the Floor.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for the theft of tools of trade.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Over recent years, we have seen a surge in thefts from tradespeople, particularly thefts of essential tools from vans and workplaces. According to industry, one in 10 tradespeople will fall victim to tool theft this year alone. For many, it will not be the first time or, sadly, the last. The same proportion have already experienced this devastating crime three or more times in their career.

Tool theft is not a victimless crime, and it is not petty. The average cost of stolen tools stands at almost £3,000 in each instance. When we add that to £1,500 for vehicle repairs and £2,000 in lost earnings and business disruption, we are suddenly looking at £6,000 to £7,000 in immediate losses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right to raise the issue. I am sorry to say that tool theft is a critical issue in all our constituencies. In my constituency we have a tradition of working in construction, but vans are regularly broken into. Does she agree that there is a cost to this disgraceful theft not only in tool replacement, but in lost jobs and time? In 2022, more than 40,000 cases of tool theft were reported across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland alone, it costs £1.5 million annually, but that does not come close to describing the true cost.

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Gentleman notes, it is not just about the money. The real damage cannot always be calculated in pounds and pence or in immediate loss. More than 40% of victims report reputational harm; one in 10 said that the damage to their business standing was significant. Tragically, more than 80% report a decline in their mental health. Let us not forget that the construction industry already has one of the highest suicide rates of any profession in the UK.

Tool theft is happening in every part of our community. It happens to people who are the very backbone of the British economy—our electricians, our plumbers, our carpenters, our gas engineers—and too often it is without consequence.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I was shocked to hear that the cost of GPS theft, including from tractors, had increased by 137% between 2023 and 2024. It is clear that the theft of high-tech farming equipment can be linked to organised gangs with connections to illegal markets in Europe. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking our hard-working police and the National Farmers Union for raising awareness of the links between rural crime and organised crime groups?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. My dad was a policeman, so I will always want to thank the hard-working police. We have been working with the NFU on some of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the scourge of rural crime, especially the theft of essential agricultural tools and equipment, demands a two-pronged approach, with more bobbies on the beat who are known in their local area, as well as significantly harsher sentencing? Theft in our rural areas seriously affects people’s ability to earn a living.

[Amanda Martin]

I completely agree. Under 14 years of Conservative rule, the cuts to policing and criminal justice were shocking. We have to ensure that we put more police on the streets and work to enact the Bill.

Between 2010 and 2024, charges for theft and burglary plummeted. In 2015, police in England and Wales solved about 9.4% of all theft. In under eight years, that figure had dropped to 4.6%. For burglary, the figures are even worse: only about 3.5% of domestic burglaries have resulted in a charge being recorded in the past year. In practice, that means that for the vast majority of these crimes, nobody is held to account.

We are living with the consequences of 14 years of cuts to policing and to our criminal justice system. Since 2010, police numbers have been slashed, police community support officers have been gutted and community policing has been dismantled. As a result, court backlogs have ballooned. Theft, from tool crime to shoplifting, is now often met with a shrug. In fact, some retail chief executives and tradespeople report that shoplifters and thieves now openly brag that no one will even bother turning up. Why would our trades- people feel any differently?

As many hon. Members will know, I have been campaigning on the issue for more than six months. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill. We are still running petitions, and we have had conversations with Ministers and many meetings and conversations with victims and with people across the sector.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her work. In the last Parliament, my private Member’s Bill received Royal Assent as the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. It requires some statutory instruments to be passed, in the first instance on agricultural theft, but it is written in such a way that it can incorporate tool theft from builders’ vans and so on. Does she agree that a necessary first step in tackling this scourge is getting those SIs made?

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the hon. Member for all his work. Yes, I agree, but we should not prioritise just one thing; all levers need to be pulled. As well as making those instruments, we also need to ensure that we are pushing the element that I am describing. Even when tools are marked they are still stolen, so the Government need to use all possible levers to protect our tradespeople.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a champion for our tradespeople and I commend her work. A constituent of mine had his tools nicked three times. There is the cost of repairing any damage, the cost of replacing the tools, the loss in earnings while he waits and the cost of the insurance premium, as well as the reputational damage. Does my hon. Friend agree that increased sentences would not only act as a deterrent, but give the police a justification for giving tool theft a higher priority in their stretched workload?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. One of the reasons for pushing my Bill is deterrence. I will come on to the policing element and how we can better record this crime.

I have been working on the issue since December. I thank all hon. Members who attended my brilliant breakfast reception: I have been energised by the levels of cross-party support for the campaign, and I was pleased that hon. Members from many different parties joined me in helping to raise awareness of it. I reassure the trades community that whatever the outcome of my private Member’s Bill, I will continue to campaign on the issue and will bring all those who want to join me, in or outside this House, along on that journey.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and thank her for her steadfast campaigning. Like many hon. Members, I have had conversations with tradespeople on the doorstep. I have had loads of messages and emails thanking her and supporting her campaign. Rob Waring, who runs Midland Central Heating in Cannock, told me that its vans have been broken into twice. It is now considering not putting its livery on the vans, for fear that they will be targeted again, but even that will not offer much meaningful protection. Does my hon. Friend agree that although we must focus on the real-world effects of tool theft, we should also consider the fact that the fear of tool theft is holding back our sole traders and small businesses?

[Amanda Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. He is absolutely right: the impact on reputation and on mental health goes way beyond just the tools that are stolen.

It is important to explain the reform that I am asking for. The current sentencing guidelines for tool theft do not reflect the gravity of the crime. Because most tool theft involves tools valued under £10,000, it is placed in harm category 3. Unless the courts actively use their discretion to raise the harm rating, the impact on the victim is downplayed. However, that category does not reflect the true damage, the lost income, the van repairs and the mental strain, which we have heard about from several Members today.

I am therefore asking for two simple but significant changes to the sentencing guidelines. First, I am asking the Sentencing Council to explicitly list theft of tools of trade as an example of “significant additional harm”. That would prompt magistrates to consider placing offences in harm category 2 even if the monetary value falls below £10,000, because that would reflect the emotional, reputational and business damage that these crimes cause.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the grafters of this country, who are fed up with having the tools of their trade nicked. Does she agree that the action and sentencing changes that she is asking for must apply to the tools of any trade, be they the GPS on tractors, which we have heard about, or the tools that were nicked from my barber’s? Does she agree that we must look at sentencing for theft of the tools of any trade?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. To me, the issue is tools of trade. We have also been in talks with the beauty industry, because many of its members have had a van driven into their front window and had everything stolen in exactly the same way. Although the theft itself may not cost more than £10,000, having to deal with the window, the loss of work, the damage and the effect on the mental health of employees very much adds to it. The tools of all trades are really important.

The first element that I am asking for is an increase from harm category 2 to harm category 3. The second element is standardisation of the sentencing guidelines language to reflect the total financial losses—plural—instead of just the value of the stolen goods. That includes the van damage, missed contracts and lost earnings, all of which are currently invisible in the sentencing process. Taken together, those reforms would increase the chances that offenders will face more serious consequences that are truly in line with the crime that has been committed and the damage that it has caused.

I make it very clear that this is not just about building more prisons. With prison places, I know that we were left in a desperate hole after the last Government left; I also know that our Government have committed to building more prison places. This is about building more accountability and, importantly, having fewer victims.

I would be supportive of my Bill resulting in strong and meaningful community sentences, with compulsory unpaid work, electronic tagging, alcohol and sport abstinence tags, restrictions on travel, and other community solutions. Those punishments are tough and visible. Crucially, they are rehabilitative. It has been proved that they lead to fewer victims, which is what we need to ensure. They keep offenders out of the revolving door of repeated crime, and they challenge the root causes of reoffending.

Many of these thieves are not masterminds. They are opportunists. They rely on the belief that they will never be caught, or that if they are, they will never be punished. In the case of tool theft, many simply are not. We must break that cycle and restore a basic sense of justice for working people. We must ensure that the true extent of this crime is recognised by the courts.

It is time for us to listen to the people who make this country work: the plumber up at dawn, the roofer out in the cold all year, the carpenter working late, the welder braving the sparks and the painter steady on his or her ladder. They deserve to be able to work without constantly looking over their shoulder in fear of having their livelihood taken away. Reforming the sentencing guidelines to tackle the theft of trade tools is essential to valuing our tradies properly and recognising their contributions to our small business economy and to society as a whole. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join my campaign. It is time we sent a clear message that tool theft will not be tolerated. We need to stand up for our tradespeople and make sure that the justice system does, too.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hear the point my hon. Friend makes, and she makes it very well. We are not considering a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, because that would automatically release a number of people who we do not believe it would be safe to release. I am not willing to compromise public protection. I know that there is a huge injustice at the heart of these issues and that IPP sentences have rightly been abolished, but we have a problem with the cohort, in particular those under an IPP sentence who have never been released at all. I am determined to make more progress, wherever it is possible to do so safely, on releasing more IPP prisoners, but never in a way that compromises public protection.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to cross-party working, transparency and rebuilding public trust. Does she agree that this is a significant departure from the previous Government, who released over 10,000 prisoners not in the open but in secret?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the last Conservative Government’s end of custody supervised licence scheme, for which we, in the end, had to release the numbers. Over 10,000 offenders were released under that scheme, without transparency and without the same exemptions that we have applied to the SDS40 changes.