Sentencing Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As I did at the start of my speech on Second Reading, I put on record the continuing crisis in our prisons. The prison population currently stands at 87,427, with usable operational capacity being 89,286. Prison population projections estimate that the population could rise to more than 100,000 by March 2029. That is an indictment of the previous Government and it gives the lie to their mantra that this Bill is soft on crime; we will have record numbers of people in prison. This Bill is a necessity, and we must make a virtue of that necessity.

I welcome the principles of the Bill and the reforms suggested in it. They are essential, both to reduce the prison population and to improve the way in which the justice system deals with punishment, rehabilitation and public safety. The measures in the Bill that derive from David Gauke’s independent sentencing review include varying suspended sentences and short custodial sentences, adopting the earned progression model for release, and changes to recall and licence. All have their risks, so the purpose of the amendments that I and other members of the Justice Committee have tabled—to which I now turn—is to reduce those risks and make practical improvements to the Bill. I have also tabled two new clauses relating to imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who are not currently considered by the Bill—in my view, wrongly.

The first amendment I have tabled is amendment 29 to clause 3, which relates to income reduction orders, or IROs. These will act as financial penalties for offenders, who will forfeit a percentage of their disposable income as a form of punishment and reparation. My amendment would change the definition of monthly income for the purposes of an IRO so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income because of other enactments, such as child support maintenance payments or an attachment of earnings order, is not counted. This will ensure that IROs do not impact on an offender’s ability to pay outstanding debts or, in the case of child support maintenance, to meet their obligation to support their children and family members in the community.

My second set of amendments relates to clause 6, which introduces a statutory requirement for courts to make a formal finding of domestic abuse where relevant during sentencing. My amendments 30 and 31 introduce two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse. First, the court must have indicated that it appears that the offence may have involved domestic abuse. Secondly, the court must have given the offender and the prosecutor an opportunity to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Chair of the Select Committee is talking about indications of domestic abuse. Does he agree that, particularly in cases of domestic abuse—as I have heard from constituents of mine—it is critical that resources are allocated through this Bill to the Probation Service and for electronic tagging? The legislation allows for it, but does he agree that it is very important that the Government make clear how they will adequately resource those two elements, so that victims of domestic abuse—who will have this indicator to identify that perpetrators have committed domestic abuse and violence—will be properly protected after the potential release of the perpetrator?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I do agree with that, and in a moment I will talk about a new clause that deals specifically with tagging. I am rattling through my speech because I have a lot to get through, but what I am specifically talking about in relation to domestic abuse is simply the need for there to be due process. That is something that I think we all want to see. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the requirements of clause 6, which are important in allowing police and probation services to track perpetrators of domestic abuse, are carried out in a manner that is as thorough and fair as possible.

My next amendment, amendment 32, relates to clause 35, which amends the sentencing code to allow for the publication of the photographs and names of offenders serving community sentences. The explanatory notes say very little about this clause, but the justification in the memorandum on human rights suggests that the Government believe that this measure will have a deterrent effect on criminals, although there is little evidence for that assertion. The measure engages the article 8 right to private and family life for the individual, their victims and their family. Some concerns have been raised about how this measure can be operated safety in the modern social media age, in which photographs and names can be readily and quickly shared.

My amendment would prevent clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament, and obtain the approval of both Houses. That would ensure proper parliamentary oversight of this measure.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is indicating his diligence—as though any evidence of that were required—in tabling these technical but important amendments. However, will he deal with the fundamental issue? As he has just said, the Criminal Justice Act 2003—from memory, section 250—allows criminals who are released on licence to be subject to all kinds of conditions, but the truth is that if we let more dangerous people out, more people will be recalled, because they will do immense amounts of harm. Recalls are going to go up as a result of this legislation, and many more people are going to suffer because of those who are let out early.

[Andy Slaughter]

I have quite a lot to say about recall, which I will come to in a moment, but I have reflected on this question. Licence is an established part of the criminal justice system, as indeed is probation. Almost every prisoner, other than a handful of the most serious criminals, comes out of prison at some stage. The issue of public safety when people are released from prison is one that this Bill is trying to address. We may disagree on the means to that objective, but I am sure we agree on the objective itself.

I also tabled new clause 18, which relates to the provision of information to Parliament regarding offenders who are subject to electronic tagging and the operation of the tagging contract. The success of the measures in this Bill will rely heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. As a reminder, on 7 May, the Prisons Minister revealed to us that at that point, Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract on 1 May 2024. Ministers have assured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve.

New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. That report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance, and the cost of administering those requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament. This would improve transparency and allow parliamentarians to assess for themselves how successfully Serco or other providers are administering tagging contracts.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. New clause 18 makes the point that the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year should be released. Does he agree that that should include the size of the fine that is imposed on the provider? When I have asked the Ministry of Justice for that information, it has not been able to release it. I think it is a matter of public interest to know what the fine for the provider’s failures is.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am delighted that my friend is still taking a strong interest in these matters and remains on the Justice Committee, even though he no longer has his Front-Bench responsibilities—we know that he has other responsibilities that he wishes to take on. I entirely agree with him; it is a point that we have made in Committee, and I hope the Minister has listened to it. I am sure that the words “commercial confidentiality” were used at some point, but this is not about commercial confidentiality; it is about us knowing how well electronic tagging is working, which is a very serious matter in the criminal justice system. That is very well illustrated by the level of fines imposed.

I have tabled two new clauses, new clauses 19 and 20, regarding prisoners who are subject to imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of those sentences has severe consequences for those who are serving them and for their loved ones. New clause 19 would implement the recommendation of the previous Justice Committee’s 2022 report that there should be a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, and that a time-limited expert committee that includes a member of the judiciary should be established to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

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

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way and for speaking to his new clause. It contains similar wording to the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which Ms Nokes has indicated we may get a separate vote on. Does that mean that the Chair of the Select Committee will be voting with the Liberal Democrats and encouraging his Back-Bench colleagues to do the same?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

It means that I will listen very carefully, not only to what the hon. Member says but to what the Government say. I know that the Government are unlikely to accept new clause 19, because they have made their position on resentencing clear. Nevertheless, I wanted to set out that that is the best option, but I am just about to talk about other options, which might be more practical and which I urge on the Minister today.

The Justice Committee remains of the view that a resentencing exercise is the best and most comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison. Knowing, however, that the Government are yet to be persuaded of the merits of resentencing on the balance of risk, I have also tabled new clause 20, which would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an annual application for termination to the Parole Board. This would increase the opportunities for the licences of IPP prisoners to be terminated, and would reduce the amount of time those prisoners have to wait in limbo between Parole Board hearings. In contrast to resentencing, this more modest amendment would enhance the process for IPP licence terminations. IPP terminations have been the single most effective measure in permanently reducing the stain of the IPP sentence. Some 28% of IPP sentences have been terminated by the Parole Board, ending the shadow of the sentence by cancelling it and removing the risk of recall for those who have been deemed safe by the Parole Board or complied with their licence for two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

On another form of recall, does the hon. Member have any sympathy with new clause 62, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and the idea that there should be a sunset on this provision? However we look at the contents of this Bill, it is a bit of an experiment, so we should make sure that two years on we examine it and, if the circumstances require, renew it.

[Andy Slaughter]

We have to do something about recall and do it now. The number of prisoners on recall has more than doubled over the seven-year period from March 2018 to 2025. It was 6,000 then and it is now 13,500. That is a significant part of the prison population.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences.

The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls.

Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare.

I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body.

This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight.

Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison.

To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.