Sentencing Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

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

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I call John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

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

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

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

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

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Jake Richards]

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

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

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

Victims and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

I begin by placing on the record my thanks to the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and all the brilliant, dedicated officials at the Ministry of Justice who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. Particular thanks go to Rachel Bennion, Hayley Newell and Cassie Blower. I also pay tribute to London Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman and Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove in the other place, as well as Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions so far. They have all helped to shape this Bill, which will strengthen our justice system and make it one that is more responsive to victims, tackles delays in our criminal courts and delivers swifter and fairer justice.

When the Government took office in July last year, we inherited a justice system in utter crisis, with record and rising backlogs in the criminal courts delaying justice for too many people and victims more likely to be an afterthought than an important, integral part of the process. Reform of the system is essential, and this legislation will mark that significant step forward, but I have been clear that this is just the beginning.

The Bill at its core is about transforming the experience of victims throughout the criminal justice system. It will introduce measures to ensure that victims are heard, supported and treated with the dignity they deserve, and it will improve the efficiency and fairness of our courts.

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

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill through the House? It is an excellent piece of legislation that will make a real difference to victims. But, as she said, it is just a start. Will she and the Department rededicate themselves to bringing down that Crown court backlog? Speedy justice is what victims want.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for holding our feet to the fire as a Government to ensure that we bear down on that backlog. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is ensuring that we deliver for victims by bringing down that backlog, with record investment in our court system, record sitting days and looking at the reforms brought forward and the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his once-in-a-generation review. It is only when we get on top of that court backlog that justice can be delivered and victims will feel it has been done.

The Bill is a key part of the Government’s plan for change. It will deliver on many of our manifesto commitments to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement that swifter and fairer justice. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support its passage into law. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.

Prisoner Release Checks

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he knows, there is to this day largely no wi-fi or anything like that available on our prison sites, in part because of concerns over the use of technology by prisoners. For that reason, prisons use a paper-based system, which will always be subject to some human error. In the context of this continued early release scheme being done on the quiet under the previous Government, and indeed because of the changes that we are making in the Sentencing Bill, it is right that we have a proper look at this. I discussed this matter with Lynne Owens when we spoke yesterday.

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Andy Slaughter will speak on the publication of the second special report of the Justice Committee, “Work of the County Court: Government Response”, HC 1387, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Andy Slaughter to respond in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on the Government’s response to the fourth report of the Justice Committee, “Work of the County Court”.

Two independent reviews into the criminal justice system, those of David Gauke on sentencing and Sir Brian Leveson on the criminal courts, identified the crises in our prisons and criminal courts, and suggested solutions for the Government to address, including in legislation. The Committee welcomes the reviews, but there is an absence of an equivalent review into civil justice.

Our report called for a root-and-branch review of the county court, including a sustainable plan for reducing the systemic delays and inefficiencies we found. We are disappointed that the Government have rejected that recommendation, although pleased that they have adopted almost all the other recommendations in the report and that their rationale for rejecting an independent review is that our report sets out a detailed blueprint for action. The 17 recommendations that the Government have accepted focus on the most pressing issues facing the court.

The county court is the principal forum for delivering civil justice in England and Wales. It is where millions of our constituents, and businesses large and small, encounter the justice system, but, as our inquiry found, it is a system in crisis. I echo the Minister’s thanks to all who contributed to our inquiry and report; the many people and organisations that submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence; and those who contributed to our roundtable and welcomed us on our visits.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor as Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC, the former Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, under whose leadership the inquiry began in October 2023. Following the Dissolution of Parliament and the general election, the current Committee agreed to continue this important piece of work and press the Department on the performance of the county court.

The county court hears a vast array of cases, from the recovery of personal and corporate debt to landlords’ recovery of property and personal injury claims. In 2024, it heard more than 1.7 million claims. However, the average time for a small claims case to reach trial now exceeds 50 weeks, and for more complex claims the delay is even longer—more than 79 weeks. The evidence we received was deeply concerning. The length of delays is resulting in cases being settled at an undervalue.

Despite the county court being a single unified court, the length of delay depends on a court user’s postcode. We found that such regional differences are severe and result in a postcode lottery. Courts in London and the south-east are some of the worst affected, with examples of cases being delayed by more than two years. The Civil Justice Council told us that when all courts were ranked by their average delay, four fifths of the worst performers were in London and the south-east. In its response, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service notes that it publishes regional data that can be analysed by court, but we did not find any evidence of HMCTS sharing areas of good practice based on this data or of curiosity as to why any differences across England and Wales are occurring.

Our overarching conclusion was stark: the county court is a dysfunctional operation that fails to adequately deliver civil justice across England and Wales. The issues in London and the south-east typify issues faced across the county court. Behind the weeks of delays is a picture of insufficient judicial capacity, high staff turnover and inadequate training to support court users effectively. We found that the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession, and we were told of the poor working conditions and administrative burdens that the role now requires. Both the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls agreed that there was an overdependence on fee-paid judiciary to plug the gaps of insufficient judicial recruitment.

We also heard that court staff are overstretched and poorly paid, with high turnover and use of agency staff undermining the efficiency of an already strained system. Court users felt unsupported by staff who could not provide updates on cases, while the centralised phone lines and inboxes were often left unanswered. That is simply not good enough. Those issues are symptoms of a wider delay. We put it to the Department that such symptoms must be addressed urgently if meaningful change was to be achieved. We recommended that any future review must include an in-depth assessment of staff recruitment and retention, including workload, capacity and regional disparities. We also recommended that the review look at the judicial offer. We are pleased the Government have accepted those recommendations.

As part of our inquiry, we visited Northampton county court, the Civil National Business Centre and the central London county court. What was particularly shocking was the poor condition of all those buildings. Our report highlighted the deteriorating physical state of the county court premises, with reports of asbestos, broken heating, leaking roofs and rat and insect infestations. The significant disrepair of the estate impacts staff morale and disrupts court operations, causing yet further delays. There are also problems with accessibility for those with disabilities. I take this opportunity to thank the court staff across England and Wales for their commendable efforts to operate an already crumbling system in such conditions.

In August 2023, £220 million of capital investment was announced, to be spent solely on the court estate across both criminal and civil jurisdictions. We are pleased that the Government have agreed to provide the Committee with a breakdown of how that funding was spent and how much, if any, was directed to the county court estate. We are also pleased to hear of recent capital projects at Taunton, Barnet and Norwich. It remains clear, however, that these projects and previous funding fall well short of what is needed to address years of chronic under-investment across the court estate.

I turn to other areas of funding. Legal aid was originally introduced to ensure access to justice. Through successive reforms, its scope has been reduced, leading to an increase in litigants in person. Self-represented parties usually do not have a legal background and struggle with procedural rules and court practice. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice recognised that litigants in person continued to require greater support in navigating court procedure, but little has changed. The Committee has embarked on a major review of access to justice, but in the absence of more funding for representation, more must be done to help litigants in person navigate the system.

In 2016, HMCTS launched a £1 billion project called the reform programme. It aimed to modernise the court and tribunal systems and transform them through digitisation. However, the project was continually modified and reduced by HMCTS and its timetable extended four times. It finally concluded in March this year. The reform programme was meant to bring end-to-end digitisation to the county court. By March 2025, it had achieved that in only 23% of cases. In practice, the reform programme delivered only two services solely for use in the county court: the damages claims portal and the online civil money claims service, both of which have faced heavy criticism. We heard of the dual running between new and old systems, a failure to take on feedback from practitioners and the continued and successive reliance on paper, adding unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and leaving an analogue system in a digital age.

We concluded that the reform programme was ultimately over-ambitious and under-delivered. The majority of the civil justice projects were de-scoped, culminating in a fragmented digital system. We recommended that HMCTS review all de-scoped work and prioritise its digitisation to bring a true end-to-end digital service to the county court. We are pleased that, in their response, the Government confirmed that such a review has taken place. A digital county court would offer the opportunity to integrate artificial intelligence early on. We welcome the Government’s AI action plan for justice and commitment to AI in encouraging mediation, which aligns with our own conclusions and recommendations.

Our report concludes that the county court is the Cinderella of the justice system, beset by delays, a crumbling estate and a failed attempt at digital reform. The Government response fails to reassure us that the MOJ has a concrete plan to improve civil justice comparable to Sir Brian Leveson’s and David Gauke’s reviews into the prisons and the criminal courts. In the absence of an equivalent independent review, we hope our report can provide a blueprint to reduce the systemic delays and inefficiencies that plague the system. The county court is where justice is most often sought by our constituents. It must not be allowed to fail them.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have to finish the statement at 1.50 pm. Anyone who wishes to speak, please bob—including the Minister, if she wishes to ask a question. Please keep comments short, and Members can only ask one question.

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

The report to which the Government are responding outlines that the county court is in complete crisis. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, the county court is where the majority of our constituents will encounter the justice system, and it is the Cinderella service of the justice system. Does he agree that it is under pressure and experiencing significant operational problems, that the state of disrepair of the buildings is absolutely emblematic of a system that is completely in crisis, and that more must be done to repair and reinstate these buildings? It is totally unfair that we should ask court staff, be that the judiciary or the staff who back up the judges, to work in those circumstances. It is appalling.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I think I set out in the statement, there are problems all along the line. There are problems with representation. There are problems with access. There are problems with systems remaining on paper when they should have been put online long ago. It might therefore be thought that the physical state of the buildings is a lower priority. In reality, it is not, because it affects recruitment and the efficiency of the court, and it means that, over a period of time, courts become toxic places to work. That is why I went out of my way to praise the court staff, because they are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. None of us wants to work in a sick building.

I hope that the Government will address this, and that we will find out how much capital money is going to the county court. The Minister may be able to tell us that to today. Certainly, the problem has to be tackled. That is true in the magistrates and Crown courts as well, but particularly in the county courts.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I previously worked in the county court system, and the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted is a long-standing one. The Government have accepted that the county court is where most of our constituents access the justice system. Does he agree that the county court cannot carry on as it is at the moment and that we need a fundamental reform of the system, which must involve a systematic and comprehensive review of its operations, because it is crucial that our constituents have access to swift and fair justice?

[Andy Slaughter]

A fundamental review was attempted under the last Government, which involved closing many county courts around the country. We were told that the money released from the sale of those courts would go either into the maintenance of the rest of the estate or, more probably, into the reform programme, and so lead to digitalisation of the system. We have seen all the court closures but not the improvement in service that was supposed to result, so unfortunately here we are.

I used the Master of the Rolls figure of 23% for the amount of digitalisation that has occurred. It is key to a 21st-century system of civil justice, and that is why I am glad that the Government have looked at the future for digitalisation. I hope they will tell us that there is a clear and realistic path to achieving that, because it is where we need to go. It is ridiculous to be running a paper-based system in the 21st century. It is inefficient, it is costly and it is not providing justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee for all they have done. I understand that the recommendations in the report are specific to England and Wales, but the issues, difficulties, problems and shortcomings the hon. Gentleman has referred to are the same in Northern Ireland. Ever mindful that this is a devolved matter, is it the intention of the Chair and the Select Committee, and perhaps the Minister as well, to share the report’s recommendations? They were not all accepted, but the ones that were accepted are good. I am a great believer, as is everyone in this Great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that we are always better together, so can we share the recommendations and ensure that we can make the advances in Northern Ireland the same as in England and Wales?

[Andy Slaughter]

First, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thank him for his interest in the subject and for his question, to which my response is yes. I hope our work is useful—the Government have said it is—within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but, equally, many of the same points apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister is going to intervene on the two points we have heard from my colleagues or on the point from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure she has heard his point and will make sure that the work is shared. In any event, I undertake to ask my secretariat to ensure it is communicated.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I understand that am allowed to ask a question, so I will frame this as one. As the Minister with responsibility for the courts, I am tremendously grateful to the work of the Justice Committee. The report on the county court and the lens that the Committee has placed on our civil jurisdiction is incredibly welcome because, as the Committee says, the focus that the Department places on criminal justice cannot be allowed to divert from the important reform programme that we need in the county court, for all the reasons the Committee has stated.

With the helpful lens that the report places on the county court and the recommendations that the Government have taken on board in mind, and although I would be first to acknowledge that we have a long journey to travel, does my hon. Friend agree that the latest civil justice statistics—on delays in small claims coming down; on delays in fast, intermediate and multi-track coming down by almost seven weeks; on the greater use of mediation in small claims; and on a new electronic document-processing mechanism, moving away from the frustrating paper-based process—are all steps in the right direction that take on board the thrust of his report? Does he agree that that represents some progress towards where we need to get to?

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, as I have already put on the record. Without making this too cosy, it gives me confidence that my hon. and learned Friend, as the Courts Minister, is seized of this issue and understands its seriousness. That came across in the evidence she gave to the Committee, and she has the background and skills to ensure that change happens. That gives us a lot of confidence.

On my hon. and learned Friend’s specific point, yes, I concede that there are some early indicators of improvements. We would like to see that continue over the years to come. We are very conscious of and aware that—this is obviously no fault of this Minister or this Government—there has been a very long process of decline, which means the climb out will be quite slow. We want steady progress along the way. As the Minister says, the report identifies many problems, but the digitalisation one is crucial. I hope we can soon see the new programme for that, because that is how the courts will become efficient, usable and customer friendly. I know it was tried in good faith under the reform programme, but we have to be honest and say that that has largely failed. The ball is now in the Minister’s court to try to succeed.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Thank you. That ends the statement.

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.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As he says, the changes being proposed to the way in which the criminal courts operate are very significant, and it is right that we have the opportunity to debate them here. My contribution was to move the time of the Justice Committee to allow its members to take part today, and we therefore see a well-attended debate.

The latest figures show that the current open caseload for criminal cases in the Crown courts now stands at 78,329—more than double the 38,070 cases recorded in December 2019. If no action is taken, that number is projected to increase to between 99,000 and 114,000 by the end of March 2029. In response, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 12 December 2024, announced that she had asked Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal courts to consider how to accelerate the hearing of cases. The “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I”, the subject of this debate, was published on 9 July 2025. The second part of the review will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and is due to be published later this year. The first part of the review proposes 45 recommendations. Sir Brian stresses that the package needs to be looked at as a whole and

“should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.”

In the interests of time, I will mention only the most radical and controversial of those proposals.

First, the review recommends an expansion in the use of out-of-court resolutions, noting that their use has fallen by 35% since 2015, from 328,000 to 212,000. Secondly, the review recommends removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for offences with a maximum sentence length of two years. It states that those offences form an obvious grouping, as they have been categorised by Parliament as the least serious of the either-way offences. The review identifies a pool of additional offences for removal of the right to elect, based on the average custodial sentence length they typically involve. It also recommends reclassifying some offences as summary only—in effect, removing the defendant’s right to elect and ensuring that such offences could be tried only in the magistrates court. The review proposes to select offences for reclassification based on whether the average custodial sentence length falls well within the magistrates’ sentencing power limit of 12 months. That requires—this picks up a point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—reducing the maximum sentence for these offences to 12 months to align with the new maximum sentencing power for the magistrates court.

Thirdly, the review proposes the introduction of a dedicated Crown court bench division, comprising a Crown court judge and two magistrates, ensuring the retention of community participation, in the absence of a jury. Magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on evidence and sentencing, with matters of law reserved to the judge. The Crown court bench division would encompass the same sentencing powers as the Crown court, negating the need to commit cases for sentence. For either-way offences, allocation to the CCBD would be determined at the plea and trial preparation hearing, with cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less anticipated to be heard in this division. Responding to the review, Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, noted that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be required to ensure that the CCBD runs successfully alongside maintaining capacity in the magistrates court.

Fourthly, the review provides recommendations to incentivise early resolutions in the Crown court: increasing the maximum reduction for early guilty pleas from 33% to 40%; making it mandatory for judges to offer advance sentence indications, allowing defendants greater clarity and confidence in entering a plea early; and establishing a pilot scheme to test whether delaying the pre-trial hearing allows better-informed plea decisions. Appearing before the Justice Committee in December 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that 70% of cases going through the Crown court eventually end up with guilty pleas, but in only 36% of cases are guilty pleas entered at the first substantive hearing. Fifthly and finally of the points that I want to address, the review recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, with eligible cases defined by hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public.

The combined effect of the reforms would be to curtail a defendant’s right to trial by jury, and that has generated adverse comments from the legal profession and some commentators. These are very significant changes to the way the criminal courts operate. As to whether the review’s proposals would achieve their aim of speeding the trial process, it models three recommendations: the introduction of the Crown court bench division, the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect. Other recommendations made by the review in part 1 were not modelled, and any impact of those would be in addition to those savings. In combination, and with savings measured in Crown court sitting days, the modelled proposals suggest savings of 9,000 Crown court sitting days per annum through the diversion of cases to the magistrates court or the Crown court bench division.

Given that the Leveson review is the Ministry of Justice’s main play to reduce the Crown court backlog, it seems inevitable that it will go forward, and go forward as a package, as Sir Brian requests. Whether it will achieve its targets, and whether it will have the adverse effects on the administration of criminal justice predicted by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association in their briefings for this debate, we will find out. What is certain is that, by expressing the need to apply to the criminal justice system many of the innovations that have been proposed and rejected over the past several decades, it draws into sharp focus the parlous state of our criminal courts in 2025. Many of the proposals in Sir Brian’s report are not new; they have been debated and, on the whole, rejected over several decades. The question really—for the Government, but also for all of us—is whether, given the lamentable failure of the Crown courts at present to deal with cases in a timely manner and to see justice delivered, those are sacrifices worth making now.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

If we are going to get everyone in, we will have to stick to about four minutes each. I am not going to put a hard time limit on at this stage, but please bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place. I remember being a junior shadow Minister under him—I will try to be less deferential in my current role.

My right hon. Friend rightly says that the Government are recruiting new probation officers to fulfil the new responsibilities under the Sentencing Bill and to deal with early release. The BBC recently reported, however, a shortage of 10,000 probation officers. How are we going to fill that gap? The Probation Service is absolutely essential to the strategy that he is rightly following now.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

I am sure the Lord Chancellor has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar and on the bench, which was published last week. Its troubling findings are primarily for the Bar itself and for the judiciary to address, but do the Government support the report’s recommendations and what can they do to ensure that they are implemented?

[Sarah Sackman]

In typical fashion, Baroness Harman has conducted a thorough review into our professions and the judiciary. The judiciary and the Bar are one of the prides of this country, but where there are unacceptable practices and behaviours, it is right that we shine a light on them and demand that we do much better.

Sentencing Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Prisons in England and Wales are almost at capacity. The prison population currently stands at 87,578, with a current operational capacity of 89,664. The latest prison population projections estimate that the population will rise to between 95,700 and 105,200 by March 2029. This troubling picture means that reform is essential if we are to reduce the prison population and return to a functional criminal justice system. I welcome the reforms suggested in the Bill; they are both a necessity and the right direction of travel for an effective prison system. The Government have taken up most of the recommendations made in David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, which if taken together will reduce the numbers in custody by almost 10,000.

The prison system is in a unique place. It will be accommodating the highest number of inmates in history while working hard to find non-custodial punishments for a growing number of offenders. This is necessary following the irresponsible neglect of the criminal justice system under successive Tory Governments. It is also the first step to a prison and probation system that puts rehabilitation alongside punishment as an objective—that objective being a reduction in reoffending, with beneficial outcomes for offenders, victims and the taxpayer alike. I have no issue with the strategy, but I have serious concerns about the specific measures needed to achieve its purpose.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is always courteous in the Chamber. Let us be clear: is the Bill a result of too few prison places —I acknowledge, by the way, that successive Governments have built too few prisons—or is it driven by a certain ideology? Is it about rehabilitation, which I describe as the treatmentist approach to crime? There is a confused message emanating from this Chamber. On the one hand we are told that it is a matter of convenience, because we do not have the places, but on the other hand we are told it is a matter of principle, because we do not believe in prison. Where does the hon. Member stand on that?

[Andy Slaughter]

The right hon. Member is not easily confused. I will turn to exactly that point later, but in brief it is both, and there is a contradiction in it being both. There is going to be a massive expansion in prison places, and there are going to be more people in prison. However, at the same time, partly to reduce the need for even more prisons to be built and partly because there are alternatives to custody, there will be people leaving prison as well. It is a difficult trick to pull off, I appreciate, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is up to the task.

The Sentencing Bill shifts the focus from custodial sentences to dealing with offenders in the community. It is paramount, therefore, that probation services are adequately funded to manage the substantial increase in workload and that supporting resources, such as electronic monitoring, are available and reliable. There are several measures in the Bill that will increase the pressure on probation services. These include a statutory presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less; an extension of the availability of suspended sentences to three years rather than two; and new community orders, including those that ban offenders from public events and drinking establishments, prohibit offenders from driving and impose restriction zones on them.

In the 2023-24 annual report and accounts for the Prison and Probation Service, the overall annual leaving rate for Probation Service staff was over 10%. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation said:

“High workloads and a lack of support are critical factors in driving practitioners away from their roles”.

A report leaked to the BBC estimated that there is currently a shortfall of around 10,000 probation staff, which is four or five times the number being recruited. I welcome the extra £700 million pledged during the spending review period to assist the Probation Service in dealing with the increased pressures. It will be vital in filling the shortfall and increasing staff retention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that in response to me during Justice questions today.

The success of the measures in the Bill relies heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised its concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. In correspondence with the Committee dated 7 May this year, the Prisons Minister revealed to us the shocking fact that Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract a year earlier.

In oral evidence given to the Committee, Ministers have recognised that Serco’s performance has been unacceptable and that stronger punishments for Serco are possible, should it continue to fail. Those should include possible debarment and exclusion from bidding for public contracts. Indeed, some of us wondered how Serco was ever awarded that contract by the previous Government after the appalling fraud it committed during its previous tenure as contractor. Ministers have reassured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to have faith in Serco, but it is also evident that they cannot easily shift to another contractor as there appears to be no viable alternative.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Naturally, I had assumed that if people were not going to serve short sentences, in many cases they would be tagged. It is worrying to hear what the hon. Member is saying about Serco’s performance. Is he saying that effectively the people being tagged are not being properly monitored? In which case, does that not bring the viability of the whole system into question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

That is a valid concern. Ministers assure us that performance on the contract is improving in exactly those areas, but we are not just waiting for that improvement; we are introducing a huge additional burden, because all those offenders who will now remain in the community, rather than being incarcerated, will need tagging. I worry that an unreliable contractor with a poor record—even if it is improving—is being given a great additional burden.

Let me turn to another aspect of the Bill. It amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to revise down the statutory release point for standard determinate sentence prisoners to one third, although additional days added to time in custody as a consequence of breaches of the Prison Rules 1999, known as adjudications, will be served after the one-third point. Those changes follow the sentencing review’s recommendation that the Government should introduce an earned progression model for those serving SDSs. The review argued that, as a large proportion of offenders will be released after one third of their sentence,

“custodial sentences should be used to incentivise good behaviour and focus on limiting the risks of reoffending.”

As the sentencing review set out:

“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available.”

The review also held the view that,

“as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”

I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on what exactly is meant by a “more demanding” regime.

The Justice Committee is currently halfway through its inquiry into the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders. It has heard of the difficulties that prisons face in administering proper rehabilitation programmes when prisons are full, which results in most of their efforts being focused on dealing with day-to-day incidents and combating widespread drug use. Rehabilitative programmes also vary greatly between prisons.

I welcome the steps taken towards an earned progression model in the Bill and hope they can free up capacity to allow for a better and more consistent rehabilitative regime. It is important that once the changes are made, rehabilitative regimes remain robust and continue to be focused on combating the behaviours that lead to reoffending, rather than being focused primarily on prisoners meeting the goals that lead to their early release—that is a rare point of agreement with the shadow Lord Chancellor.

Under the earned progression model, there is also the possibility that some prisoners may stay in prison for longer than they currently would as they do not meet the new criteria for release and are required to serve additional days. That, of course, will put further strain on the numbers in prison. Prisoners should be provided with clear guidance setting out how they should implement the earned progression model. This will ensure consistency for prisoners subject to the model and ensure that victims are informed of what to expect under the scheme.

In brief, we need to ensure, first, that the reasons for rehabilitation are clear—are they undertaking additional work, or are they simply keeping their noses clean in prison? We need to consider how rehabilitation will be used in prisons in future, and we need look at every aspect of incarceration as to how the earned progression model will work.

The Bill contains two clauses that make provisions relating to the Sentencing Council. Clause 19 introduces a statutory obligation on the Sentencing Council to obtain joint approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines before final definitive guidelines are issued. It is borne out of the disagreement of the former Lord Chancellor with the Sentencing Council earlier this year regarding the revised guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. The revised guideline was the subject of much, and often poor-quality, political debate at the time.

The former Lord Chancellor promised to further review the Sentencing Council’s powers during the Bill stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 in April this year. On Second Reading, I expressed my concern that it could cause

“damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.”——[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1012.]

I also expressed regret about how it had been used to support attacks on the judiciary. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact that the Lord Chancellor’s veto in clause 19 could have on the judicial independence of the Sentencing Council.

However, if we are to have a double lock, perhaps we should have a triple lock. One suggestion that was made to me was that the Justice Committee—as well as or instead of the Lord Chancellor—should be granted the power to veto or approve guidelines. That would operate alongside the equivalent power of the Lady Chief Justice. It would go beyond the Committee’s current role as a statutory consultee for ordinary Sentencing Council guidelines, but the logic would be to rebalance power so that democratic parliamentary oversight is given to the guidelines, rather than there being a veto on behalf of only the Executive and the judiciary.

One area not covered in the Gauke review or the Bill is the question of those who are in prison on 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 such sentences causes serious distress for those who are serving them and their loved ones. I welcome the Government’s progress in reducing the numbers of IPP prisoners, with a 9% reduction in the year to 31 March 2025. More could still be done, but the work being done through the action plan by the current Prisons Minister, and indeed the previous sentencing Minister, has gone some way towards achieving that.

In 2022, the previous Justice Committee recommended that a resentencing exercise should be carried out to bring the sentencing for IPP prisoners into line with current sentencing practice. Successive Governments have chosen not to take up that recommendation. My position remains that a resentencing exercise is the most effective and comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners, and I think IPP prisoners should have been included in this legislation.

In conclusion, I welcome the legislation and commend the Government for bringing forward these bold reforms. However, I note that there are a number of areas where more detail is needed and where I can see challenges in its implementation. Many of the measures in the Bill will place extra pressures on an already stretched Probation Service. I hope that some of the issues that I have highlighted can be covered during the Bill’s passage through the House, despite the limited time that we will have in Committee of the whole House. I and my colleagues on the Justice Committee will consider ways in which we may be able to press the Government on points of concern through amendments. I hope that the Bill will go at least some way towards solving our prisons crisis and restoring the faith of the public in our damaged criminal justice system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see so many people here. We clearly cannot do justice to this subject in two and a half minutes, but in a way, the number of people here speaks more eloquently than any speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the debate and for all the work that he has done on this issue. He has rightly identified two essential elements that are necessary to ensure justice where there is a major event resulting in death or serious injury.

This is something that the Justice Committee—and the predecessor Committee to the one I chair—has been calling for for many years. Four years ago in a report, the Committee recommended that

“Non-means tested legal aid should be automatically available at the most complex inquests such as those following public disasters. In all inquests where public bodies are legally represented bereaved people should be entitled to publicly funded legal representation.”

That is something that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also found. Indeed, when considering the issue of the duty of candour in 2023, it recommended that a duty to be candid at inquests should be extended to all public bodies. That is essential if we are not to continue to make the horrific mistakes that have been made, not just in the case of Hillsborough, but in many other tragedies over the past years and decades.

In the short time I have, I will mention two other important elements. Yesterday, the Justice Committee interviewed an outstanding candidate for the Independent Public Advocate, Cindy Butts, who endorsed the need for legal representation and the duty of candour. If she is appointed later this week, as I hope she will be, she will be outstanding in championing these matters.

The final point I will mention is a national oversight mechanism, which is equally important. In many cases, even where there has been a proper hearing, recommendations have just sat on the shelf. I fully support the campaign of Inquest and other organisations to ensure that we have that mechanism in the future. It needs to be part of this package of measures going forward.

Justice

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Written Corrections

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Home Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

The following extract is from the debate on Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions on 9 July 2025.

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

What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.

[Sarah Sackman]

As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…

[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 951.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman):