Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

[Shabana Mahmood]

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me make some progress.

Eventually the Sentencing Council did U-turn, but not before the guidance had briefly come into force. The council took until midday on 1 April, which was several hours after the guidance had come into force, to update magistrates and judges. Its email undermined the Lord Chancellor yet again. It stated that it still believed that the guidance was “necessary and appropriate”. The whole saga has been nothing short of farcical. It has been an embarrassment. It has damaged public confidence in the justice system, and the Justice Secretary’s Bill does not fix that trust deficit. It is half-baked. It is a half-job that stores up problems for another day—because, make no mistake, we will be back here again and again; it will be like Groundhog Day. The Justice Secretary has left in post at the Sentencing Council the very people who drafted these rules and declined her initial invitation to change them. She has left the system intact, and she has left the door wide open for this to happen again. That is not hypothetical. We know for a fact that more offensive two-tier sentencing guidelines are incoming.

The Sentencing Council is consulting on new immigration guidelines that water down sentences for people smugglers. If they come into force, hundreds of immigration offenders a year will not meet the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation, blowing a hole in border controls. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop that—there are plenty of open-border activists who would oppose her—this Bill leaves her powerless to do so. She has chosen to be powerless. It is the definition of madness to repeat the same decisions and expect different results. History will keep repeating itself until Ministers take back control of sentencing frameworks. But still the Justice Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and claims that there will be no two-tier justice under her leadership.

The Bill fixes one small element of the problem and leaves the rest of it entirely intact. It does nothing to stop the two-tier pre-sentence report guidance, which still instructs probation officers to take into account so-called intergenerational trauma—trauma suffered not by the defendant, but presumably by their ancestors. It does nothing to stop the bail guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, which instructs officials to “prioritise” ethnic minority defendants for bail decisions—not on the facts of the offence, not on the basis of risk to the public, but because of their racial or cultural identity. It does nothing to stop the “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, the official handbook for judges, which is riddled with activist talking points, including the claim that migrants are mistreated by the press, and the adoption of a dangerously expansive definition of Islamophobia that could amount to a back-door blasphemy law.

Everywhere we look—more examples emerge every week—this ideology runs through the Ministry of Justice like rot through the rafters. The principle of equality before the law, one of the great inheritances of our country, is being systematically inverted, replaced by cultural relativism, by a hierarchy of victimhood. Some defendants are to be treated gently; others are to face the full force of the law—all depending on their background, race, religion or self-declared identity. That is not justice. It is injustice, wrapped in the language of compassion. But who is it compassionate to? The victims? Of course not; they do not get a look in.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for championing the cause of justice and obliging the Government to follow suit, albeit grudgingly. Leaving aside the fundamental injustice that he describes—the two-tier justice system—does he acknowledge that what the Sentencing Council proposes and continues to do undermines popular faith in the rule of law and justice and, as the Lord Chancellor herself says, tears the whole system apart?

[Robert Jenrick]

That is the very real risk of what we see, not just in these aborted sentencing guidelines, but in the broader fabric of two-tier justice that we are revealing with every passing day. What we all want to see, and what I believe the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) wants to see as well, is equality before the law. That means that in no instance should the law be applied differently depending on the colour of people’s skin or the faith that they abide by. We must all fight against that, because it is immensely corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right: many Conservative Members appear to have a very loose relationship with their own track record.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor is right that equality before the law lies at the heart of popular respect for justice. However, I must say to her that it is not this House that endangers the separation of powers, but judicial activists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has made palpably clear, who are more interested in making laws than applying them. Will she, as my right hon. Friend requested, let this House know whether she retains faith in the Sentencing Council and its members or whether, like me, she believes that having been exposed, they should now do the honest and right thing and resign?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have already said that I am not interested in making a personal attack on anybody. I have a disagreement on a point of principle with members of the Sentencing Council about what is the proper preserve of policy and what is the proper role they should play. We have tried to resolve it. They have agreed to pause their guideline. We will move forward constructively.

I will not stand back and let people attack the independence of the judiciary. I have sworn a solemn oath; I will fulfil that oath. We are very lucky in this country to have the sort of legal system that we do and a judiciary that is held in high regard. These are public servants of the highest order. It is easy for politicians to attack on matters of policy or politics they do not like, but as I have just shown, if politicians or parliamentarians disagree with something, we have the power to change it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult fiscal inheritance for this Government, and that we have had to make some difficult choices. We received a good settlement from the Treasury at the last Budget, but it is not without its challenges, given the high demand in our system. He will know that we have protected funding for victims of violence against women and girls, including rape and sexual offences. We have sought to protect the most vulnerable victims when making decisions on our victims funding packages.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that people convicted of charges related to grooming gangs receive adequate sentences.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point on these heinous gangs and the crimes that they commit. The 20 recommendations made by Alexis Jay in her independent inquiry on child sexual abuse were ignored for far too long. The Government are working at pace to respond to them. We will also legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, ensuring that the punishment fits these horrific crimes.

[Sir John Hayes]

As in Bradford last week, where more of the grooming gangsters, largely of Pakistani origin, who raped white girls there and elsewhere were sentenced, the paucity of the Home Secretary’s audit, whereby authorities mark their own homework, was made clear. Will the Justice Secretary agree to a wide-ranging review of these matters with statutory powers? Surely those whose lives have been ruined, and those whose lives may yet be ruined, deserve more than the weak reticence of people with power who refuse to face the facts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective in making it clear that there is a desire in all parts of the House to ensure that we face the full facts and that the victims of these heinous crimes receive the justice they deserve. I am sorry to hear that there are concerns in Bradford about the audit ordered by the Home Secretary; I will ensure that they are passed on to the Home Secretary, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, these matters fall directly within the purview of the Home Department.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is delighted to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the point that I was making: this is an inappropriate process.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech, as I expected him to do. On the issue of process, I say this to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), my constituency neighbour: as he will know, I have introduced some very serious Bills, including the one that became the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It was preceded by three independent reports and pre-legislative cross-party scrutiny by both Houses, which happened before the Committee stage. The point is that that process should take place before Second Reading, not after.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will now run through the process before taking any more interventions.

As I have explained, pretty much anybody with a serious illness or disability could work out how to qualify for an assisted death under the Bill. Members may think that far-fetched, but it is what happens everywhere that assisted suicide is legal, including in Oregon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I have known well only one person who committed suicide: my former professor. I learnt after his death that he had been haunted by imagined demons for most of his life and, in the later part of his life, hounded by heartless humans. Had assisted suicide been available to him, I am sure that he would have died much earlier. After those demons first visited him, he had a loving wife and three daughters, so he had moments of joy, though most of his life was punctuated by pain. I am just as sure, because I knew him well, that he would have voted against this Bill today, for all our lives are a mix of sorrow and joy.

I will not amplify the arguments about process, although I think it is immensely naive to assume that this Bill could be changed substantially in Committee. As a shadow Minister and a Minister for 19 years, I oversaw many Bills in Committee, and I know what Committees do. They calibrate, refine and improve legislation; they do not fundamentally alter the intent voted for on Second Reading.

Neither shall I talk too much about what happens in other jurisdictions, except to say that it is certainly true that everywhere it has been introduced, assisted dying has expanded—not always by subsequent legislation, but often through judicial interpretation. The idea that we should put this charming but rather naive faith in the judiciary to make these decisions subsequent to the House passing the Bill is just that: innocent—that is the most generous way I can describe it.

What I will talk about is simply this: the Bill would change the relationship between clinicians and patients forever. It would say to the NHS, “Your job is not only to protect and preserve life; it is sometimes to take life.” I am not prepared for our NHS to be changed in that way. Beyond that, the Bill would change society’s view of what life and death are all about. This is not just about individual choices, as hon. Members have said in their interventions and speeches; it is about a collective, communal view on how we see the essence of life and death.

Finally, we have had a civilised debate in this place, but it is very different out there on the mean streets, as each and every one of us knows. There are many cruel, spiteful, ruthless and unkind people in the world, and there are also many vulnerable and frail people. When those two groups collide, the outcome is not good for the second.

I fear this Bill. I will vote against it. I will vote for what a politician in another place once called “the audacity of hope”—hope that we can improve palliative care; hope that we can do better. I fear for the disabled and vulnerable people who would be affected by the provisions of this Bill, which—regardless of the good intentions of its advocates—I believe will fan the flames of fear.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right: the quality of prison education must continually improve if we are to achieve the best possible rehabilitation outcomes.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State make available—perhaps through a note in the Library—the number and type of foreign national offenders who, aided by deluded interest groups and dodgy lawyers, are resisting deportation by means of appeal, either to domestic courts or to European—foreign—judges?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the data that was published under the previous Government will continue to be published by ours.

Criminal Law

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have only three brief points to make.

First, we need an honest debate in this place about the purpose of prison. It is true that prison exists to protect those who otherwise might suffer harm—we incarcerate people because they are dangerous—but prison also matters for the reason of punishment. To incarcerate somebody who has done something wrong is to deprive them of their liberty to punish them. We should be straightforward that most of our constituents believe in just retribution. They do not spend their time, like so much of the liberal establishment does, agonising about the circumstances of criminals; they are more concerned about the circumstances of victims. Prison works for that reason above all else. It is a deprivation of liberty, endured by those who deserve to endure it. My constituents, and I suspect those of Members from all parts of the House, will be outraged by the idea that some of those people will now be let loose on our streets.

I accept that there are exceptions set out in the proposals before the House, but I have to say that had the previous Government introduced this measure, I would have voted against it, and I will vote against it today. I tabled amendments along with the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), and many other colleagues that would have further altered these provisions. I will not go into those in detail, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I suspect you would not allow me to do so, but I advise the new Lord Chancellor to take a look at them to see what further steps can be taken to mitigate this unfortunate circumstance, for that is the least we can do.

My second point is about the specifics of this proposal. It has already been said that the way of dealing with the prison population is twofold in essence. One is to reduce the number of people on remand by improving the throughput of people from arrest to trial. The second is to reduce the population by dealing with foreign national offenders. Remand prisoners represent about 20% of the population. Foreign national offenders now number, as the Lord Chancellor will know, in the many thousands. We can take people out of the system by doing those two things, and we can also build more prisons. I accept that the previous Government should have done more, but this Government should look at urgent prison building. We were able to build Nightingale hospitals at a stroke, so why can we not have Fry prisons built as at least a temporary measure to accommodate people who would otherwise commit further crimes?

My final point, which has been made repeatedly— I am being brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you will want me to be so, and I want to support you as much as I can in your new role—is simply this: if this is a temporary provision, as the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) just said, why is there no sunset clause? It is all very well saying there will be a review in 18 months, but a sunset clause would mean that the measure had to come back to this House for further consideration. That is the difference between something written in the legislation and something promised in the form of a review.

I have no reason not to believe the promises of the Lord Chancellor—I take them at face value—but let us have some substance around those promises by building a sunset clause into the legislation. That would, at the very least, show the good faith that is a necessary component of good governance. Prison works. Let us build more prisons and say to our constituents that we will no longer pander to the predilections, preoccupations and prejudices of the liberal establishment, but will instead speak for them, for what they believe is what I believe: many more wicked people should be incarcerated for much longer. That is what they would say on the doorstep in any constituency; it is about time that it was said here, and I am delighted that it now has been—by me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call the Lord Chancellor to make her closing remarks.