Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience, but is there not an argument for every case to have a pre-sentence report in order to truly understand what an individual has faced and whether there are any mitigating factors? I appreciate that that could create a backlog for these services, but is it not one possible solution to the problem that the Sentencing Council was worried about—namely, that different cohorts might have different sentencing outcomes?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do.

Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.

Royal British Legion

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before I call Dr Luke Evans to move the motion, it will be apparent to everyone that a good number of speakers want to participate. To give fair warning to all Back-Bench speakers, I am afraid we will have to limit you to about two and a half minutes. We will start doing so informally, and if everyone can keep to that, we should be able to get everyone in. If not, we will have to impose a formal time limit.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The poppy stands tall, with bended head—the perfect personification of honouring our dead. Every year, one of the most iconic flowers is seen and respected across this nation, and it is down to the work of the Royal British Legion. Today, I am honoured and humbled to mark the contributions of the RBL to this country in Parliament. Looking at Hansard for the last time the Royal British Legion was a topic of debate, I had to scroll back to 2013, so it is a pleasure to bring this debate to the House ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which is just around the corner. I will talk about the role of the RBL nationally, but I particularly want to reflect on my local branch, as its story exemplifies and typifies what is happening up and down the nation to support our veterans and influence people’s heads and hearts. It was Thornton Wilder who said:

“The greatest tribute to the dead is not grief, but gratitude”,

and the RBL embodies that sentiment perfectly.

At this point, I must declare an interest: I have the great privilege to be the president of the Hinckley branch of the Royal British Legion. That is particularly fitting, as I took up the role in 2023, which was the centenary of the formation of Hinckley and district’s Royal British Legion. Who was the first president in 1923? It was the then Conservative and Unionist Member for Bosworth and my predecessor but three, Major Thomas Guy Paget.

In 2023, I talked in the main Chamber about the RBL and the work of local volunteers around Remembrance Sunday, and highlighted the particular work of Elaine Ward, who received a medal from the RBL to commemorate her five decades of service in fundraising for the poppy appeal. I asked the then Leader of the House if we could have a debate on the volunteers who support the RBL. It took some time, but I am pleased to say that we finally secured today’s debate.

I know that Members present will be aware of the fantastic contributions that the RBL makes to all our communities nationally, but it would be remiss of me not to talk about some of its great work and the history behind it. The Royal British Legion is the largest armed forces charity in the UK. It was formed in May 1921 to care for those who were suffering as a result of their service during the first world war, and brought together four national organisations for ex-servicemen. Of those who came back from the first world war, 1.75 million suffered some form of disability, and half of them were permanently disabled, so the legion had important work to do right from its beginning. The first ever poppy appeal was held in 1921 and raised over £106,000, and it is a proud tradition that carries on 100 years later.

In 1971, the Queen declared that the organisation would be granted royal status and become the Royal British Legion, and the charity now has 180,000 members and 110,000 volunteers. In the past year alone, the RBL has awarded over £18 million-worth of grants, helping thousands of veterans and families through the cost of living crisis. It has provided expert financial guidance, legal representation and essential aid during hardship, securing £39 million in war pension awards.

Beyond financial support, the RBL is a lifeline for wellbeing. The Battle Back Centre in Shropshire has empowered hundreds of veterans through recovery programmes, and its six homes, including specialist dementia services, ensure dignity and comfort for those who have served. Community is at the heart of the RBL’s mission. Whether it is through independent living services, telephone buddies for the lonely or the 96 global branches that support service personnel worldwide, the RBL is always there.

The RBL’s unwavering commitment reminds us that we owe our veterans more than gratitude; we owe them action. Possibly the greatest action that the RBL facilitates is that of a nation remembering. Remembrance is the active process of keeping the past alive in our present. It is so important, now more than ever, that we continue to educate the next generation about the first and second world wars, and the incredible sacrifices made by so many to ensure our freedoms today. Why? As the last surviving veterans of the second world war become fewer and fewer—only a few weeks ago the last surviving battle of Britain pilot, John “Paddy” Hemingway, passed away—we must not let that knowledge of the impacts of war fade away. Future generations must be reminded; as the famous quote says, “Lest we forget.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

Let us reflect on the quiet, steadfast work of the Royal British Legion. It is a pillar of remembrance, a shield for those who served, and a voice for those who can no longer speak. In paying tribute to that, we affirm our collective duty to support it, just as it has supported so many. We will remember them.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member, and to all who have contributed to this understandably popular debate.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,  

That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Luke Evans and Jeremy Wright

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I begin with an apology to you and others for the fact that I will not be in the Chamber for some part of the debate because of other parliamentary business that I have to attend?

I start my remarks by recalling that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to locate with Parliament—rather than with decision makers in individual cases or with courts reviewing those cases—the decision on whether Rwanda is a safe country to send people to. A number of the amendments before us would undermine that fundamental purpose by transferring decisions on that question away from Parliament and back to the caseworkers and courts, so they are, I am afraid, wrecking amendments. They are incredibly elegant wrecking amendments, and they come from an honourable and fundamental opposition to the purpose of the Bill—an opposition that I entirely understand.

I confess that I did not find voting for this legislation a comfortable choice. It comes very close to the line on rule-of-law acceptability, but in my view stays just the right side of it. Crucially, it asserts parliamentary sovereignty on an issue of huge political significance, where that issue is central to the delivery of a key Government policy. That significant and central issue is whether the Government of the day are entitled to pursue a policy on illegal immigration that contains an element of effective deterrence, and I think the Government must be able to do that. For a deterrent to be effective, it must be clear. To economic migrants seeking to reach the UK under cover of our asylum system, the deterrent is that they might end up in a different country—in this case, Rwanda. For that deterrent to be meaningful, the prospect of transfer to Rwanda must be a real one that it is not easy to evade, which means that the headline judgment on Rwanda’s safety must be clear to all, subject of course, as it should be, only to persuasive individual circumstances.

I think that approach is worthy of support for two reasons. First, illegal migration is a huge problem, and the Government must be able to pursue innovative solutions to it, especially in the absence of credible alternatives.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent point about how we must be innovative. Is that not the reason why other countries are looking at what the UK is doing? The likes of Austria, Germany and Italy have all talked about using third nations because there needs to be a solution to the problem, as he is so eloquently setting out.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, not to transgress into Second Reading territory, but I think my hon. Friend is right about that. as our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has pointed out, other international agencies also make use of Rwanda for these purposes.

Secondly, Parliament is as able as any other body to make judgments about the safety of Rwanda. I am grateful for the information with which we have been provided, including the country information note that was referred to earlier in the debate, which in my view supports the conclusion that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of the Bill. But Parliament’s decision making on the safety of Rwanda must have integrity not just for now, but for the future. I am, I have to say, troubled by what I might describe as the absolutist, if not the eternalist nature of the wording of the Bill, which says that Rwanda is safe and must be taken as such for a variety of purposes, and Parliament’s judgment on that will stand, as far as I can see, until new legislation is passed.

That is why the noble Lord Hope’s amendments—Lords amendments 2 and 3—are interesting, although I cannot support them as they essentially transfer authority to the treaty’s monitoring committee to determine whether Rwanda remains a safe country, based on compliance or otherwise with the treaty. That cannot be right, as the Bill is intended specifically to give Parliament that authority, and Parliament should, in theory at least, retain the option to consider breaches of the treaty and nevertheless conclude that Rwanda remains a safe country for the purposes of the Bill.