Sentencing Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

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

[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.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I am delighted to celebrate the increased exports of UK music and the phenomenal work that our artists, their producers, their tour companies and so on have managed to achieve over the past few years. It is important, as I have previously said, that we have a future immigration system. We are setting out the parliamentary timetable in due course and a White Paper will be published very shortly, which will clarify these matters.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

There are 1,500 EU nationals doing essential work for the Imperial College Healthcare Trust. In addition to having to go through the bureaucracy to get what they regard as second-class settled status, they would normally be charged a fee for that. The hospital trust itself will now pay at least £100,000 of that, which they have to do in order to retain these essential staff. Why should a trust, which is having real revenue and capital problems, have to pay that money? Why will the Government not pay that money?

[Caroline Nokes]

I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the fee for settled status was agreed with the EU.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not want to delay the Bill; I want us to get through the business with all speed. It was for that reason that I read the written statement very carefully. It discloses nothing to me that should mean the Government cannot support the Bill promoter’s new clause 1. Will the Minister just indicate whether she will support the new clause, so that we can get on and get the Bill through?

[Caroline Nokes]

There are a number of important points I would like to make with particular reference to the amendment and some of the challenges we think it poses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient and allow me to get to them.

There are a number of reasons why we are concerned about my hon. Friend’s amendment and a number of reasons why the Bill may not be the most appropriate legislative vehicle in which to equalise access to civil partnerships between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As I have said, the Bill contains a number of important measures that we certainly do not wish to jeopardise by allowing the substantive amendment on civil partnerships at this late stage in the Bill’s progress through Parliament. I think that these substantive changes deserve to have been debated more thoroughly at earlier stages of the Bill’s progress, rather than just in the limited time available to us today.

I also need to make the point that, while we are happy to have announced our intention to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, there are still quite a number of significant issues that need to be resolved before we can move on to implement opposite-sex civil partnerships. Some of these are entirely practical. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) from a sedentary position is yelling, “Such as”. If he will give me a chance, I will get to them. For instance, we need to check all the existing legislative provisions that cross-refer to the civil partnership regime to make sure that they still work as intended for opposite-sex couples as well as same-sex couples. These existing provisions are spread across a wide range of current legislation, from arrangements for adoption through to pension entitlements, so this is not an insignificant body of work. Any existing provisions that are not appropriate to extended civil partnerships will need to be changed. There are also a number of sensitive policy issues that will need to be resolved, such as whether convergence from a marriage to a civil partnership should be allowed and whether the terms for the dissolution of an opposite-sex civil partnership should mirror those for same-sex couples or be the same as for opposite-sex marriages.

We also need to resolve a number of cross-border and devolution issues, such as how we should provide for recognition of similar relationships entered into in other countries and how our own relationships should be treated in other parts of the United Kingdom, which have their own legislation on civil partnerships.

I am disappointed that the amendment tabled today seeks to replace the provisions in clause 2, particularly the requirement for Government to consult and report to Parliament on the way in which they intend to equalise civil partnerships between same-sex and other couples. We particularly supported this original requirement, as we see consultation prior to the implementation of the extension of civil partnerships as key in both helping us to set out the Government’s views on the issues I have just mentioned, as well as getting a broader view of the implications of the various options.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Individuals will receive a digital status, which they will be able to provide to employers and landlords through the online digital service. We already have evidence of this working through our digital right-to-work checks, which were introduced earlier this year.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Over 20% of my constituents are EU citizens, and despite the warm words, about two thirds have reported negative experiences linked to their nationalities since the referendum. A local dentist I met this week said that the day after the referendum, a patient said that he and his nurse would be sent back where they came from—she is Lithuanian and he is a British citizen of Kurdish descent. I want to ask a very specific question. Irish and Polish citizens have rights that predate our membership of the European Union under legislation that is no longer compatible with immigration legislation. Will that be reviewed so that those rights are preserved?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have been very clear that in the case of Irish citizens, who have a relationship with us that dates way back to the 1920s, we are absolutely upholding those rights. The hon. Gentleman mentions those awful incidents where EU citizens were negatively impacted by the outcome of the referendum, and they encountered the sort of incident that he describes. We are seeking to send a very clear message from this Government, and from UK society, that we recognise the contribution that EU citizens make to this country. We want them to stay. This sets out very clearly their rights and how those who have been here for five years will immediately be eligible for settled status. Those who have been here for less than five years will be able to apply for pre-settled status and accrue the five years. We are pleased to make this really important step, because we wish to give a significant message of reassurance to those people who have been living and contributing here for many years.

Immigration White Paper

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

With respect, I point out to my hon. Friend that the numbers are already beginning to fall. It is important that we note that the direction of travel is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have been very clear that we want a sustainable immigration system that sees those numbers coming down, and it is important that we deliver on that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Post March 2019, from a practical point of view, the one in five of my constituents who are EU nationals could: have permanent residency or settled status; be eligible for settled status; have future eligibility for settled status; or not be eligible at all. When they are talking to landlords, employers and the health service, how are they going differentiate which category they fall into?

Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course, many disabled claimants access our services very successfully online, but, as I have said, the DWP has a home visiting service which we can extend to all disabled claimants who ask for it when their circumstances make it difficult for them to go to a jobcentre. We want our work coaches to provide tailored support for each of their claimants, to have a relationship with them, and to understand their specific needs.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is difficult to square the Minister’s claim that she is merging smaller jobcentres into larger ones with her plan to close Hammersmith, our busiest jobcentre in our main town centre. Coming on top of the closure of courts, post offices and police stations, is this not the hollowing out of vital public services from our towns and cities?

[Caroline Nokes]

No, it is not the hollowing out of public services; it is finding the best way to deliver services to our jobseekers at the most cost-effective price for the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

11. If she will discuss with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the provision of further transitional support to women affected by the increase in the state pension age.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is fully aware of the issue, which we debated in this Chamber just last week. He has clearly stated that the introduction of further transitional arrangements cannot be justified given the imperative to focus public resources on helping those in most need. There are no plans to go beyond the £1.1 billion concession introduced when Parliament considered the changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister must know that the lack of transitional support is causing real hardship to women in her constituency, as it is in mine. In the interests of transparency, will she publish any proposals that have come up since the Pensions Act 2011? Will she publish them and the Government’s research, so we can see what they have done?

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the welfare system provides a safety net for those experiencing hardship. We have made it very clear that we have already provided £1.1 billion in transitional concessions. The Government have published a great many figures on this subject. It is very difficult for the Government to publish further statistics on proposals that have come forward from both the WASPI campaign and Opposition parties when it is very unclear what provisions would be included around those transitional arrangements for women as well as men.