Sentencing Bill

Jake Richards Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

indicated assent.

[Dr Mullan]

I note that the Minister is nodding.

We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.

New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.

This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.

The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.

A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.

Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.

Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.

However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:

“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”

She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.

I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.

MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a serious issue. It is a serious issue for me and for my constituents, but it is also a serious constitutional issue that the House has yet to face up to. It does not just affect article 2 of the Windsor framework; it affects the very fact that there are 300 areas of law—shaping much of our economy in Northern Ireland and certainly controlling our trade laws—which are beyond the reach of the sovereignty of the House, and which lie at the whim and the wish of a foreign Parliament. That should offend each one of us, as Members of this House, and it should so offend us that we determine to do something about righting that wrong.

[Jake Richards]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that gives us the chance to put an end to the prison capacity crisis and build a better justice system. Let me be clear at the outset: this Government believe that prison can work, which is why we are undertaking the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. Many offenders must be sent to prison, some for a very long time and some for the rest of their lives. The Government have already opened 2,500 places since coming to office, and we have made a commitment to build 14,000 more. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, by the end of this Parliament, under a Labour Government, there will be more criminals in our prisons than ever before.

However, we cannot only build our way out of this crisis; we must reform sentencing to ensure that our criminal justice system is sustainable. The changes in this Bill will ensure that we never face the situation that the Conservatives left behind: the very real prospect that the most serious offenders would not face prison at all. In a competitive field, the state that the last Government left our prisons in was perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Tory legacy. It was so appalling that, when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), became aware of the scale of the crisis, he gave up and called an election. It was the last shameful act of a vandalising, incompetent Government. This Bill represents the work of a Government pulling up their sleeves and getting on with the job, however difficult that may be.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I really welcome this Sentencing Bill, because I think my constituents want not only criminals being punished for their crimes, but the prevention of future crime. It should be about not just punishment—which is rightly owed to a lot of people—but making sure that our communities are safe in the future. Could the Minister lay out how the intensive supervision courts in the Bill will help to do that?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Bill will not only stabilise the prison system, but go further and tackle reoffending. She mentioned the intensive supervision courts, but there are also our reforms to short-term sentences, which will cut reoffending. We know it will do that because of evidence that the last Conservative Government commissioned. That was why the exact provision on short-term sentencing, which the Tories are all howling with outrage at now, was in the legislation that the last Government put forward—completely hypocritical. My hon. Friend is completely right; this Bill represents a Government who step up to the challenge, rather than putting their head in the sand.

I want to turn to some of the amendments and the specific points of debate that we have heard today, starting with new clause 20, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). However, I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who has put her name to that amendment and with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking on numerous occasions this week in the build-up to the debate. The hon. Lady spoke incredibly powerfully about her own experience in the family courts, and I share that experience. Before coming to this place, I was a barrister who spent a lot of time on legal aid cases, representing local authorities, family members or guardians in exactly the types of cases that she mentioned. I share her concerns.

I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, Paula Hudgell, who has been campaigning for a child abuse register with such eloquence and passion for some time. Paula’s work, life and dedication to Tony and others deserves enormous gratitude from across the House. On the Government’s behalf, I thank her for all that she and her family have done and continue to do. I welcome the constructive comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, on this issue. I can be clear that Paula has identified a problem in the system, and we are determined to fix it.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on new clause 20 and a possible child protection register. My constituents Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls have been campaigning for stronger child protection measures after their great-niece, Maya, was murdered by her mother’s abusive partner. Does the Minister agree that measures such as a child protection register and Maya’s law can only help to protect our children—children like Maya, Tony and others? And what steps will he be taking to follow this up?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes. A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification after those sentences. The Government cannot support the change today because work needs to be done to understand the demand that different options would place upon different public services. It would be wrong to legislate now without a fuller—or even basic—understanding of whether we have the capacity to safely deliver the register proposed in new clause 20. There are numerous options before us, and it is right that any new system is tailored, in terms of who holds that information and the duties placed upon them, to ensure that particular risks are adequately and proportionately managed.

[James Cartlidge]

The position that the Minister seems to be articulating is literally bizarre. He has said that he fully agrees about the problem and with the remedy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). The Government have had 14 years in Opposition and more than a year in Government, and have introduced the Bill at this time. But the Minister is saying that, notwithstanding the fact they have brought forward this Bill after more than a year in office and agree on the problem and the diagnosis, he is still going to vote tonight—and ask his Back Benchers to vote tonight—against fixing the issue.

[Jake Richards]

We have identified a problem, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legislate when we have not had the opportunity to ensure that public services can complete the task. The hon. Member criticises us for not taking action on this issue now, but what about the last 14 years? What about the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which reported in November 2022? The last Government did absolutely nothing on those recommendations.

[Helen Grant]

I hear what the Minister has to say. Will he bring forward a Government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the Bill moves to the House of Lords?

[Jake Richards]

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

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

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Jake Richards]

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

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

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

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.

I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if there turns out to be a distinction in that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, he will undertake to override that legislatively so that we do have equality right across the United Kingdom?

[Jake Richards]

As I have said, we do not accept that there is a problem, but if there is, we will look to fix it, because that would not be right. The scenario the hon. and learned Member painted, which we do not accept will happen as a result of this legislation, is not right.

Amendments 15 and 39 on short sentences are among several tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). They aim to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of short sentences. That is the wrong direction, and I will set out why. First, we need to clear up some myths that have been shared by the Opposition on this issue. Either they are being wilfully ignorant or they simply do not understand the Bill. We are not abolishing short sentences, as the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), wrongly stated in the House on Monday. He was briefly a corporate solicitor, and I would hope he knows better and that he had read the Bill before commenting on it.

Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. The Bill makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances. In Committee, the Government went further by strengthening this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the domestic violence protection order, were covered.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?

[Jake Richards]

In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.

[Dr Mullan]

I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?

[Jake Richards]

Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

I will finish this point before I give way, because I am dealing with the right hon. Member’s amendments.

More broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending among those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I have said already, research commissioned by the last Conservative Government—shadow Justice Ministers continue to cite it—shows that short sentences lead to more reoffending, meaning that tens of thousands more criminal offences are committed each year.

If the Opposition vote to drop this provision from the legislation—legislation that the last Conservative Government put forward—they will be voting for more crimes blighting our communities. They know that the measure is common sense because, as I have said, they proposed it; it was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and they are now opposing it for opposition’s sake. This provision on short-term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country, so we reject the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.

I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is perfectly capable of legislating on this issue and letting the homicide work continue. He says that that would be “wrong”, but it is not wrong—it is just his choice, and it is the wrong choice.

[Jake Richards]

As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.

I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.

I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.

We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.

[Jake Richards]

I am getting increasingly confused by these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I outlined before, the Government are setting out very clear measures to improve discipline in our prisons. That is part of the progression model, learned from the Texas model, which has seen crime reduce by 33%, with 16 prisons closed at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad. The Opposition have no idea what their position is any more.

I will turn to new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The most serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown court, even those involving offenders aged under 18, and whether an offender’s identity is reported on is at the discretion of the judge. There is always a balancing act in the judge’s consideration between the principles of open justice and the welfare of the child, and it is right that discretion remains with the judge. I also gently say to the hon. Member that the scope of the Bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system; we will be taking steps to look at it in due course, and we may come back to this as part of that provision. However, the focus in this Bill is much more on the adult estate.

The same point also applies to new clause 1, again tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this new clause because it is an important issue. On parenting orders, it is right that those responsible for a child’s care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible. To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply with certain requirements for up to 12 months, and non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court.

While parenting orders can be a good option for some children, youth offending teams that I have spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities and programmes.

On financial orders, children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order. To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parent or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child. Whether they are used in each particular case is best determined by the court with professional advice from the youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on a child’s individual circumstances, retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation.

I undertake to the House today that I will look at this matter as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of the new clause. We therefore urge the House to reject this new clause, too.

I turn now to driving. There are an array of measures before the House that relate to driving offences, and there is an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and to strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences. New clauses have been put down by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), among others, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has raised this issue in the House.

It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence even if their offence did not relate to driving. However, I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House, and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and to do so properly and rigorously. I have organised a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to discuss this issue and to ensure that the points and individual cases raised in this and last week’s debates are considered in the Government’s road safety strategy, which is being developed. It is right that we undertake proper and further analysis of the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans.

I promise that I will ensure that this House is updated on the development of that work. I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure that they are consulted and kept informed, too. It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, but it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way that various new clauses seek to do.

I will turn now to new clause 31 on exclusions from recall measures, which was spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. A number of offences listed in the new clause are already excluded from the fixed-term recall provisions, while many others carry sentences that would be beyond the scope of the provisions. However, we understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chichester. There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring a sustainable system. Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. There are still challenges, looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those who are returned on recall. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that Lord Timpson and I are aware of, and we will make progress on it in due course.

I turn very briefly to new clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), regarding the awful Crown court delays we experience in this country—another element of the rotten legacy we received from the Conservative party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services will bring forward the Government’s response in due course.

It is an urgent issue, because all these problems—prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending—can be solved only if we have a functioning courts system. Sorting out and stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and dealing with the Crown court backlog will be at the heart of the Government’s approach through this Parliament.

[Ben Maguire]

There was one small omission there. Can the Minister confirm that legal aid provision, which has been brought up by several Members today, will be addressed by the Government?

[Jake Richards]

Yes. Legal aid is vital, and the right to legal aid is important. The Government understand that right and will continue to look at it. There are financial constraints, which we are all aware of, but legal aid is very important. We have made certain commitments with regard to employment tribunals, and we will continue to look at that over the coming months.

Amendment 7 would remove clause 20 regarding changes to be made to the release of certain offenders. Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system. When offenders are caught who pose a risk to the public, we ensure that there is capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward and a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the Tory Government. In July last year our prisons were essentially full, and the Government disgracefully could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they caused.

The changes that the Bill makes are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. What have heard from Opposition Members, carping from the sidelines, are wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say that we should build paperweight temporary prisons. Portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards? No thank you.

Let me clear: that would place the public at serious risk of harm. We cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This Government are building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years. Following the changes to be brought in by this Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before—2,000 more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, Reform has no serious plans to keep our communities safe.

The Tory position is even more absurd, if that is possible. Last week the shadow Minister began to apologise for the legacy that the Conservatives left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor it would not have happened. We had five Tory Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors in 14 years. I am not sure that giving another one a go would have made the difference. Meanwhile the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), says, “Deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all.” Completely unserious.

Under this Government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%. We have accelerated decision making on deportation, which can now happen when 30% of the sentence has been served. That is something that the Tories never did. Because of this legislation, we can go even further and deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. These are practical measures from a Labour Government who are cleaning up the Tory mess.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

My father is a retired senior prison officer, and I know at first hand the devastation that 14 years of the Tories brought on our prison system. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us as a Government to clean up the mess they left and fix the system urgently through reforms?

[Jake Richards]

I thank my hon. Friend’s father for his service. Prison officers across the country do a brilliant and important job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and while it has been important, the crowing from the Tories is galling considering the legacy that they left behind.

This Labour Government faced a crisis when we came into power last summer. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, and lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out. We took action, with plans to build 14,000 prison places—the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era—and 2,500 places in our first year, compared to just 500 places that were built during 14 years of the Conservative Government.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise, from his written response to me, that every single one of those 2,405 prison places was authorised by the previous Conservative Government and that the 14,000 prison places he planned to build will not be delivered because the firm that was due to build them has gone into administration?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member always makes that point, and he thinks it a good point. Towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, the Conservatives suddenly realised they had not done anything to our prisons—it was an absolute shambles—and they started to take action. We have actually delivered those places, with 2,500 in one year compared with just 500 in 14 years. It is shocking. That is not a good point, and he should not keep raising it.

The Government began an independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure that our system was sustainable. The Bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order on the streets. We will ensure that our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment that works. We will ensure that we will never again face the chaos of Tory misrule. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

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

It is a pleasure to speak at the Third Reading of this landmark legislation. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system.

It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), when they entered Government on 5 July 2024. Prisons were at breaking point, with a very real risk that the most dangerous offenders would not face custody at all and that our communities would be left vulnerable. They took urgent, necessary and decisive action to stabilise the system and keep our prisons afloat, and then they went further.

I pay tribute to David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, for his work in leading the independent sentencing review. It is a rigorous and serious piece of work, and while the Government did not accept all the recommendations, it is the basis of many of the provisions before the House today. We thank David Gauke for his work, and perhaps look somewhat regretfully back at what a serious Conservative Justice spokesperson looked like.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—and a particular shout-out for my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for her tireless campaigning on tool theft. Through their personal experience, or the experience of their constituents, hon. Members have powerfully raised issues that the Government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses.

The debates we have had on this legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative party is in complete denial, with not a single word of apology. It is their mess that this legislation begins to clean up. The Bill goes further than simply stabilising the system; it confronts reoffending—the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities—and learns from the Texan earned-progression model to encourage rehabilitation. Confronting reoffending and improving rehabilitation used to be policies that the Conservatives supported, but today they have provided nothing but opposition.

Meanwhile, Reform’s Justice spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), has not bothered to attend this debate at all, and inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black people on her TV. She should concentrate on coming up with workable policies; we cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform UK is simply not credible.

This Government, on the other hand, are getting on with the job and making difficult decisions to ensure that we can keep our promise to the British people: we will never let our prison system collapse like the last Government did, when even the most serious offenders might have avoided prison altogether. This Bill will ensure that our prison system is sustainable, while reducing reoffending and crime, and it will keep our communities safe. I commend this Bill to the House.

Draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The instrument before the Committee will extend the powers to make regulations to implement private international law, or PIL, agreements for a further five years, from 13 December 2025. If the powers are not extended, they will permanently lapse. As hon. Members are doubtless aware, PIL rules are a set of rules applied by courts and parties involved in legal disputes that raise cross-border issues. They generally apply in the context of civil and family law. In short, PIL agreements help govern how we live, work and trade across borders.

Most domestic provisions implementing PIL agreements concern technical matters and are limited in scope. Therefore, implementation can appropriately be handled via secondary legislation. That is because policy issues are often settled when the PIL agreement is negotiated, so the implementation process largely focuses on the procedural changes needed to give effect to the policy decisions reached during negotiations.

The Committee will no doubt be interested to hear about the UK-wide consultation of experts carried out by the UK Government. The vast majority of respondents considered that these powers had been used properly to date, that their safeguards are effective and that their continued use is in the public interest, as the powers provide a single, clear means of implementing PIL agreements, making proportionate use of parliamentary time.

The instrument will extend the powers to make regulations under section 2 and schedule 6 of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. Section 2 of the Act allows the “appropriate national authority” to make regulations for the purposes of implementing international agreements and applying them between the UK’s different jurisdictions, and to extend those regulation-making powers for a further five years. The Scottish and Northern Irish national authorities can grant permission to the Secretary of State to make regulations on their behalf, including regulations extending the five-year operative period in their jurisdictions, as they have done in this case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its review of this instrument and for its clear and concise summary in its 36th report.

These powers provide a single, clear method for implementing PIL agreements, protect the public interest by ensuring that parliamentary time is used effectively, and retain the effective safeguards and limits on the powers provided by the Act. They are vital in ensuring the UK’s credibility with its international partners, reassuring them that PIL agreements can be implemented in a timely way and granting our promises extra weight. By way of example, the powers were used to implement the 2019 Hague convention on judgements. Absent the powers granted by the Act, primary legislation would have been needed, thereby delaying implementation. Our ratification of Hague 2019 was warmly welcomed by the legal sector, and indeed Members of this House, as an important step for international civil and commercial co-operation.

The Government consider that PIL agreements are a useful way of supporting the success of the Prime Minister’s mission for growth, and the powers will ensure that all parts of the country can take advantage of that. The Government propose that the powers will now be used to implement the Singapore convention on mediation, which would allow cross-border commercial mediation settlements to be recognised and enforced more easily before UK courts. That will save businesses time and money that would otherwise be spent on proceedings for breach of contract, and support our world-renowned legal and alternative dispute resolution sectors. Furthermore, in July 2023, the Government confirmed their intention at this stage to implement two model laws that had been adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, of which the UK is a member state.

The Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before using the powers. As hon. Members will be aware from the explanatory memorandum, the Government held a targeted consultation of experts on whether to extend the power for a further five years. Those experts included academics, lawyers and professional bodies from all parts of the UK. The vast majority agreed with the extension of the powers, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

During the passage of the Act, concerns were raised in the other place regarding the extent of the powers, which led to amendments introducing various safeguards. Those include the prohibition on granting legislative powers, a ban on the creation of imprisonable offences, and the establishing of the five-year extendable time limit, which is the subject of the instrument before the Committee. Furthermore, most regulations made using the powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore Parliament, and where appropriate the devolved legislatures, retain the ultimate say regarding the use of these powers. I would further add that several consultees noted the proportionate use of the powers to date and the effectiveness of the safeguards, and judged that the benefits greatly outweighed concerns raised during the passage of the Act. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to approve the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. On the two issues he raised, policy agreements on an international framework are obviously for the relevant Department. The Department for Business and Trade will be bringing forward its proposals in relation to what I mentioned in my speech. The Singapore agreement is covered by the Ministry of Justice, and Minister Sackman will be considering the procedure for how we implement it in the coming weeks and months.

The vast majority of the consultations were positive. In fact, those that were negative were not particularly proactive in their negativity. I am happy to share all the consultation responses with the hon. Member, if that would be helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Bill

Jake Richards Excerpts

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

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough.

For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill.

We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime.

Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through.

As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges.

I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do.

On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut.

Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.

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

indicated dissent.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.

Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?

The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:

“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”

I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.

Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.

This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.

I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.

Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses.

Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned.

I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery. I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon.

New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences. It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one.

We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it. Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it.

The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.

[Jake Richards]

I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.

Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues. The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be.

Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.

The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that

“the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison”

should

“include rehabilitation and reform”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.]

Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist. One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister has described what is in the Bill as an earned progression model. I have read out to the Committee the independent Library briefing note, which says that progression will not be earned; it will be automatic. On what basis is the Minister continuing to describe it as an earned model?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Within the Sentencing Bill and primary legislation are specific punishments for offenders who do not play by the rules while they are in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course.

The Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) have tabled amendments to the provisions on the Sentencing Council with the aim of abolishing the council, and the Tory amendment would transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Justice. That would amount to constitutional vandalism—it is an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The council is widely acknowledged to have brought greater consistency to the sentencing process. Even before the council’s creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or Lord Chancellor to fulfil the function of creating these guidelines. It is right that the council is held to account by Parliament, but it would be offensive to the principle of the separation of powers to dissolve the council entirely. This is a classic case of the populists going too far and not reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, as clauses 18 and 19 successfully achieve, but trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge the Committee to reject such performative politics.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), tabled new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, on which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made a powerful speech. While the Government understand that the 28-day time limit can be difficult for victims and their families, it is important that there is finality in sentencing and that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals and held a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. We will wait for the Law Commission’s response before responding. I have heard the points that Members have made about communication, and over the coming weeks I will look at changes we can make to processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice to improve the system.

I shall move on to short sentences and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I want to be clear about this, because her speech simply did not accept the reality. Clause 1 does not ban short custodial sentences. At the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in jail than there have ever been before. That is not being soft on crime. There is an important exemption in the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical. It will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case. The right hon. Lady’s amendments to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of a short sentence would render the provision meaningless. It is not the right direction.

The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order. We have strengthened that further with Government amendments 2 and 4, which clarify that it includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence. Government amendments 3 and 5 further expand the scope of the exemption so that it applies where an offence has been committed in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in and of itself a criminal offence. Together, those amendments ensure that repeat offenders will not benefit from the presumption when they are already subject to a court order.

Where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short-term sentences. Putting people in prison for a few weeks costs the taxpayer huge amounts and leads to further reoffending. We know that reoffending rates among those serving short-term sentences are scandalously high. Rigorous research shows that equivalent sentences in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crimes each year. Indeed, the rigorous research, which the shadow Minister cited, showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative Government. They even put this precise provision—copied and pasted—in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but it never came before Parliament. The Conservatives know it is the right thing to do, but now they oppose it for opposition’s sake. It is a good example of how far they have fallen. They are simply not serious.

I will not be able to speak to all the various amendments tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as I am sure he will appreciate. I met him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet him and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead. I am grateful to him and his Committee for their work. New clause 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for public protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the Government are determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. Changes we have implemented through the IPP action plan have contributed to a fall of around 14% in the number of unreleased IPP prisoners between June 2024 and June 2025.

I recognise the Chair’s desire to see the previous Justice Committee’s recommendation on resentencing implemented, but despite its detailed consideration of the issue, the Committee, like various other organisations, was unable to identify an approach to resentencing that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. The Chair of the Committee has put forward other amendments to the IPP scheme relating to the review of licence conditions. The Government will look into that over the coming days and weeks and no doubt have conversations with him.

Let me say a little about new clause 18, which deals with tagging, an issue that was also raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The Government agree that it is important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring, which is why the Ministry of Justice publishes statistical reports on the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales both quarterly and annually. Our next annual report, which we expect to be published next summer, will include details on key performance indicators that the Department uses to hold the electronic monitoring provider to account. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to commercial sensitivities I am unable to specify the fines that have been enforced on those private companies relating to the tagging systems, but we will continue to hold their feet to the fire, which I hope will reassure him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

It has been great to work with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and to help drive that identifier forward. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the incredible bravery of ITV’s “Loose Women”, many of whom, through their “Facing It Together” campaign, have spoken out about their experiences of domestic abuse, and will he, or a fellow Minister from the MOJ, come and meet them next Wednesday from 12.30 pm onwards, in the Attlee Suite, where I shall be hosting them and we will be bringing the “Facing It Together” campaign to Parliament?

[Jake Richards]

I am always happy to pay tribute to the brilliant “Loose Women”, and, diary permitting, I will be there at 12.30 pm with the hon. Gentleman. Their campaign has been serious and has had a real effect, and we are very grateful to them.

Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from the measures in the Bill, including those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence—such as, importantly, an offence relating to a breach of a civil domestic violence protection order—and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. These offenders can only receive a standard recall.

New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), builds on the work of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. It would require the courts to treat any offence involving domestic abuse as aggravated. Again, I recognise and sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing through the guidelines that make it clear that judges should consider domestic abuse as increasing the seriousness of an offence, allowing for tougher sentences where appropriate. We believe that any change might complicate the sentencing framework unnecessarily, without any real practical benefit.

Let me now deal with the issue of driving offences. We have heard many powerful speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who also made a powerful speech on Second Reading. He is not currently in the Chamber—oh, he is here, but he has changed, and is looking very dapper. I have had a brief conversation with him about some of his proposals. While we do not support the mandatory ban for careless and dangerous driving that results in death, I am determined to look at it, along with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. I was shocked by some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) produced on Second Reading, and in meetings that I have had with them since then. I want to get into the details, but there is certainly more that we can do, and I know that other Members have raised important cases in this connection. I will be looking at measures that we can take to strengthen driving bans, on an interim and permanent basis, for the most reckless offenders. Again, I praise all the Members who have made such powerful speeches today, some of them on behalf of constituents who have suffered significant tragedies.

New clauses 28 and 29 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I have met her twice to discuss the new clauses and the policy aims that sit behind them. I commend her for tabling them, raising the importance of tackling the hidden harms of problematic gambling, and for her ongoing collaboration on this topic. Let me briefly explain the ways in which we already identify and support those with gambling issues, and how we are seeking to increase the support that we provide.

Pre-sentencing reports help the courts to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health problems and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be taken into account at sentencing, and courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly when the condition contributes to the offending. Where individuals demonstrate a commitment to address those issues, courts may consider community sentence treatment requirements, and in particular mental health treatment requirements, as part of a community or suspended sentence order. This can be undertaken only with the consent of the individual, and new clause 28 as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South provides for the treatment to be mandatory, which is an issue. As I have discussed with her, there is the issue of the scale of demand and the current lack of any reliable data on how this would look in the criminal justice system. That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months. Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years.

Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message. Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality.

I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee. Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work.

I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.

Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.

[Dr Mullan]

I am sure the Minister will hope that Back Benchers have listened closely to what he has said, but more important is what he has not said. The Government have been briefing journalists that what we were saying about rapists and paedophiles getting out earlier was not true, and they have told the same to a number of Labour Back Benchers. To be clear, can the Minister put on the record whether any rapists or paedophiles serving standard determinate sentences will be released earlier as a result of this Bill—yes or no?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Madam Chair, I do not think that you were Prime Minister or Chancellor. I do apologise.

The Tory legacy in our prisons was lawless disorder, with not enough prison places to arrest or lock up even the most serious offenders. The Conservatives’ howling opposition today rings hollow in the context of their disastrous legacy. This Government have taken action to fix the mess by delivering 2,500 prison places in the first year, compared with 500 over 14 years of Conservative misrule. But we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis; it requires long-term reform for a more sustainable system. This Bill ensures that we will never again face the impossible situation that we faced last summer, but it goes further: it means we will cut reoffending rates, and we will build prisons that produce better citizens, not better criminals. This Bill will help keep our streets and communities safe. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

[Esther McVey]

I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Jake Richards Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this important debate, and on her fine speech. We have known each other for many years, and she is one of the best advocates I have come across, at the Bar and now in this place. She is a ferocious champion of justice and social justice, a credit to the people of Derby North, and an asset to our politics. It is particularly apt that she brings this vital issue to the fore, as it deserves far more attention, and while I am in this role, I am determined to ensure that it receives it.

Finding employment after release is one of the most effective ways to support rehabilitation and break the cycle of reoffending. The evidence is stark beyond argument that having a job reduces the likelihood of reoffending, and given that reoffending costs the taxpayer around £20 billion a year, getting prisoners and prison leavers working is the right thing to do, not only for individuals and communities, but for the public purse. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, we are debating the Sentencing Bill in Committee next week, and I hope that the whole House will support the Government’s agenda of tackling reoffending through that legislation.

Work in prisons is vital, because the argument for work in prisons wins both the heart and the head. It is about self-worth for the prisoner and worth for society as a whole. Let us be clear: that must never mean offenders bypassing punishment for the pain that they have caused victims, but they should not be left to wallow in prison. Indeed, many have untapped potential that our economy desperately needs, as my hon. Friend set out. That is why the Government are committed to improving offenders’ access to purposeful activity, and to strengthening the links between prisons and employers, so that more people leave prison with the skills, qualifications and opportunities that they need to succeed. I must at this point pay tribute to Lord Timpson for his work before he was made a Minister in the Justice Department. He continues to be a fine advocate for this cause.

Delivering skills and work experience to prisoners is not always straightforward. It is right that I draw the House’s attention to a recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted, “Just Passing Time”. It sets out serious concerns about the quantity and quality of work, and attendance at work, in prison. It is something that I and the Government take seriously. The problem is difficult, especially in the context of the prisons capacity crisis that this Government inherited last summer, but that does not mean we should not strive to perform better. The report only motivates me and this Government to do more.

I want to look forward and set out positive measures that we are taking to drive improvement in the short and longer term. To understand the needs of prisoners properly, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is now making sure that every prisoner has an individual learning and work plan during their sentencing, focusing on their needs, which might include numeracy and literacy. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) is a fine advocate on this issue; he is doing great work on it in a pilot project that applies across the country. We must ensure that qualifications to improve inmates’ job prospects, as well as work experience and vocational training, are built into sentencing. Simply put, these issues should be right at the heart of sentencing policy and sentencing at court.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

It is wonderful to hear the Minister laying out everything that the Government are doing to address what is happening in our prisons. I wonder whether he will give consideration to my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which applies matters that are considered after sentencing to prisoners who are on remand, so that they can have the same access to work and rehabilitation programmes, rather than being released when it is time to be sentenced because they have already served their time, and then going home without any support.

[Jake Richards]

We will absolutely consider that amendment. I should congratulate her on her appointment to her role in the Liberal Democrats. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Although the remand population is too big, we must ensure that inmates on remand receive the services that they need.

Youth justice is also a key priority for me, and this issue also affects the youth estate. On a recent visit to Wetherby young offenders institute, I observed brilliant work by teenage boys in what they call Q branch working on allotments, helping with the recycling, learning to make honey, and building a garden for the custody community. It is genuinely heartwarming and important work that these young offenders are undertaking as they reach maturity. My only disappointment came when I learned that only 5% of the children in the young offenders institute were able to access those facilities.

We must do more to make sure that every single offender who can do so safely has access to the skills and training that they need. Earlier today, I was in Birmingham to see the brilliant social enterprise Skill Mill. I met three 17-year-olds who are learning skills in construction, recycling and agriculture. Those skills mean that they will have options when they reach the age of 18 that they would not have otherwise had.

Good work is happening. A good example on the adult estate is Greene King’s academy at HMP Onley. What they call “the hideout” is a replica of a Greene King pub that gives prisoners real-world experience in hospitality, City & Guilds qualifications, and genuine job opportunities on release. Marston’s Brewery has a similar set-up in the academy at The Lock Inn at HMP Liverpool, which equips prisoners with professional catering and kitchen management skills. In fact, I must make sure that I visit The Lock Inn as a matter of urgency; I will tell my private office so. Graduates from both schemes have already gone directly into employment on release, so these initiatives really are successful. We have the data, but we need to improve it to ensure that the evidence base is there across the prison estate.

The future skills programme delivers vocational training based on employer and labour market needs and requirements. It offers a range of sector-specific skills training courses, with a guaranteed job interview on release. Building on that, and to address HMIP concerns about the intensity of the work experience, we are trialling a new Working Week project in five category C prisons, including HMP Ranby, which I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North visited recently. It is just a few miles from my constituency. Indeed, I drive past it on my commute to this place, and I will be visiting it in the coming months.

[Jim Shannon]

I was just thinking to myself that there probably are stats that show that many prisoners, with great respect—this is not meant to be judgmental—may not be able to read or write. When it comes to helping them find jobs, we have to create confidence in them, and enable them to say, “I can do that. I can learn to read and write, and can then get a job.” That is a very basic thing, but it is important. Maybe the Minister could tell us what will be done on that. That is not just about working skills; it is about life skills, social skills and being able to connect with the person next to them.

[Jake Richards]

I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.

In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

As part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry on rehabilitation and resettlement, we received evidence showing that ROTL use has declined, particularly since covid; it has not really recovered from that. It is great to hear the good work the Minister is outlining on this, but I urge him to continue to push for greater use of ROTL, because it could be a key aspect of rehabilitation of offenders going forward.

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. We will look at the evidence that the Select Committee received, and we are having those conversations all the time. It is important to stress—I know my hon. Friend is very aware of this—that in the first year of this Government, we have been dealing with one of the most acute crises across the public estate, and that has clearly taken up the bandwidth of the Government and the Ministry of Justice. Because of the difficult decisions that the last Lord Chancellor made, we are now in a position where I hope we can do more on this.

The Government have also launched regional employment councils, which for the first time bring together businesses, prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions. We have extended apprenticeships across the prison estate, from the open to the closed estate. At HMP Highpoint, five cohorts of prisoners are beginning rail apprenticeships this year. This is a model we want to expand further, and early results are encouraging. To help build on this expansion, we have announced new foundation apprenticeships, which are available to prisoners. They are shorter courses than traditional apprenticeships, and can be accessed by prisoners up to the age of 25. It was a fine point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) about the length of courses. Clearly, too often prisoners are in and out for short periods. We want to try to stop that fundamentally, or at least amend the framework in that regard, but we have to have training and services for those who are in prison for a short time.

To support prisoners in considering their longer-term goals, we are delivering better careers advice and guidance in prisons. From April this year, we are rolling out new national careers, information, advice and guidance contracts, so that, again, every prisoner has access to consistent, high-quality careers advice, tailored to their needs and, critically, linked to real job opportunities. Taken together, employment hubs, employer partnerships, vocational training, apprenticeships and the Working Week project represent initiatives that are moving in the right direction, but I want to be clear that we know that the situation is not good enough, and that there is a lot more work to be done.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for raising this important subject, which, as I said, does not get enough attention. I hope to do my bit to change that. This Government are committed to rehabilitation to help cut reoffending. I hope that she will agree that the Government have built solid foundations to stabilise the prison system after the inheritance we received last summer, and have launched important initiatives in our first year in office, but there is much more to do, and I welcome her support in driving forward this vital work in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome, Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Government are committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending. That means investing in services that turn offenders away from a life of crime and instead back on the straight and narrow. That includes services in employment, accommodation and substance misuse treatment.

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to his place. We have a prison population crisis, but rather than building or releasing our way out of it, we have to reduce reoffending. I recently visited HMP Bure in my constituency and saw the excellent work it has been doing internally to support prisoners in learning new skills and equipping them for life after release. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will support and provide funding for such programmes? Will he meet me to hear more about the fantastic work of the staff at HMP Bure?

[Jake Richards]

The Government are committed to tackling reoffending, and that includes investment in services exactly like those that the hon. Member visited. We are building more prison places, because we need to. In 14 years the Conservatives added just 500 additional prison places, and in 14 months we have added 2,500. Alongside that, we have to tackle reoffending, and I hope the hon. Member will support the Sentencing Bill later this afternoon, which will do that.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

Rehabilitation is a vital part of prison health programmes, but when prisoners develop infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, they can be isolated from organised programmes such as rehab. Given the risk that interrupted TB treatment can fuel antimicrobial resistance, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that prisoners receive both uninterrupted medical care and continued access to rehabilitation?

[Jake Richards]

I will be talking with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on exactly that issue and on tackling reoffending, making sure that there is treatment in prisons so that prisoners are rehabilitated. The sole focus of this Government is on stopping reoffending and cutting crime, and that means working with prisoners. There is also the Sentencing Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to the debate on that today.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of rape and sexual violence through the court system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of reoffending rates.

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

Although there is a long-term downward trend in the rate of proven reoffending, this country remains an outlier in that regard. That is why the Government are taking action to reduce reoffending, especially among prolific offenders. That includes measures in the Sentencing Bill on short-term sentencing, community punishment, investment in regional employment councils to bring local partners together to help offenders into work, and the rolling out of intensive supervision courts, which have had incredibly encouraging results so far.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and his new ministerial team to their roles. The Clink Charity has delivered life-changing rehabilitation at HMP Brixton for over a decade, significantly reducing reoffending rates. Indeed, its graduates are 64% less likely to reoffend. However, the charity has recently been told that it must compete in a commercial procurement process alongside large corporations to continue operating at Brixton. That risks disadvantaging an award-winning charity with a proven track record that is having a positive impact. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair, and can he reassure me that he will review the situation to ensure that procurement processes consider the excellent work already being achieved by organisations such as the Clink?

[Jake Richards]

Yes, I am aware of the great work that the Clink does, as are the Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister in the other place. We will be reviewing what has happened and is happening there in due course.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One of the keys ways to reduce reoffending is to ensure that ex-offenders leaving prison have secure places to live and are not tempted to go back to a life of crime. However, it can be a consequence of early release that that is not prepared in advance. What action will the Minister take so that prison governors and those involved in the prison service ensure that ex-offenders go into secure accommodation once they leave prison?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member raises an important point and challenge for the Probation Service as the Sentencing Bill comes to fruition. I was with the Justice Secretary just last week meeting probation staff. Housing is a big challenge. I will work with colleagues from across Government to ensure that we are up to that challenge. The hon. Member makes a good point, and I will update the House in due course.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

T7. May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the remarkable achievements of the Hillsborough campaigners?Last week I met Soroptimist International members in Stafford, who raised concerns about mothers in Drake Hall Prison in my constituency. Every year, 17,000 children have their mothers go to prison, yet only 9% are taken care of by their fathers. Where do those 15,000 children go, and what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that children of women in prison are properly identified and taken care of?

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her really important question. I worked with the amazing charity Children Heard and Seen prior to getting this role. I am determined to ensure that we do more to protect the children of prisoners. The Prisons Minister in the other place is already working with the Women’s Justice Board to look at better ways we can treat women prisoners to ensure that they are rehabilitated.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

T3. My team and I support many families navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system, and one of the challenges is delays in getting access to tribunal justice. As the Secretary of State gets to grips with his new role, will he make shortening those delays one of his priorities, and can he update the House accordingly?

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

T9. The formidable team at Aylesbury Women’s Aid report continued severe delays in the charging and prosecution of domestic abuse cases. We are in touch about one survivor who lives in constant fear of her abuser, who turns up at her house and taps on her windows at night, despite a warrant being out for his arrest. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that survivors are not left living in fear while they wait for justice?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Sentencing Bill, which we will debate later today, has really important measures that will protect victims of domestic abuse and ensure that victims are at the heart of our criminal justice policy, as well as probation services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The new Minister stated earlier that the Government have created 2,405 new prison places, but 1,468 of those are at HMP Millsike, which is part of the new prisons programme that was announced by the previous Conservative Government. The 10,000 additional prison places estate expansion programme—including the houseblocks and refurbishments programme, and the category D programme—has been downgraded from amber to red in the delivery confidence assessment, due to the programme’s key supplier entering administration. What steps is the Justice Secretary taking to put prison construction back on track?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member seems to be the last person defending the last Conservative Government on prisons and law and order. The truth is that over 14 years, they built 500 prison places; in 14 months, this Labour Government have built 2,500 places. We are fixing the mess that they left behind.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Voices—a domestic abuse charity in Bath—has created a guide to family court proceedings to support survivors to navigate the family courts without legal representation. The pilot was rolled out in the south-west and in Yorkshire. Will the Government work with Voices to roll it out nationally?

Sentencing Bill

Jake Richards Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of this important Bill, which will tackle the prisons crisis that we inherited from the Conservative Government and confront the scourge of reoffending in this country. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate—some more thoughtful than others—because this should be an agenda that enjoys support throughout the Chamber.

Most of today’s debate has been measured and helpful, indicating a recognition that it is necessary to stabilise a broken criminal justice system after 14 years of Tory misrule and to prioritise victims and the prevention of crime. The Bill achieves that aim. It is necessary to fix our prisons crisis, and it is also desirable, as it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safer. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his opening speech, it takes us back to the central purpose of sentencing: punishment that works.

Let me deal with the Conservative amendment and the arguments we heard from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). They say that the Bill puts the public at risk, but without it we face the threat of prisons running out of places entirely, with no space to lock up the most dangerous offenders, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say it will undermine the confidence of victims, but nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say that the Probation Service cannot cope, and it certainly could not cope under the Tories, with a botched part-privatisation that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds and a persistent shortage of staff.

We are beginning to rebuild the Probation Service. We will increase investment in probation by up to £700 million by 2028-29, which is a 45% increase. We are recruiting: we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers in our first year, and we are on track for 1,300 more this year. It is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of an independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke. I take this opportunity to thank him for all his work, as well as the previous ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin).

It is a great shame that the Opposition have attempted to play politics on sentencing and law and order. The Conservatives could have adopted a more mature position, appreciating the difficult context in which this Government took office. They could have drawn on previous Conservative traditions on rehabilitation and prison reform to support an agenda that aims to cut reoffending and keep our communities safer. Instead, they are more interested in social media clicks than serious government. It is their mess that makes this legislation so urgent. It is their failure to deliver appropriate prison places and their failure to confront reoffending rates and invest in community sentencing that has led to the mess this Government are clearing up.

As for Reform, I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), and I say with the greatest respect that it is quite clear she simply has not read the Bill. She was given ample opportunity during her speech to set out what Reform’s position is, and she simply refused. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to her, but I notice that she is not going to intervene. She lent on her role as a magistrate, and there are an enormous number of magistrates across the country, but I note that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said of her time as a magistrate that her behaviour

“fell below the standards expected of a magistrate”,

and her speech fell below those of an MP.

I want to address a number of the points raised by hon. Members in this debate. The issue of probation was raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), whose expertise in this area we will no doubt lean upon. It was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

We are very aware of the pressures the Probation Service faces, especially after the damage done by the last Conservative Government. That is why we are investing £8 million in new technology to lift the administrative burdens on probation officers and enable them to refocus their time on where it has the greatest impact. I joined the Justice Secretary on his first visit to speak to probation staff, and they told us how important that technological change could be to the work they do. However, that is not enough, and as I have said, we are increasing funding by £700 million—a 45% increase—and hiring more probation officers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised the issue of trade unions, and the challenges that this new sentencing regime will place on probation officers. I reassure him that I and the Justice Secretary will be having conversations with the trade unions throughout this process.

Electronic monitoring was raised by a number of Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. There are significant challenges in how we ensure that tagging works, but we know that tagging does work. There is clear and reliable proof of an individual’s whereabouts and behaviour, and reoffending rates are reduced by 20% when tagging is used as part of a community sentence. That is why we are investing £100 million—a 30% increase—on the biggest expansion of tagging since 1999.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), spoke passionately, as he always does, about victims. In my submission, this Bill strengthens protections for victims in our system. The Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis, and—as I have said before, but it is worth repeating—if our prisons collapse, it is victims who will pay the price.

The Bill is not just about building prison capacity and stabilising the prison system. The legislation aims to go further in offering victims protection. The Bill updates the statutory purposes of sentencing to make it clear that judges must consider the protection of victims during sentencing. This is a really important reform and I am very pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of the Bill.

On domestic abuse, I again praise the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his campaign on the domestic abuse flag. I listened to the arguments he made today and I will no doubt have further conversations with him in future. The domestic abuse flag is a massive improvement to ensure that protective services across Government—local government and Whitehall—have better powers to track domestic abusers and keep victims safe. I am pleased that that measure has received so much support.

I would push back on the argument we have heard today about short sentences. I want to be absolutely clear, on behalf of the Government: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will have the power to send offenders to prison when they want to: where a court order has been breached, where there is significant risk of harm, and in any exceptional circumstances. I want to put it on record that in many domestic abuse cases short sentences have a really important role to play. They will continue to play that role under this legislation.

Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am aware of the time—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who brought great expertise from his experience in the police. He spoke about the depressing reality of reoffending in our communities, whereby offenders are caught and put in jail for a few weeks, and then come out and reoffend again. That is why we are taking this action today. Alongside sentencing reform, we need better rehabilitation in our prisons. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised important issues relating to literacy and gambling. I have already had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I will be having more with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.

Before I close, I will address two shorter issues if I may. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich Albion—[Laughter.] Forgive me, I got carried away there; it’s nearly recess. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). They raised important and very serious cases relating to driving offences. I reassure them that I have heard their speeches and will follow up in due course about the specific cases they raise, but also the general issues.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues, but one very important one was youth sentencing. Youth sentencing is outside the scope of the Bill, but I reassure him that I will be looking into the consequences of this legislation for youth sentencing in due course.

There are few more acute crises than that which this Government inherited in our prisons. Last summer, the Government took the difficult but necessary decisions to keep the system afloat. Now, we need long-term and sustainable reform, and that is what the Bill delivers. Alongside our efforts to boost prison capacity, it is time for fundamental sentencing reform to stabilise the prison estate, confront our rates of reoffending and deliver punishment that works. We know it is possible because the evidence is clear, but we must have a laser focus on public protection and reducing reoffending. That must mean a system that incentivises offenders to become better citizens, not better criminals, and reacts swiftly when they breach the conditions of their release; that puts strong restrictions on offenders serving sentences outside prison, enforcing them where possible with the best technology available; that tackles the root causes of reoffending; and that puts victims first, with the right safeguards to protect them.

It is a great shame that, as I said, the Opposition have chosen to chase social media traction, rather than engage sensibly with this important agenda. The modern iteration of the Conservative party has stuck its head in the sand on progress, rather than facing up to the legacy it left. I am pleased the Bill does not shirk from the challenge we have been given, but faces up to it head-on and delivers the change that will keep our communities safer in the years and decades ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the immigration guideline, I will correct something that the shadow Justice Secretary said earlier. Nothing in that guideline prevents the deportation of any foreign national offenders, and this Government have been getting on with the job, having deported more than 24,000 foreign nationals. Our record on foreign national offenders is one of a 20% increase in removals this year compared with the same period last year. I wanted to ensure that the guideline did not come into effect, and that is why I published the targeted Bill. I have acknowledged that there is a debate to be had about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, which I will return to in the weeks and months ahead.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council was created in April 2010; a month later, the Conservatives came to power. If, as so many on the Conservative Benches seem to think, the Sentencing Council is a shadowy, revolutionary group of activist judges dangerously undermining the British way of life, why on earth did they not do anything about it?

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I agree with that.

[Jake Richards]

I think they agree with that now—interesting. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that this episode shows that our constitution is working? Parliament is sovereign, and if Parliament seeks to change this guidance, under this Government it will.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. At no point has anybody on the Conservative Benches shown any humility or tried to answer the question of why they did nothing about it. As I say, the case of amnesia from which the shadow Justice Secretary is suffering seems to be as bad as ever.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Jake Richards Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I am conflating the two because they are conflated in reality. A care home where somebody lives is a residence, but it is also a community, a facility and a place where professionals work to support that individual. A clear demarcation between their living arrangements and the support they receive from the institution they live in does not exist in reality. That is why they are living there—because that distinction does not apply in their particular case. They require the support and help of the workers in the place where they live.

I am afraid it is not enough simply to say, “This is their home, and they should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as they would have if they were living alone in their own flat or house.” We have to recognise the reality of the situation, which is that they are living in a community, and what happens in the community affects them all. That is the nature of communal living. This is not individualised healthcare in the way that the hon. Gentleman imagines it is, and that is fundamentally our point of difference. This is separate or adjacent to healthcare, and it is delivered, by definition, by somebody else. By virtue of the Bill, it would have a separate regulatory environment to other healthcare treatments. Of necessity, it should have an appropriate legal framework to protect other people who are impacted by assisted death in a communal setting. That is my crucial point: if someone is living in a communal setting, what they do affects their neighbours.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although this is different from the healthcare services we currently have, we have a legal framework that deals with many of these conflicting issues as and when they arise in lots of different circumstances that are not completely adjacent to these?

[Danny Kruger]

I do not know what those might be, but I would be interested to hear. That might well be the case. I am afraid that no hard-and-fast rules can be clearly applied here; or, rather, we have to apply hard-and-fast rules in the knowledge of the grey areas, the exceptions and the situations in which we might feel that the law is unjust in particular cases. We have heard examples of that, such as the evidence about the lady in Australia cited earlier by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I can well imagine the distress involved if someone suddenly finds themselves in an institution that does not permit an assisted death, but they want one and are in their last days.

The alternative, however, is a different blanket rule. If we were to have a blanket rule that we can do an assisted death anywhere—that is one situation—there would be significant knock-on effects. Serious moral injury would be suffered by other professionals and residents. I recognise that my amendment could lead to someone having to relocate if they want to have an assisted death—I am sorry for that—but I think that we have to draw the line in a way that makes most sense.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that Members might be concerned about vexatious litigation but, first, if such claims are meritless there is no need for this provision, as the courts already have the power to deal with vexatious litigation. Secondly, the clause, with or without the amendments, will not be enough to stop vexatious litigation if it occurs. The strongest protection would be to retain the role of the High Court judge. In that way, the fact that the criteria have been met has been established by a court, and that makes it very unlikely that another court would want to reopen the matter. We have not done that, and we are left with this civil liability exemption, which remains too wide. I welcome the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, but they do not go far enough. I believe the whole clause is unnecessary and should be removed.

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As I think she accepts, given that she tabled the amendments, there is an oddity with the Bill as drafted that has to be fixed, and I think the amendments would do that.

I appreciate that there is some force to the argument of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says, but it seems to me that there is a balancing act between ensuring that medical practitioners and clinicians are working in an environment in which they do not constantly feel the heat of a lawyer’s breath on their neck, and ensuring protections. There is some force to the argument for removing the clause altogether, but on balance I see more force in the argument that we should have more clarity.

I want to raise some more issues that need to be considered in the light of the provision for aspects of civil liability in this process. That is why last night I supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which was not passed, relating to guidance for doctors in certain circumstances during this process. I raise those points about the standard of care and the duty that doctors and clinicians will be working to throughout the process for the record, and so that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley can take them forward. I raise those questions not because they are unanswerable—I think they are answerable—but because we need to work out exactly what we are asking our doctors to work to, and what form that guidance comes in. Does it need to be legitimised by Parliament, or can it be undertaken by a Minister?

I do not think I need to expand greatly on the point, but we can all imagine circumstances in which clinicians are compromised in their view of the duty of care that they have to the patient. When this process begins in this jurisdiction, it needs to be clear what that is.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Well done for arriving on time, by the way.

These amendments aim to ensure that, if passed, this legislation will be legally and operationally workable. I will offer a technical, factual explanation and rationale for them. Amendments 501, 502 and 503 replace clause 25(1) and instead provide that the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill will, of itself, not give rise to civil liabilities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are where an individual provides assistance in accordance with the Bill, where an individual performs any other function under the Bill in accordance with the Bill, and where an individual assists a person seeking to end their life under the Bill, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1A) would create an exception to the exclusion of civil liabilities, providing that civil liabilities can arise in cases when an act is performed dishonestly or otherwise than in good faith, as well as in cases of negligence. Without this amendment, there is the possibility that clause 25(1) could provide blanket immunity to a person from all civil liabilities, even when they may have been negligent in their actions in providing assistance in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.

[Jake Richards]

My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Unless the Minister has anything to add on injunctions—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

Jake Richards Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think family always know best. There are situations where someone rightly will want to exclude their family from the process, and I totally respect that choice. I am saying that there will be other situations in which family do have something valid to input that could impact the panel’s decision making. My right hon. Friend also mentioned injunctions; I am keen to understand more about how that process works as a protection, so perhaps the Minister could respond on that, because that may well give me some reassurance. I will come to judicial review in a moment.

My right hon. Friend is right that this is not easy. I am not saying that family should be involved in all situations. I am saying there is a balance to be struck, and I do not think we are getting it right, because at the moment it is all about full autonomy. The working assumption is that input from family must always be ignored if the patient wants that. There must be a balance, and it is difficult to say where that should sit, which is why we have such an incredibly difficult job with the Bill.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I have a genuine question: is the hon. Lady of the view that families’ views about whether the decision is right for the individual should be considered by the panel, tribunal or judge, or is it just their views about eligibility under clause 1?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. My point is that the family should be listened to and should have a route to legally provide information to the panel. Right now, they have no right to do that. In reality, I think most panels would take that information. I would like to think that, 99 times out of 100, if a family member contacted the panel saying, “I have really important information,” it would listen to that. But I am legislating for the one case in 100 or 1,000 in which, for whatever reason, the panel refuses to engage with a family member who has a relevant bit of information, and not having the right information leads to someone’s death.

The amendment is about protecting panel members too. If I were a panel member, I would want this process in place, because it would protect me when I make a decision. I would take great comfort from knowing that a family member with relevant information has a legal right at least to communicate it to the panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to draw everyone’s attention to subsection (3) of my amendment, which states:

“The Commissioner may consider the application without a hearing if they consider it in the interests of justice to dispense with a hearing.”

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that time is of the essence and that there will be situations in which it is right that things move as quickly as possible. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring him that I am trying to come up with amendments that are balanced. I am aware that we have two different examples here; I am genuinely trying to make sure that I do not make it harder for those genuine cases, because I totally understand how important it is and I understand that there is a lot of pain and suffering, for all the reasons that have been set out. I hope that I am getting the balance right, but I am always happy to have further discussions.

Sir James Munby was one of the first to criticise the High Court safeguard; the hon. Member for Spen Valley says that she has taken those criticisms on board. His criticisms of the panel seem similarly acute. I hope that the Committee will agree that my amendment answers a real need and recognises the important role of family in the death of a loved one in most situations, although I accept not in all. It has a profound and long-lasting impact on them too, and their needs should not be entirely disregarded in the name of autonomy. The hon. Member for Rother Valley gave a very powerful speech yesterday on the subject, setting out that the amendment is not required because any decision could be judicially reviewed. I am not qualified to opine on whether judicial review would be relevant with this panel, but I look forward to the Minister covering the matter in her closing remarks. We need to be clear on that front.

Judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than to the rights and the wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is important that this is understood. A judicial review just checks that the process was followed, not whether the right decision was made. That is why our role in setting the process is so important. If the new clause remains unchanged and there is no requirement for a panel to accept relevant evidence from a family member, there will be no avenue for appeal under judicial review if such information is not taken into consideration when making the decision, because the process will have been followed.

Our role on this Committee is a heavy one. It is about getting it right and setting the process for judicial review to work as it should. We have an appeal process in the new clause for when a panel wrongfully turns down an application, but not for when it wrongfully approves one. Why not, if judicial review is available and suitable? I suspect that it is because, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley is aware, the judicial review is not the best way to do it. It is a long, onerous process involving application for permission and, in some situations, the securing of legal aid, which is fraught with difficulty. I say gently to the hon. Member that if judicial review is not suitable when the panel has wrongfully turned down an application, then why is it suitable when they have wrongfully approved someone for an assisted death?

I think it is clear that my amendment is needed as a safeguard to prevent wrongful deaths under the Bill. It is a helpful safeguard. No panel will ever want to see someone assisted to die who should not have been, just because it did not have all the information. I suggest that the safeguard will help to secure panel members, because they will feel reassured that a process is in place to avoid mistakes. If my amendment is not agreed to, and if wrongful approvals have to rely on judicial review for a remedy, I suggest that the impact assessment will need to take into account the likely impact on socioeconomic groups that rely on legal aid for funding. I suspect that, owing to a lack of funds, they will find themselves with no avenue at all to appeal. I do not think that any of us wants a two-tier system in which rich families can intervene and poor families cannot.

[Jake Richards]

I have been rightly and fairly challenged in the hon. Member’s speech, but the difference is that if a family member has a right to appeal in the internal process, that family member would have to be a party in the original hearing. The whole point of the panel is that a person comes to it with their application. The family have the right to put information before the panel, but they do not have the right to make their case to the panel, because their views on the application are not relevant. Information that they might have is relevant, but their views are not. That is why there is a disparity between the person’s ability to appeal internally against a refusal of their application, and third parties having to take other routes. I hope that that offers some clarity as to why I am comfortable with the difference between the two. I reassure the hon. Member that I have thought about it long and hard as well.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member. I would just clarify that currently there is no legal right for a family to provide information to the panel, which is part of the issue.

I turn to my amendment (c) to new clause 21. New clause 21 includes provision that, among other things, the panel’s function is to determine whether it is satisfied that the person has capacity, that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life, and that they have not been coerced or pressured. However, it is not entirely clear what “satisfied” means in the new clause. My amendment assumes that, as in a civil court, it means “on the balance of probabilities”.

As I understand it, the leading case on the meaning of “satisfied” is a 1964 House of Lords case, in which the court held that “satisfied” meant “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the tougher test of “beyond reasonable doubt”. In a later amendment, I will propose that we adopt that tougher standard, but this amendment assumes that the current wording will stand.

My view, as we have already established in lengthy debate, is that the capacity bar is low, because the doctor need only be 51% sure. On the clear, settled and informed wish and coercion test, the standard is only “to the best of the doctor’s knowledge”, which is not a particularly high bar to meet. We are therefore applying a low bar to a low bar. That certainly leaves us with a highly accessible process, but I suggest that that is not a positive or safe thing.

My amendment would bring in a further safeguard. As I have said several times, I would have preferred to see such safeguards in clauses 1 to 3, but as they were not accepted there, I am forced to propose them here, because it is better to have them than not. The amendment would give the panel the ability, if there is a “real risk” that the criteria have not been met, to pause and make further enquiries. They would not be obliged to give a decision that day, but would be obliged to look into the matter further, ask for more testimony, request more documents and consult experts.

The real risk test is taken from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Doctors will already be familiar with it, as they are already required under the Human Rights Act to assess when there is a real risk of suicide. It is not a strange novelty. The objection has been raised that introducing a real risk test to the doctors’ assessments would complicate matters, but the panel stage is a distinct stage with a distinct set of rules. I hope that the amendment will be seen not as introducing a complication but as filling a gap, particularly as this stage is meant to be more akin to a judicial stage.

Difficult situations will not necessarily be as rare as we hope. On coercive control, those with decades of experience of working with the most vulnerable have warned us time and again what the Bill could mean. Jane Monckton-Smith, one of the leading academics in the area, has said:

“Unless we do take this incredibly seriously, this Bill is going to be the worst thing, potentially, that we have ever done to domestic abuse victims.”

The consultant clinical psychologist Sue Smith, who specialises in cancer and palliative care, has submitted written evidence from which I will quote at length, because it vividly brings out the scale of the risk of coercive or controlling behaviour:

“In my clinical experience working with people who have cancer, a cancer diagnosis and treatment effects can amplify CCB…A woman asking for her needs to be seen and met alongside her increased physical and psychological vulnerability creates a change within the couple, which can lead to violent acts or CCB. The seriousness of the cancer diagnosis may be systematically and actively denied or minimised, claims can be made by the male partner that she is attention seeking, or she is accused of making up the effects of treatment, and can be left isolated and alone when in physical need, e.g. managing treatment effects like nausea or pain that restrict the ability to wash, dress and where she is reliant on others for help. At the same time a male partner may also state, ‘You are better off dead anyway,’ ‘Your children don’t care, and no one else in your life cares about whether you die.’ They may also threaten to leave. This pattern is extremely confusing, harmful and threatening. It continues over time, and a woman learns to doubt her reality and experience, and is extremely isolated. This can lead to heightened anxiety, hopelessness and helplessness, and abject despair, which can lead to a person wishing they were dead. The confidence and ability to know what one needs and wants is severely compromised when her reality is continually minimised or denied and will impact informed decision making.”

We can hope that the existing safeguards will catch some of those cases, but they will not catch all cases, so my amendment would go a little way towards improving the safeguards.

Amendment (a) to new clause 21 tries to pin down a missing detail, namely the standard by which the panel makes its decision. In a criminal trial, a jury is sent away to consider its verdict. The members of the jury know that they must be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt. It is not enough to think it likely on balance, nor is it enough that they have an opinion that they can justify with good reasons. It must meet a high threshold. Why is there such a high standard? Because we have to be sure about the decision, given the grave consequences. We are now considering a similar question: what is the right standard for a decision that will make the difference between life and death?

I turn to subsections (2) and (6) of new clause 21. We are told that the panel must be satisfied that the eligibility criteria have been met. The word “satisfied” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Bill. If a question subsequently comes to court, as has happened in Belgium where there was a wrongful assisted suicide, we will be asking the court to rule on whether the panel should have been satisfied. That raises an obvious question, which my amendment is designed to answer: what does “satisfied” mean?

I turn to a real-life example. In a famous case in Oregon, an elderly woman called Kate Cheney sought assisted suicide. She had a terminal cancer diagnosis; she also had dementia, so she was referred to a psychiatrist to establish whether she had capacity. She was accompanied to the appointment with the psychiatrist by her daughter Erika, who seemed extremely assertive about the assisted death. Kate Cheney denied that she was being pressured. However, the psychiatrist noticed that the daughter was coaching her mother. Referring to Kate, the psychiatrist wrote in his report:

“She does not seem to be explicitly pushing for this.”

He concluded that she did not have capacity to make the decision. The daughter was, in her own word, “incensed” that the psychiatrist was casting such a judgment on her mother. Kate applied for a second opinion and was assessed by a clinical psychologist. He found that Kate did have capacity, but he added that her

“choices may be influenced by her family’s wishes, and her daughter, Erika, may be somewhat coercive”.

Nevertheless, he gave the green light to the application and Kate received the go-ahead.

I ask members of the Committee whether they would be satisfied that Kate Cheney was eligible for an assisted death. Are they confident that colleagues would share the same judgment about being satisfied? Can they be sure that every social worker, legal figure and psychiatrist would be satisfied in the same direction? After all, the psychiatrists in Oregon were divided on it.

In written evidence, the most experienced clinicians have urged us to recognise that abuse is difficult to pick up. Sarah Grove, a consultant in palliative medicine, says:

“Over my years in practice, I have witnessed families acting for financial gain and not in their loved one’s best interests but in this kind of situation, this has always been impossible to prove.”

Dr Kathryn Myers, a retired palliative medicine consultant, says:

“I have seen coercion in the contexts of decision-making around the best place of care for patients and of money and property. Perpetrators are usually family members…Occasionally it has been overt and easy to detect, for example, threatening or manipulative words or actions. Most frequently it has been very subtle, one might even say, gentle. It can take skilled clinical nurse specialists highly trained in communication skills and in detecting coercion, who know the person well and who have a relationship of trust with them, several conversations over several days if not weeks to uncover that coercion has occurred.”

In such a case, with limited time, a panel may not be certain whether to give the green light to an application. That uncertainty will be even greater if it does not know what evidential standard to employ.

My amendment would clarify that grey area. It would bring in a standard that has been tried and tested and is well understood. To be clear, “beyond reasonable doubt” merely means that the panel is sure. The courts have said that the two phrases are equivalent, as has the Judicial College in its guide to judges, “The Crown Court Compendium”:

“What is required is a clear instruction to the jury that they have to be satisfied so that they are sure…if an advocate has referred to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the jury should be told that this means the same thing as being sure.”

The Crown Prosecution Service says:

“the magistrates or district judge in a magistrates’ court or the jury in a Crown Court must be sure that the defendant is guilty. Sometimes you’ll hear this described as ‘sure beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so you are sure’.

Importantly, the word “satisfied” by itself is not enough. Juries must be not just “satisfied”, but

“satisfied so you are sure”.

The wording in the amendment would be equally strong. It opts for “beyond reasonable doubt” because it is a better known phrase and more widely understood than

“satisfied so you are sure”.

I do not want to get too hung up on which of those phrases to use. The point is to adopt the tried and tested standard that has worked in the courts. We want the Bill to have the highest standards and to protect people. Amendment (a) to new clause 21 would help to achieve that.

Members will all be delighted to know that I am moving on to the last amendment.

[Jake Richards]

I know that the hon. Lady has been on her feet for some time, but I just want to explore the difference between what a jury is doing and what this panel is doing. Let us, for example, consider the issue of coercion and a case where there is no evidence that the person is being coerced in any way, but of course the panel has not asked everyone in that person’s life. It has not heard evidence from everyone. There is no factual matrix determining what has happened or what has not happened. Can the panel sit there and say, “We are sure,” or do you think it would have to investigate all the circumstances of that person’s life and interview everyone that is in and around their social circle to be sure that they have not been coerced? Can you see why, as I set out in my speech, the “beyond reasonable doubt” burden is not appropriate for the task of this panel?

[The Chair]

Order. Can I gently again remind Members that “you” means me? Please refer to the hon. Lady.

[Jake Richards]

Forgive me, Chair.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. It is useful to have these debates and conversations, but I would suggest that the panel needs to be sure off the back of the information that it has been given and the witness testimony, which goes back to why it is so important to ensure that we have that coverage and the right things feeding into the panel so it can get to that high threshold. I would expect the threshold to be at court level, given the huge, significant ramifications of this decision for that person.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Jake Richards Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are keeping the situation in relation to Nightingale courts under review. Where they are making a contribution that is assisting with caseflow through the system, there is a case for keeping them, but it is under review and the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), will be happy to write to her with further details.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I have been in this House for only a few months, but I must admit that I am absolutely staggered by the chutzpah of Conservative Members—most have left, but when they were here—in their attitude to this issue. In a competitive field, the state of our criminal courts and our criminal justice system perhaps wins the award for the most acute crisis as a result of the legacy of the previous Government. I really welcome today’s statement, in particular the emphasis not just on capacity but on productivity. May I just press the Government on whether that approach will also be taken in our family courts? I welcome the investment in infrastructure and capital spend in family courts, but we also need to look at how we can improve productivity.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point on productivity. That is why the second phase of Sir Brian Leveson’s work is so crucial. He will know that we have expanded our pathfinder pilot, which is making a really important contribution to the flow of cases through the family court, and we are keeping it under review.