Early Release of Prisoners

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to exempt from automatic early release under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026 any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences; further calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to enact this change immediately; and regrets that the Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Act 2026 that would have secured these exemptions was not agreed to.

We gather for this important debate at a dangerous but very strange moment. It is dangerous because from September, the Government will start releasing serious criminals from prison part-way through their sentences. Among them, as things stand, will be many violent criminals, including killers, rapists and child sex offenders, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against our amendment to exclude them from the early release scheme. Thanks to those Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of those released may be convicted members of the rape gangs.

Our position remains clear: not one of these dangerous, disgusting people should ever have been included in Labour’s early release scheme. It seems that the next leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—disagrees with the Justice Secretary and with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—the sentencing Minister—and agrees with us. His people told the Sunday Times that he wants to prevent child sex offenders from walking free. They say that his advisers are working on primary legislation, but they also say that as the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not taking office before the summer recess, they might not be able to act in time.

That is what is very strange about this dangerous moment. We have a Prime Minister squatting in Downing Street, holding on until the world cup final, recording videos in empty rooms about his achievements and legacy, and pretending that he will intervene to overturn Jarell Quansah’s red card, with no mandate, no purpose and no authority; and we have the next Prime Minister—indeed, the only candidate to become Prime Minister—saying that he disagrees with what the Government whom he is due to lead will do this September, but that he lacks the time or the power to do anything about it. That is pathetic. The House is sitting this week and next before the summer recess; there is plenty of time to act. The Government could amend the Sentencing Act 2026 to exclude rapists and child sex offenders through emergency legislation. They could lay new commencement regulations, delaying the instruction of the early release scheme, and give the new Prime Minister enough time to get his act together.

We have invited the Government to do those things in the motion before the House, and we understand that they will not contest it. After voting for the Sentencing Act and against our amendment to exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme, today they have folded, but they still cannot tell us the plan. Will they bring forward emergency legislation? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations? We know that these Ministers are in office, but not in power, so will the right hon. Member for Makerfield tell us, and the victims of these criminals, what will happen?

We should remember how we got here, for this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. [Interruption.] The sentencing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I understand why he is anxious; I have seen the tweets that he sent about the right hon. Member for Makerfield, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister has, too. He said he was going to be “worse than Jeremy Corbyn” and had the

“political antennae of a dead cat”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should say “worse than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)”.

[Nick Timothy]

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quoting the tweets so exactly that I forgot my responsibilities.

As I was saying, this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I took part in Rupert Lowe’s independent rape gang inquiry—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the right hon. Lady means the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Sentencing judges always consider dangerousness and risk to the public, as probation officers do. Every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is risk-assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That has happened for the last 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act.

I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gangs scandal, which lays heavily on our national conscience, and the women and girls, often young girls, who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them. Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law, but in order to do that, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, and the breakdown of law and order it could have caused, but only just. Now we are ensuring that we never again return to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure that there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end the cycle of capacity crisis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

(c) a further sum, not exceeding £8,887,226,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mark Ferguson.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Makerfield.

[Sarah Russell]

Many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) suggested in December that this might be worth looking at again, and many of us in all parts of the House would be grateful for such an approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I entirely agree, and my hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I was going to make. The increased court days are clearly vital to maintaining productivity and the efficiency of the use of court time, although that only works if the court system itself is working. We have seen very good examples of the way in which the additional days are already being used to clear backlogs and reduce the number of outstanding cases. In the English courts, we have seen evidence of the prioritisation of domestic abuse cases involving vulnerable witnesses. This can reduce waiting times, particularly for people involved in those sensitive cases—and yes, that makes a big difference to them individually, but it also makes an impact on our system as a whole.

As my hon. Friend has said, we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. I too have visited my local court, in this instance Newcastle Crown court. What was obvious, even on the day I was there, was the consequence of some of the malfunctions in the system that make it difficult for court cases to proceed, such as faulty infrastructure, the flooding of parts of the court building, dock alarms or door locks failing to operate. As a result of such problems, staff do not feel safe enough to do their work and maintain the security of the courtroom, and therefore cannot go ahead. Often it is vulnerable victims who bear the brunt of delays and cancelled court hearings.

On the day I was at Newcastle Crown court, I heard about a complainant in a rape case. Her husband was the victim of an assault by the defendant, who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait four hours for the trial to begin. They were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and that the delay to his delivery was causing the delay, but it had a knock-on effect on additional days in court. Such delays ensue right across the system.

Court staff report that, from a structural perspective, many of the issues affecting the court system in Newcastle have been caused by the departure of a full-time maintenance engineer, who was dismissed due to the need to make savings. In the light of the many delays of trials and hearings, that appears to be a false economy, which is why I am pleased that the Government have recognised the challenges to the court estate itself and are making investments. I am also really pleased that the Minister is acting on the huge problem of private contractors delivering defendants to an incorrect court, several hours late or just not at all.

Midway through a trial in Newcastle in April, a defendant left court in custody on a Friday, only to fail to reappear the following Monday, with a jury ready and waiting. It is completely unacceptable, a total waste of taxpayers’ money and hugely offensive to those taking part in trials. I know the Minister is aware of these issues and is keen to establish an oversight body to review the prisoner transfer process from end to end. I will keep a very close eye on that, and I am sure that other Members contributing to this debate will do the same.

Finally, I know that the Government recognise the importance of providing free legal advice, as set out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. The Public Accounts Committee has recognised the importance of investing up to £34 million more a year in criminal aid, which is welcome.

I conclude by asking the Minister to join me in recognising both the human and the financial benefit of timely justice, the absolute importance of maintaining our court estate, and the improvements. Where we see good practice happening across our system, it must be shared. I often hear good ideas and wonder why they are not being done elsewhere, and we need to have a system in which good practice is shared and best practice is rolled out for the benefit of justice right across the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s estimates day debate on criminal justice, and I put on the record my thanks to the three Chairs of the Select Committees that suggested this debate to the Backbench Business Committee: the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown); the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley); and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). I also thank all hon. Members who have stuck it out in the Chamber on a Monday evening, who clearly care about criminal justice.

Politics is all about priorities, and so often the justice system falls a little short. Unless members of the public have had experience of the criminal justice system, have been victims of crime or have a loved one who has had the experience of going through the system, it does not necessarily appear in their top five priorities for the Government, but I thank all those who work to keep the criminal justice system functioning despite the lack of investment, the often crumbling infrastructure and the huge amount of pressure on them to ensure that justice is served.

The system as it stands lets down victims and defendants alike. It fails to rehabilitate offenders, and so many never see the justice that they deserve. The Crown court backlog is clearly unacceptably high, and that opinion is shared across the House. It is the biggest challenge that the justice system faces, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said in his contribution. Its exponential growth requires urgent action, but the fix does not lie in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials. Jury trials provide a fundamental safeguard of fairness and liberty, and they are not the cause of the backlog.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not fundamentally believe that the Government have successfully made the case that their reforms will reduce the backlog or make any cost saving to the Department. The modelling has still not been made available, and the estimates behind the claimed time savings have been widely questioned. Even accepting the Government’s own estimates, it will take a decade for the backlog to fall below current levels. Indeed, the backlog is currently predicted to continue increasing and to surpass 100,000 cases by the end of next year.

What has been proven to reduce the backlog across the country is the very welcome uncapping of sitting days, and we are pleased that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been allocated a £143.1 million uplift, including the funding for uncapped sitting days. With the previous increases in sitting days that the Government announced in the last round, Crown court backlogs are beginning to fall. The Old Bailey reduced its backlog in 2025. In Chelmsford, it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction in its backlog. Across the country, the overall Crown court backlog in the last quarter fell for the first time in three years. So the truth is that proper funding for our courts and open sitting days are bringing down the backlog, and we are yet to see the result of the full uncapping of sitting days, which came into place only in April.

Given the scepticism that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has expressed about jury trial reform, I hope the Government will give serious consideration to changing course. He told BBC Radio Manchester that the Government should

“pause…this and take a step back and have proper consideration”,

as the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned.

On another area of the criminal justice system, we Liberal Democrats have put forward several amendments, such as training for court staff, so that the victim experience is better, because victims often report feeling unsupported or unheard. The Government must do more to continue their journey to ensure that the court system centres victims’ experience. Part of that experience is the processing after a criminal case, and access to court transcripts for victims. I acknowledge that the Government have made steps to improve access, after robust negotiations in both Houses on various Bills since July 2024, most recently the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Act 2026.

I put on record the exemplary effort made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has been campaigning to ensure that court transcripts are made available for free to victims of crime, after a constituent of hers was quoted thousands of pounds to access the transcript of her own court case. Nobody should be priced out of seeing their own story in black and white after they have gone through a Crown court experience. Charlotte Meijer and the campaign Open Justice for All have been campaigning incredibly on this issue. They have published a letter calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to go further and faster, and that includes ensuring that magistrates courts are recorded and sentencing remarks are made available for free in all courts.

We are not here to discuss the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but it does not seem to be progressing currently or coming back to the House in any rush. I would be quite happy for clauses 1 to 8 to never appear again, but other clauses that do really important things—introducing recording in magistrates courts, repealing the presumption against parental responsibility—are key to strengthening our justice system and our family courts.

We repeatedly hear stories of failings in infrastructure such as roofs collapsing, IT systems not working, and evidence being shared on a memory stick and being lost during a hearing. The Ministry of Justice must get a grip of this chance to change that and to improve the environment for those working in the courts and those attending them.

I will briefly move on to prisons, which continue to run very hot. They are overcrowded, understaffed and increasingly unable to rehabilitate offenders. Violence is rife, with an average of 28 assaults on staff every day across the prison estate. On the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater about higher sickness levels, I think that is in large part due to the stress experienced by prison staff. We see the same in the Probation Service, which has a much higher sickness rate than other civil service departments, and I think it is also largely due to stress.

The Liberal Democrats believe that rehabilitation must be at the heart of any approach within our prison system. That means investing in better education, alongside introducing a through-the-gates mentoring programme to support prisoners as they transition back into society. Education is a key area. I recently raised it with the MOJ, because Government analysis shows a significant decrease in core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been felt most acutely in women’s prisons, where there has been a 30% fall in the number of hours for which women can access prison education. The Government urgently need to set out a plan to reverse that trend, otherwise the cycle of reoffending will simply continue for far too many people. Reoffending, as mentioned by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is estimated to cost taxpayers £20.9 billion every year.

I sat down with a group of ex-offenders earlier this year, working with the organisation Revolving Doors. One of the ex-offenders I was chatting to had been in prison 17 times on short sentences. He explained that drug addiction was ruling his life; when he was released from prison, in order to fund a drug addiction that was costing him £250 a day, he would commit theft to the value of £750 a day. He would re-sell the stolen items so that he could afford his drug habit. This shows that there is a cost to our businesses as well. If we do not get the criminal justice system working, and if we do not invest in people and stop the cycle of reoffending to fund addiction, those people get trapped in the criminal justice system. Nowhere in our system is the “investor save” principle stronger than in our criminal justice system.

A well-functioning Probation Service is indispensable to rehabilitating ex-offenders. A dysfunctional Probation Service fails victims. Probation officers are expected to manage ever larger caseloads while receiving less training. Combined with poor pay, it is little wonder that many leave, despite wanting to help. A probation officer said to me, in one of my surgeries, that when she first started in probation 30 years ago, she spent 30 minutes with an offender she was managing. When she came out of the meeting, her boss said, “Why on earth did you only spend 30 minutes with that person? How on earth could you get to know them in just 30 minutes?” She said that if she spends 30 minutes with somebody now, she is told she needs to speed up because she has spent far too long with them and has far too many people to get through. She has stuck it out—she is still in the Probation Service—but so many people leave. We have a real retention crisis, because nobody goes into probation to tick boxes; they go in because they truly believe that they can change people’s lives.

In February this year, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the efficiency and reliability of the Probation Service. It concluded that

“the Probation Service in England and Wales is failing”,

that it is

“teetering on the edge of collapse”,

and that its performance has significantly worsened since the MOJ and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service brought probation under full public control in 2018-19. The failure of the system is epitomised by record numbers of prisoners being recalled to custody. At the end of March 2025, recalled prisoners accounted for 15% of the entire prison population—a 49% increase since 2021. I recognise that the Government will have invested £700 million in probation by 2028-29, but we are yet to see a significant step change to show that that investment has stabilised the service. It is not just about the investment, though; it is about the culture shift that is desperately needed in probation. I have had many conversations with the Prisons Minister in the other place on this topic and I know it is something he feels passionately about.

Keeping the public safe also requires improvements to policing, a return to visible neighbourhood policing and an end to the scourge of officers stuck behind desks completing administrative work. Even though policing has received an uplift, cases are, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds said, far more complex and require far more police time. This situation—alongside the alarming reduction in police front counters and stations—has left communities, especially those in my constituency, feeling abandoned. I should not see constituents turning around with shock when they see a police officer walking down the street with me in areas like Selsey; they are so not used to community policing people acted like they had never seen a police officer before when they saw us. The Government should commit, as part of their upcoming police force reorganisation, to embedding a dedicated rural and coastal crime team in every police force, ensuring that rural crime does not go unpunished.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

As my hon. Friend and the House will know, the reoffending rate is around 50%. Given the numbers he has just announced, it is inevitable that serious crimes will be committed. If the Government are committed to this policy, which I hope they are not, and want to release people early, which I do not agree with, they should not release these serious criminals. They should instead release the less serious criminals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will remind the shadow Minister that this is a debate on the estimates—perhaps we could return to them.

[Dr Mullan]

If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking about a major issue that relates directly to the estimates: the prison building programme, the need for that programme and what the Government are doing to manage the prison population. I believe it is directly related to the estimates in that regard.

I repeat, sincerely, that multiple Governments of different parties have let prisoners out of prison early in order to manage prison crises, but they have never let rapists and child groomers out early. Government Members are therefore backing a totally unnecessary way of managing prison capacity. They really do not have to do it. They are being forced into doing so, and I feel very sorry for them as a result.

It is difficult to understand how the Government can lay these estimates before the House and put forward a proposal for changes to sentencing if they do not even know how many people they are letting out of prison and for what reason. I cannot believe that the Minister thinks that that is acceptable, and it will be difficult for her to justify. But, to be fair, she may also struggle to answer a basic question about her own responsibilities—about her plans to erode our right to jury trial and to abolish our right to elect.

The Conservatives will oppose any erosion of the right to jury trial. It is a constitutional protection that belongs to people, not to the convenience of a Government. The evidence does not support the case that jury trials are the cause of the backlog; empty courtrooms are. We are awaiting a date for Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Given the political situation, and considering the Minister’s planned capital and revenue expenditure in this area, I think it is entirely legitimate to ask whether the proposal on jury trials is even still Government policy. When the legislation that is meant to address the central crisis in our criminal justice system is dependent on who wins an internal party election in the next few weeks—if there even is one—that is not a functioning legislative programme; it is chaos dressed up as reform.

Are the Government laser-focused on what will actually work to bring the backlog down? No. Instead, they have been laser-focused on driving through unnecessary vandalism on one of our oldest constitutional rights. While the backlog is still much too high, the backlogs in Crown courts are stabilising and even coming down in some areas. The Government have announced uncapped Crown court sitting days for 2026-27, and we absolutely welcome that, even though it took much too long. It is exactly what we have called for consistently, and I give credit where it is due.

We have seen the first quarterly decline in Crown court backlogs across England and Wales in three years in the most recent data. The Criminal Bar Association points out that in particular areas of the country, the reductions are more significant. In the south-east of England, the backlogs in courts are down 3.1% over three months and 4.2% over six months. In the north-west of England, they are down 2.3% over three months and 3.3% over six months. In the north-east of England, they are down 2.9% in three months. In Wales, they are down 2.4% over three months. Meanwhile, the figure for magistrates courts shows an all-time peak of more than 370,000 cases at the end of March this year, up 2% on the previous quarter—and the magistrates courts are where the Government want to send more cases.

We heard again and again in the first stages of the Courts and Tribunals Bill that the workforce, whether it be in the courts, judges or legal representatives, can bring the backlogs down, but that the jury reforms were an unnecessary distraction. According to the X feed of the monitoring account Idle Courts, recently as many as 123 out of 516 Crown courtrooms—nearly a quarter—were standing empty on working days. We know that that was not because there were no cases to hear, no juries or no defendants. It was because of issues such as listing challenges, staffing shortages and the underutilisation of available court space.

To date, the Government have not listened and have refused to drop those parts of the Bill that are, as the hon. Member for Chichester said, clearly unwelcome to so many in the workforce. I hope we learn today that what we are told about the views of the right hon. Member for Makerfield is correct and that this unacceptable plan to erode our jury rights will be dropped.

Let me turn to the Home Office elements of this debate, because the two Departments are inextricably linked. Members will understand that it is not the day-to-day responsibility of the Minister or I, but we both know that what happens at the front end—policing, charging, and bail—flows directly into the courts, with probation and prisons at the back end. Police officer numbers fell by more than 1,000 in just one year under this Government, from September 2024 to September 2025, and the total number of people involved in policing fell by 3,000. The National Police Chiefs’ Council said in response to this year’s funding settlement and the estimates that we are debating that many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.

The Government cannot simultaneously claim to want swifter justice and a safer society while allowing the frontline workforce who investigate crime, make arrests and build prosecutions to continue to shrink. The Conservatives’ plan would put 10,000 extra officers on the streets, triple the use of stop and search, and introduce facial recognition technology in the worst crime hotspots.

On asylum, the Home Office estimates that there are more than 400,000 illegal migrants in the UK—people in this country illegally—but nearly half cannot be removed because of outstanding asylum and human rights claims. Total spending on asylum support remains at over £4.5 billion, and the decision of the Government to put even more asylum seekers in more expensive locations such as Crowborough in Wealden in the constituency of your fellow Deputy Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, is going to cost more money than if they were to be kept in their original places.

Let me close with this. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said that the focus of the debate can be distilled to concerns about the risks to public safety and trust, and he is right. We are spending more than ever before on our criminal justice system—billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money flow through the estimates we are debating—but reoffending is rising, rape gang survivors are being told that their abusers may be freed early and police officer numbers are falling. The Government may be about to change their Prime Minister, and with that the MOJ will more than likely welcome a new Lord Chancellor, so policies announced with great fanfare may quietly disappear over the summer, but the people waiting for Crown court hearings and the victims seeing criminals walk free will still be there.

We will not oppose the estimate, but we will not let the Government off the hook, either. They have had nearly two years and the numbers are not getting any better. The public deserve better. The Opposition will hold them to account for every one of these figures, whoever happens to be sitting in Downing Street when we do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Prison education is vital, and I have seen some fantastic examples of it, in particular on a recent visit to High Down. Prison education can take many forms, such as vocational training and education in a conventional sense. In some senses, the bigger question is how do we make our prisons safe? There is no point in having outstanding education—I agree with the hon. Member that it is important; I do not think we disagree on this—if drones are bringing drugs and contraband into prisons, as he pointed out, and if prisons are overcrowded. If that is the case, it is almost impossible to deliver and see the benefit of that education. The fact that this Government are prioritising, through a £40 million investment, a drone prevention programme, that we are building new prisons that are fit for people to live in and receive that education, is a choice that makes sense and that, as I said, prevents so much of the problem.

Violence reduction units, the prison reform Bill, and the workforce plan that the Home Office has put forward are all part of the choice—I return to that theme—that the Government make, whether on policing, courts, prisons, or probation. We choose to fix the mess, and when we see a problem we make the choices required to fix it. Investment, modernisation and reform: the contrast between that and the choices that Opposition Members made when in government could not be starker. We must now give the plan a chance to work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to wind up the debate briefly.

G7 Summit

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Despite the repartee, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that in our constitutional system, just as I deputised for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last week and answered questions on a range of issues on behalf of the Government, I deputise today to update the House on the G7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Jess Brown-Fuller.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”

Those are the appalling words of Israeli Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, posted three days ago. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister will stand up and condemn this genocidal and, frankly, psychopathic language. Considering the very fragile ceasefire with Lebanon, does the Deputy Prime Minister see any version of lasting peace in the middle east with Ben-Gvir continuing to serve in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and are further sanctions on him possible?

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I do. The hon. Member is right: the problem with these reforms is that they are not going to speed up the criminal justice system or solve the backlog issues. We have rehearsed all the challenges that the system faces—we know what they are, and they need to be addressed, but abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I would like to spend a few minutes on a missed opportunity in this Bill: dealing with the state of our immigration and asylum system, which we all know the Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those claims, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the Government began clearing up the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within the scope of this Bill rather than discussing asylum hotels.

[Gideon Amos]

The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,

“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”

There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.

Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I propose putting in place a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members will be aware that a large number of people still wish to speak, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

There is absolutely no doubt that long delays in criminal court shake public confidence, and I can only imagine the distress of victims forced to wait years for justice. In my role as an MP, I have supported those who have experienced repeat offences as they wait for stalkers to face justice. It is tragic that cases collapse because victims cannot face reliving their experience, or witnesses’ memories fade. It is not just victims who are harmed by these delays. Defendants, who are innocent until proven guilty under the law, are also having their life suspended, and those defendants deserve fairness.

I am deeply worried about the income thresholds for legal aid in the magistrates court. It is ridiculous that someone in an entry-level minimum wage job will not automatically be eligible. How is that justice? Do the Government really believe that unless someone can afford to fund their defence, their freedom should be at stake? I hope that if this Bill passes Second Reading, the Government will put forward some substantial changes.

At the heart of my concern about this Bill is the fundamental shift in the role of the magistrate and the bench division. A typical magistrates trial lasts five to six hours; a similar case in the Crown court is likely to take three to four days. That is for good reason, as more legal direction ensures that victims and defendants understand the process and upholds the integrity of justice. I am deeply concerned that if complex cases carrying sentences of up to 24 months in prison are passed over to the magistrates court, they, too, will become longer, creating even bigger backlogs, and just shifting the problem somewhere else. What assessment has been carried out—I have asked this on several occasions—of the capacity of magistrates to sit in multi-day trials? Those trials require attendance day after day, so younger working magistrates will be far less likely to be able to take part in them.

The Magistrates Association has deemed that 17,000 magistrates are needed, and we have only 14,000. Previous recruitment drives have not generated enough applicants. Where is the evidence that our communities can find these extra people, who can give this extra time? The other problem is the age of magistrates. While there are some notable exceptions in the Chamber, 81% of magistrates are over 50. That is much higher than the average age of a judge. This proposal widens the demographic gap between the court and those facing justice. Juries provide broader diversity in age and background.

This Bill is a real diversion. We have an insufficient number of magistrates now; where is the evidence that people will be willing and able to fulfil this critical and increasingly difficult role, in which they can take someone’s liberty for up to two years? That is a huge responsibility for somebody who is not legally trained. Speaking of legally trained people, I have raised the issue of access to legal advisers before. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that there will be more money for legal advisers, but that was before this proposal came forward. I raised the matter after seeing the issues locally. I see no evidence that enough legal advisers are willing to work at this lowest rung of the court system to support magistrates.

I also wanted to raise the issue of the processes in the magistrates courts. One of my constituents, having been denied the right to go to the Crown court, has been told that she has just 27 minutes to plead her case, which she feels is a denial of her rights. We are talking about cases in which liberty is at risk, and a criminal conviction could lead to the loss of employment or travel rights, and could have a reputational impact for years to come, so we really must consider the effect of this significant move on both victims and defendants.

I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor can tell us who said that

“juries are representative of local populations”,

and

“a filter for prejudice”;

that

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,

and that the Government should not fix backlogs by abandoning a

“valuable tradition for short term benefit”

in either-way trials.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

Court Reporting Data

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. and learned Lady will know that she had three minutes, which she has used. I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Mullan]

Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies?

The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is.

This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [Interruption.] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided.

Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [Interruption.] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company.

We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS.

Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [Interruption.] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible.

Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means.

Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for setting out the data protection issues that have been identified with Courtsdesk, but can she explain why her Department ignored the 16 letters written by Courtsdesk asking for dialogue before deciding to do away with the system? As was pointed out by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), it is the only centralised tool for justice reporting. Reporters have described the MOJ’s own data as fragmented, incomplete and impractical to navigate, and according to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, its own records on court listings were accurate just 4% of the time. It is those gaps that Courtsdesk was designed to fill by providing clear and accurate information for reporters.

Doing away with this platform will naturally add to the feeling that the MOJ is avoiding difficult questions and dodging accountability by undermining journalism. Will the Minister suspend the deletion of the archive until the Information Commissioner’s Office has looked into these issues and drawn its own conclusions? If she insists on going ahead with the deletion in the coming days, will she please give an indication of a timeline within which we can expect a platform that will serve the same purpose?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that we have privately crowdfunded a rape gang inquiry, which is ongoing. During the course of the inquiry, we have uncovered vast evil that is happening across the country, as well as systemic state failures. When we release the report, we are intending to pursue private prosecutions against those who failed, so will—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question ought to relate to the urgent question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair. I do not intend to continue the debate via points of order.

Sentencing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

After Clause 19

Court transcripts of sentencing remarks

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.

Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.

[Jake Richards]

I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.

As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,

“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”

It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,

“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.

I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.

The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.

The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders; police without the capacity to make arrests; courts unable to hold trials; and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can the Minister perhaps restrict himself to the amendments?

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the next steps for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law.

As Members will be aware, the Bill was due to return to the Chamber today for its remaining Commons stages. From the very beginning we have been clear: it is a Bill for families, and it must have their voices and views at its heart. We remain absolutely committed to making meaningful changes for the families of Hillsborough, the Manchester terror attack, the Grenfell Tower fire, the sub-postmasters and, sadly, so many more.

The Bill is about something very simple: what people should be able to expect from the state when the worst, sadly, happens: candour, transparency, frankness and a system that stands with families, not against them—not a battle against the full might of the state. That is why the Bill is so important and is so long overdue, and it is why we will always be open to listening.

On Second Reading, the Prime Minister made a commitment that the Bill would not be watered down, and that any changes made to it will only strengthen it. We have always been clear that the Hillsborough law will apply to all public authorities, including the intelligence services. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the duty of candour would need to apply differently to the intelligence services, to get the right balance between transparency and national security. Last week, the Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill, including to extend the duty of candour directly to individuals working for the intelligence agencies, as well as to the authorities themselves. This was a direct response to concerns raised by MPs and campaigners.

There have been reports in the press that the Government wanted to water down aspects of the Bill. I want to take those claims head on, because, with respect, that was never, ever our intention. It is not what the amendments we proposed would have done. The amendments aimed to strengthen the Bill by extending the duty to individual employees of the intelligence services, as well as to the services as organisations. However, it is clear from our conversations with the families directly and with the stakeholders that there are concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed will work in practice.

There will be questions about why we could not find a solution and why we need to delay when families have been clear on their views. I want to be clear that this is an incredibly complex area of policy. Across Government, we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences for national security, and then work together with Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the campaigners and, most of all, the families to find a way through.

It is right to acknowledge that this is not a simple issue to resolve. We are absolutely committed to the principles of the Bill: ensuring clear standards for all public servants and accountability for anyone who seeks to lie or cover up the truth. At the same time, our primary duty as the Government is to keep this country safe and secure. We must be able to assure our citizens and our allies that national security information will always be protected.

The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward on this issue, which is why we have taken the decision to delay the remaining Commons stages of the Bill so that we can find a solution and bring it forward in this House. This pause is not a step back from our principles; it is a commitment to getting this right. I know that families have waited too long already. This decision is not one we took lightly, but we believe it is better to take the time needed to resolve the complex issues, rather than rush the Bill through.

I want to place on the record my deepest thanks to the families and stakeholders for all their continued work with us. It has been the biggest privilege for me, personally, to have had the opportunity to get to know them and to work alongside them over the last year—in particular Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, who I now personally count as my friends, and I hope they feel the same.

The Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state. That trust cannot be demanded: it must be earned. It must be earned by showing the families that this legislation is not about appearances, not about headlines, not about being seen to act; it is about making real and lasting change. By listening to the families, and by taking time to get this right, that is exactly what we are doing. Because when things go wrong, the truth must come out. Accountability must follow and families must never, ever again be left to fight or walk alone. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent campaigning on this matter throughout his entire life as a parliamentarian, and for his commitment to ensuring that the voices of the families are always heard inside and outside this place. I make the commitment to him that the Government are listening to the campaigners and committed to doing all we can to work on a way forward. We will work with him, with other parliamentarians and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to find that way forward on this complex and difficult issue. I am committed to having a meeting with him to discuss that further.

On a timeline, we know that families have waited too long. The Bill is not just overdue; it is far too overdue, and it is needed more than ever. However, it has to be right, and we have to get the balance right. We are not kicking the Bill into the long grass; we are committed to doing this as soon as possible, but we have to get it right. I am not setting an arbitrary deadline here—the families have asked me not to, because they want us to get it right. We are committed to doing that and to getting this policy correct. As soon as we have more information, I will bring that forward to the House.

My hon. Friend mentioned his specific amendment. Again, I am happy to speak with him on that and discuss it going forward. Again, I make the commitment that we will work together to get this right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. Separation centres are a vital part of our strategy to manage those who pose the most significant terrorist risk. Following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland in April this year, we took immediate action to ensure safety in our separation centres. Today, everyone is safe and a stringent regime remains in place.

Our prison officers are some of the hardest-working and bravest public servants in this country. It is right that they feel safe as they work to protect the public. That is why, following the attack at Frankland, we mandated the use of protective body armour in our highest-risk units, including our SCs, for the first time. The Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced a further £15 million investment in safety equipment, including to roll out up to 10,000 pieces of body armour to up to 500 staff trained in the use of Tasers.

The Abu judgment is very fact-specific and does not threaten the integrity of the separation centres themselves. This Government take the judgment and others that were referenced very seriously. We are clear that any decision regarding segregation must comply with prison rules and human rights obligations, including under the European convention on human rights. We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust and are strengthening our ability to defend against legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only where the criteria are met.

Let me be clear: the Government will always put national security first. Separation centres remain an essential operational tool, and we will continue to use these specialist units to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick]

Sahayb Abu is a danger to this country. This is an ISIS fanatic who bought a combat vest and a sword so that he could, in his own words, “shoot up a crowd”, yet this week the High Court ruled that keeping him apart from other prisoners to prevent him from radicalising them was a breach of his human rights. We have reached the perverse situation where a terrorist’s mental health is prioritised over national security and the protection of the very men and women in uniform who are targets for these dangerous individuals with very little to lose. Abu is now in line for a payout from the taxpayer.

This is not an isolated incident; it is the latest in a line, including the double murderer and extremist Fuad Awale and Denny De Silva. Every extremist housed in a separation centre may now be able to deploy this judgment to escape being housed in such a unit and to get a payout. Terrorists are weaponising the ECHR and the public sector equality duty to milk the state, and the Ministry of Justice is signing the cheques. I note that the Minister did not say that she would be appealing this judgment.

The separation centre regime was created to counter highly subversive terrorists recruiting inside jail and to ensure protection for prison officers, which is effectively collapsing. Prison governors are being paralysed just when there is a crisis of extremism and extreme violence in our prisons, necessitating more separation centres and more segregation.

Will the Minister finally publish Jonathan Hall KC’s review of separation centres, which was produced as evidence in court but which has not been published to this House or the country? Will she say that under no circumstances will any terrorist be rewarded in this manner, and bring forward emergency legislation to override this judgment, prevent payout, protect national security and protect our prison officers? I have said many times that it is only a matter of time before an officer gets killed by one of these monsters. Will the Minister bring forward this legislation? If she does, she will have the Opposition’s support; if she does not, we will do so.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I am unable to pre-empt decisions that are yet to be taken by the courts. The Government will always ensure that taxpayer money is used responsibly and effectively. On the most recent judicial review, announced just yesterday, the Government are considering all the available options, including the right to appeal. I want to put that on the record.

I find it quite disingenuous that the right hon. Gentleman—the almost Leader of the Opposition—talks about leaving the European convention on human rights. If he feels so strongly about this, why did his party do absolutely nothing on it when it was in government for 14 years? The Conservatives talk about action; this Labour Government are acting. We have been clear that we will not fail to act on reform of the ECHR; in fact, the sentencing Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—is in Strasbourg right now having discussions with partners on a range of topics, including reform of the ECHR.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres. The Government commissioned that following the attack at HMP Frankland, and Mr Hall’s report and our response will be published in due course. Let me just say, for the avoidance of any doubt, that it is the priority of this Government—as it should be of all Governments—to keep the public safe and to protect national security. This Government will always ensure that that is done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

May I thank the Minister for reaffirming the Government’s support—which it should not be necessary to do—for the rule of law and the ECHR? Will she concentrate on the key points here? The first is making sure that the most dangerous prisoners are held securely and the second is ensuring the safety of prison officers. Will she also say what the status of Jonathan Hall KC’s review is? I understand that it has been with the Lord Chancellor for some months. When will we see that and when will we implement the recommendations of the report?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I have stated, the Government are committed to ensuring that separation centres continue to prevent those who pose the highest terrorist risk from influencing the wider prison population. That is precisely why we commissioned Jonathan Hall’s independent review following the appalling attack at HMP Frankland. Mr Hall has delivered his findings, which we and the Lord Chancellor are grateful for, and which we are considering very closely and with the utmost seriousness. We will publish the review and the Government response very shortly, but we are taking all relevant steps to ensure that our prisons and our prison staff are safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

What a sorry state of affairs. This case highlights the consequences of a prison system, which includes separation centres, that was overstretched and under-resourced by the last Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a prominent member—he has now forgotten that.

Please will the Minister confirm what assessment the Ministry of Justice has made of the decade of Tory underfunding and overcrowding, which left prisons unable to safely manage violent extremists such as those we have been talking about? Will she also outline how Abu’s ideology and violent behaviour escalated the need for extreme segregation measures? Finally, violent attacks on prison staff are on the rise. We have seen high-profile cases of prisoners, including one from my constituency of Woking, being accidentally released. What assurances will the Minister give us, as MPs, that public safety and the protection of prison staff will be prioritised in the under-resourced prison system that the Government inherited from the Conservatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the past, the convention has served the victims of John Worboys, the families of the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, and it underpins the Good Friday agreement. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservative party, after 14 years of failing to do anything on the ECHR, seeks for us to withdraw from it, when the only other country to do have done so is Russia under Vladimir Putin. Is that the company the Conservative party wants to keep?

We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust, and we are strengthening our ability to defend against any legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only when the criteria are met, but to answer my hon. Friend’s question specifically, the Conservative Government, as we have already heard, left our prisons at breaking point. They were at 99% capacity, and the Law Society of England and Wales has stated that the answer to that is not leaving the ECHR.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When it comes to terrorists, what is worrying a lot of us is the fact that people are pouring across the channel illegally and there is absolutely no check whatsoever on them. The Minister may not be able to answer this now, but I am interested in the state of the law. Surely it is a very risky thing for our nation that our enemies could be infiltrating our country in this way. Would it be possible under the refugee convention to detain all illegal migrants, do full background checks on them, and put them in separation centres or whatever, so that we can check that these people are actually safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the extension of an offer to help. I will ensure that that is followed up with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. We will follow the evidence and do what works to keep our prisons safe. We will assess the risks of any further radicalisation in our separation centres and our prisons to ensure that that is not happening, and we will keep under review whether any individuals pose a danger through extending their views to the prison population or to the public. I look forward to working with counterparts in Northern Ireland to share knowledge and expertise to ensure that we get this right for everyone across the United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for her short, sharp answers—perhaps a masterclass for what is to follow. Business questions will run for an hour and no more.

Victims and Courts Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am very conscious that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made an impassioned and moving speech, but I remind Members that we must refer to her as the hon. Member for Bolsover.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of new clauses 13 and 14 and the expansion to clause 3. I served with some colleagues in Committee, but may I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed tonight? We have had a series of impassioned speeches from across the House, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for their powerful contributions.

The amendments we are discussing this evening are a significant step forward in protecting victims of serious violence and they will help thousands of people. They will help to ensure the safety of victims of serious sexual abuse and victims of crime who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and, crucially, these amendments will also protect children.

New clause 14 will ensure the protection of children born of rape. On Second Reading, I spoke of a constituent who had had a child as a result of an abusive relationship. She told me of the extreme difficulties she had been facing as she had passed through a long and complex custody battle. She asked me if we, as politicians, could look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I am very pleased that new clause 14 will protect children born in such circumstances. No longer will children born of rape, or their mothers, be forced to have a relationship with a rapist. Currently, mothers in some cases must co-parent with a rapist. Women should not be forced to include their rapist in decisions on their child’s healthcare, schooling, or any other aspects of a child’s life. Children should not have to be raised by rapists.

Mothers who have a child born of rape should be safe in the knowledge that having a child will not tie them to their rapist. Automatic restriction of parental responsibility will ensure that mothers and children are safer. Rapists should not have the automatic right to interfere with their victims’ lives. This clause frees families from the stress and pain of applying to court by ensuring that this restriction is immediate.

The expansion to clause 3 similarly ensures that any person convicted of serious sex offences against any child has their parental rights removed. The safety of children is the utmost priority, and expanding this measure from those who have abused their own child to those who have seriously abused any child will ensure the safety of the children the perpetrator is closest to. Paedophiles should have no right to look after any child.

I am also pleased to see that new clause 13 will allow us to clamp down on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which are used to hide instances where a crime has occurred. Victims of crime should not have to worry about who they speak to regarding the crime of which they are a victim, and non-disclosure agreements should not be used to silence victims of crimes, nor should they stop witnesses coming forward. This change will mean that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak to their friends, their family and their support system, but they can also speak to their employers and, if necessary, to journalists. I very much welcome the closing of this loophole, which allows criminals to scare victims into not sharing their experiences. The law must not protect those who seek to silence victims.

These amendments will allow us to take significant steps towards the Government’s aim of halving violence towards women and girls. But more than that, these amendments serve to give victims of serious violent crime justice.

Sentencing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

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

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

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

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Before I call the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to move amendment 46, I should advise the Committee that once that amendment has been disposed of at the end of the debate, I am provisionally minded to call the following amendments and new clauses for separate decision: amendment 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan); new clause 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty); new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; and new clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

Clause 1

Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert

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

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 50, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

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

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 48, page 3, line 8, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 49, page 3, line 8, after “at” leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Amendment 51, page 4, line 3, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

Amendment 52, page 4, line 3, after “12 months” insert

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

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea (typically one third).

Amendment 55, page 4, line 6, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

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

Amendment 36, page 4, line 11, at end insert

“, or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 Sentencing Act 2020, it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”

Government amendments 4 and 5.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 15, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 54, page 5, line 15, leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “monthly income” means monthly income after deduction of—

(a) such amounts as are required to be paid or deducted from the offender’s income under, or by virtue of, any enactment, or

(b) such amounts as may be specified in the regulations.”

This amendment changes the definition of “monthly income” for the purposes of income reduction orders so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income as a result of other enactments (such as child support maintenance payments or under an attachment of earnings order) is not counted for those purposes.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 4, after “(including victims of crime” insert “, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.

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

Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.

Amendment 30, in clause 6, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Amendment 31, page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court or officer is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court or officer has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court or officer is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that a service offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the service offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that the service offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 9 to 11.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Government amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.

Government amendments 16 and 17.

Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 37, line 14, at end insert—

“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

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

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

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

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

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm;

(j) grooming;

(k) stalking;

(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult; or

(m) death by dangerous driving, and

(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, and”.

This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.

Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 24, page 46, leave out lines 20 to 23.

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

Amendment 34, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) In exercising any power under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations made by the offender.’”

This amendment introduces a right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality.

Amendment 35, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) The Secretary of State must not include a condition under subsection (4)(b)(di) (a restriction zone condition) in a licence, either on release or subsequently, or vary or cancel any such condition included in a licence, unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to do so (and must, if the Board so directs, include, vary or cancel such a condition).’”

This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones which will confine offenders to specific areas in the community while on licence.

Amendment 44, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

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

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

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

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

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

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

Amendment 45, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

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

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 33, in clause 26, page 50, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 254 (recall of prisoners while on licence), in subsection (1) after ‘prison’ insert—

‘where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance with licence conditions or a specific and imminent risk of harm.’”

This amendment gives effect to the recommendation 4.3 of the Independent Sentencing Review for “stricter criteria and thresholds” for recall.

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

Amendment 22, in clause 29, page 55, line 5, leave out “both” and insert “more”.

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.

Amendment 23, page 55, line 27, at end insert—

“(8A) The third condition is that the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of the crime for which P is serving the sentence in question.”

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.

Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.

Amendment 32, in clause 35, page 65, line 33, at end insert—

“(7) Before making regulations under section 46 to bring this section into force, the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to providers of probation services about how to discharge those functions lawfully having regard to—

(a) section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and

(b) the data protection legislation (see section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

(8) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under subsection (7) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has consulted providers of probation services and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate about a draft of the code,

(b) the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the code before each House of Parliament, and

(c) each House of Parliament has by a resolution approved the draft of the code.”

This amendment prevents 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 light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the 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 approval from both Houses.

Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.

Government amendment 19.

Clause 45 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—

New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

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

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

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

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

New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 5—Further release after recall: offenders eligible for risk-assessed release—

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

(2) In section 255C, after subsection (3) insert—

(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of a crime for which P is serving a sentence.

(3B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which P returns to custody, P must be considered for referral for executive release rather than automatic release;

(b) if P is referred for consideration for executive release, the Secretary of State may release P again on licence, and

(c) if P is not referred for consideration for executive release, or if P is denied executive release, the Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board.”

This new clause, along with amendments 22 and 23, would ensure that offenders who have been recalled to prison on the basis of a breach of license condition or of an order related to the victim are risk-assessed, to determine whether it is safe for them to be re-released into the community, rather than being automatically released after 56 days.

New clause 6—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—

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

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

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

New clause 7—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—

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

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

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

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

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

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

New clause 8—Victim personal statements—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 9—Duty to collect and publish data on sentencing—

“(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—

(a) the offence category;

(b) the sentence length; and

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations, but which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) sex at birth,

(iii) country of birth,

(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(v) visa route,

(vi) visa status, and

(vii) asylum status.

(2) HMCTS must collect and record the information set out in subsection (1) in a safe and secure manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish statistics on the information set out in subsection (1) no less than once every three months.”

This new clause would require HMCTS to collect data and other information on sentencing and sentenced offenders, and would require the Government to publish statistics on that data every three months.

New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

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

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

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

New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—

“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8 (Child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children), in the closing words of subsection (3), after ‘include’ insert ‘proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrate’s Court under section 10A or’.

(3) After section 10 insert—

‘10A Duty of a sentencing court to make a prohibited steps order in respect of sexual offences

(1) This section applies where an offender has parental responsibility for a child and the offender is convicted of a sexual offence involving any child victim.

(2) Where this section applies, a court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.

(3) A prohibited steps order made under this section must—

(a) cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal for the offence in relation to which the prohibited steps order was imposed; and

(b) continue to have effect during an offender’s licence period after release for the relevant offence.

(4) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.’”

This new clause would require the courts to make a “prohibited steps order” (PSO) – preventing a parent from taking a specific action or set of actions regarding their child – after the conviction of a person with parental responsibilities for a sexual offence involving a child victim.

New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—

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

(2) In section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by a Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.

(2B) An application under subsection (2A) must be made within—

(a) one year of the sentence being passed, if the application is made by—

(i) the victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed; or

(ii) the next of kin of a deceased victim or a victim who lacks capacity; or

(b) 56 days of the sentence being passed, if made by any other person.

(2C) The Crown Prosecution Service must write to—

(a) any victim of any offence for which a sentence has been passed in the Crown Court; or

(b) the next of kin of any deceased victim;

within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, to provide details of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme, and the deadlines set out in subsection (2B) of this section.’”

This new clause would extend the deadline for applications to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days, or for a year for victims of crime (or the next of kin of deceased victims). It would also require the CPS to notify victims about the scheme.

New clause 13—Sexual offences: offender personality disorder pathway—

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

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

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

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

New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

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

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

New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—

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

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

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

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

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

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

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

New clause 16—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—

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

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

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

New clause 17—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 18—Reporting on use of electronic monitoring requirements—

“In the Sentencing Code, in Part 14 of Schedule 9 (electronic monitoring), after paragraph 35 insert—

‘36(1) The Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year prepare a report on the imposition of the electronic monitoring requirements during that year.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed during the year;

(b) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed on offenders under 18 during the year;

(c) the rate of compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(d) the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(e) the average amount of time taken during the year to activate a device used for the purposes of an electronic monitoring requirement after such a requirement took effect;

(f) the number of devices used for the purposes of the electronic monitoring requirements that malfunctioned during the year.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) publish the report, and

(b) lay a copy of the published report before Parliament.’”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. The report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance and the cost of administering the requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament.

New clause 19—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every person serving an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced in accordance with this section within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must—

(a) include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice; and

(b) within 12 months of being appointed, lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) after a report has been laid under subsection (3)(b).

(5) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced under this section.

(6) Subject to subsection (8), a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor (“the re-sentencing court”) must re-sentence a person serving an IPP sentence in relation to the offence or offences for which they were previously sentenced to an IPP sentence.

(7) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon which the IPP sentence was based.

(8) The re-sentencing court may confirm the IPP sentence only if—

(a) the re-sentencing court determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, the person serving the IPP sentence might appropriately have received a whole life order under section 321 of the Sentencing Act 2020; and

(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further offence if released.

(9) The re-sentencing court may only confirm an IPP sentence where the judge hearing the matter is authorised to try cases of murder.

(10) The re-sentencing court may recommend that the re-sentenced person may be subject to an extended licence, if the re-sentencing court considers this appropriate.

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

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

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

(12) The Lord Chancellor must, at the end of every twelve-month period beginning with the day this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report that sets out—

(a) the number of persons who have been re-sentenced under subsection (6);

(b) the number of persons who have had their sentences confirmed under subsection (8).

(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(c) a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;

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

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

New clause 20—Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on annual basis—

“(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Where—

(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter;

(b) the qualifying period has expired; and

(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,

the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.’

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘reference’ insert ‘or application’;

after ‘subsection (3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.”

This new clause 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 application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.

New clause 21—Further release after recall: requirement for a review—

“(1) Before sections 27 to 30 come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effectiveness of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, including but not limited to—

(a) an evaluation of its impact on—

(i) public protection;

(ii) rehabilitation;

(iii) reconviction;

(iv) probation capacity and resource; and

(b) an assessment of how any learning from the evaluation specified in subsection (1)(a) will be applied to the implementation of the provisions of sections 27 to 30 of this Act.

(2) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to new legislation being rolled out, to ensure it is effective and adequately protects the public.

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

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

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 24—Sentencing Council—

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

New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This new clause is intended to replace Clause 42. It would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

New clause 26—Criminal cases review—

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

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

‘Part IVB

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)

36A Scope of this Part

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

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

(3) This Part applies to any case—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(9) In this section—

“offence triable only on indictment” means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;

“offence triable either way” means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and

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

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

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

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36C The Commission

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

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

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

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

New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—

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

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

“32A Deportation following stalking offences

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—

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

(2) In section 201 (community order: community order requirements table), after the entry in the table relating to the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, insert—

‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert—

“Part 12a

GAMBLING TREATMENT REQUIREMENT

26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.

(2) In this paragraph—

(a) “gambling treatment”, in relation to an offender, means—

(i) treatment provided through a specialist NHS gambling service or gambling clinic; or

(ii) another form of NHS treatment determined by a qualified clinician to have the best chance of reducing or eliminating the offender’s gambling addiction; and

(b) ”qualified clinician” means an NHS clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist with appropriate professional qualifications.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply to a relevant order which imposes a gambling treatment requirement.

(4) The order may specify separate periods comprising the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).

(5) For each treatment period, the order may specify the treatment provider but must not otherwise specify the nature of the treatment.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “treatment period” means—

(a) if the order specifies separate periods under sub-paragraph (4), any of those periods;

(b) otherwise, the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).”’”

This new clause would introduce a new gambling treatment requirement, requiring an offender to seek NHS gambling addiction treatment as part of a community order.

New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on how the Government will ensure that—

(a) sentencing courts treat gambling disorder as a mental disorder for the purposes of section 232 of the Sentencing Code;

(b) sentencing courts have access to appropriate clinical advice on the impact of a gambling disorder on offending behaviour, where relevant; and

(c) offenders have access to treatment and peer support for gambling disorder, both in prison and in the community.

(2) Within twelve months of the publication of a report under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report on progress against the objectives set out in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament on how it will improve support for offenders with gambling addictions and ensure that gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition by sentencing courts.

New clause 30—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) In this section—

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

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

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

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

New clause 31—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—

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

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

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

New clause 32—Probation caseloads—

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

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

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

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

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

New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

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

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

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

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

New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

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

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

(a) tracking offender progress,

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

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

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

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

New clause 35—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—

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

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

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

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

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

(2) In this section—

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

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

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

New clause 37—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—

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

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

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

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

New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

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

(2) The assessment should consider—

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 39—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—

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

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

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

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

New clause 40—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—

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

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

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

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

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

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

New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—

“Where a court has imposed a suspended sentence, it must impose a condition that an offender must be subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of that sentence.”

New clause 43—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 2)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996.”

New clause 44—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 3)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, either involves possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon.”

New clause 45—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 4)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

New clause 46—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 5)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed or been convicted of three other offences in the 12 months preceding the offence.”

New clause 47—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 6)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed 10 or more other previous offences at the time of the offence or at the time of conviction for the offence.”

New clause 48—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 7)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a suspended sentence order for the same offence.”

New clause 49—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 8)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a custodial sentence for the same offence.”

New clause 50—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 9)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a mandatory minimum sentence.”

New clause 51—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 10)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, involves a firearm or ammunition including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

New clause 52—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 11)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one of burglary.”

New clause 53—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 12)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a connection to terrorism, including but not limited to offences relating to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Explosive Substances Act 1883.”

New clause 54—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 13)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one that falls under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”

New clause 55—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 14)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has breached previous suspended sentence orders three or more times, either by failing to comply with the requirements of the orders or by re-offending during the order’s operational period.”

New clause 56—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 15)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order.”

New clause 57—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 16)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).”

New clause 58—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 17)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

New clause 59—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 18)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.”

New clause 60—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 19)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is being sentenced for three or more offences.”

New clause 61—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 20)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has already been convicted of committing the same offence three or more times.”

New clause 62—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.

Government new schedule 1—Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision—

Government amendment 21.

[Esther McVey]

I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.

We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime.

Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.

I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates.

First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.

Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office.

Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes.

This Bill presented a fantastic opportunity to address the endemic challenges that plague our justice system. Those challenges are the result of years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, whose decisions have underpinned the record backlog of cases in the Crown court, as well as prison overcrowding and astronomically high reoffending rates, with victims consistently failed at every stage. We Liberal Democrats had hoped that this Bill would begin to shift the dial towards a justice system that truly protects victims and rehabilitates perpetrators, and there are indeed many elements that we support and that show promise. However, we remain concerned that the scope and ambition of the Bill are lacking, having had many of our amendments rejected due to the lack of financing behind the Bill.

Many of the issues blighting our justice system stem from a lack of foresight and investment, particularly in probation and prisons, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill does not include major efforts to rectify that. As a party, we are supportive of suspending short sentences of under 12 months and have long campaigned for this measure. Not only is it a necessary step to address prison overcrowding, but it would play a vital role in reducing reoffending. While 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence. Ending the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reducing crime levels and relieving pressure on the justice system. As the Government have stated, there will be exceptions, but they are yet to clarify what those exceptions will be. Will they include violent offenders, those convicted for sexual offences against children and those who possess indecent images? It would be very helpful if the Minister laid out all the exemptions.

We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing our concerns or furthering aspects of the Bill. New clause 30 aims to address imprisonment for public protection. IPP sentences were a type of indeterminate sentence used in England and Wales from 2005 to 2012 for dangerous offenders who did not qualify for a life sentence, but still posed a public risk. These sentences featured a minimum term, but no maximum, with release contingent on the Parole Board deeming the offender no longer a threat. It was during the coalition Government that we abolished IPP sentences, but many remain in prison serving these sentences long after their tariff has expired. Our new clause would commence a resentencing exercise, which has cross-party support and should be implemented as a priority. The amendment was first recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022, and I note that the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has tabled a similar measure—new clause 19.

Although we welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, reoffending rates are demonstrably higher among those who are unemployed. In 2023, the reoffending rate for those who were unemployed six weeks after release from prison was 36.5%, compared with 20% for those who were employed at the same point. Amendment 44 therefore calls on the Government to publish a report assessing whether the driving prohibition in the Bill could impede an individual’s ability to attend work, education or rehabilitation programmes. Can the Minister inform the House what assessment the Government have made of that? Ensuring access to those pathways is vital if we are to reduce reoffending effectively.

We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls. I know that this is one of the Government’s key priorities this parliamentary term, yet without collecting the data, it is an empty promise that it will be hard for the Government to show they have actually achieved. New clause 36 would continue the important campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while new clause 37 would require an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focused on violence against women and girls for those convicted of assault, battery or actual bodily harm against a woman or girl, even if domestic abuse is not included as an aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice system’s work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences and that rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences.

In line with that approach, new clause 38 calls for screening for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences. A Brainkind study last year showed that 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury, while Government data shows that more than half of female prisoners are victims of domestic abuse. These figures identify that a significant proportion of the female prison population may have undiagnosed brain injuries resulting from domestic abuse, leaving many without the treatment they need and undermining their rehabilitation—something that is certainly reflected in their ability to engage with probation services after leaving prison. Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and reoffending.

New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders and to consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims.

New clause 39 would allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged with certain driving offences pending the outcome of the trial as part of their bail conditions. Many hon. Members across the House have harrowing cases in their constituencies of lives lost at the hands of a drunk driver, drug driver or someone causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, and the court backlogs mean so often that those defendants are free to continue driving after the offence has occurred, sometimes waiting for months; in some cases, with drug tests taking up to six months to be received, the driver is free to continue to drive under the influence, which is just plain wrong. I know that is felt deeply across the House.

New clause 40 would address the ridiculous doom loop we find ourselves in with prisoners on remand arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced and then being sent home because the court backlogs mean they have served their sentence while being on remand and have not had access to any rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other support. The new clause would make rehabilitative programmes accessible for those on remand.

We are also still concerned about a number of unaddressed measures in the Bill, such as the recall provisions, which allow those recalled to be released after 56 days with no involvement from the Parole Board, essentially providing a “get out of jail free” card for reoffending. This will not give the public confidence in the system. I would also be interested in the Minister’s argument as to the purpose of provisions in the Bill to allow the Probation Service to publish names and pictures of those taking part in unpaid work.

The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.

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

Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me.