debates/debates2025-10-21g conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-21)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-21g conversation_24

Ben Obese-Jecty:Hinchingbrooke hospital is one of the few hospitals in Cambridgeshire that are yet to have an electronic patient record system, and its current level of digital maturity is at the lowest end of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society scale. Hospitals within the new hospital programme are required to be at level 5 on the HIMSS scale, in line with the national digital capability framework. What financial assistance will be given to North West Anglia NHS foundation trust to facilitate an investment case, so that the rebuilt Hinchingbrooke hospital has a modern and enterprise-wide electronic patient record system? \p Wes Streeting: The hon. Gentleman draws to our attention the appalling state that the NHS was left in by the previous Government. We are working at pace to introduce EPRs across the system. I am sure that Ministers would be happy to look at the case at his local hospital to clean up the mess that the Conservative party left behind. \p Adam Thompson: As a migraine sufferer, I am afflicted about once a week by debilitating symptoms, which always include partial blindness, and sometimes include numbness in my fingers, nausea, brain fog, sensitivity to light and sound, a pounding headache and even an inability to speak—heartbreaking for a politician. I am very lucky, though, that my migraines generally only last half an hour; other people’s can be much worse and last days. What steps is the Minister taking to improve support for migraine sufferers like me? \p Ashley Dalton: At national level, a number of initiatives support service improvement and better care for patients with migraine. The Getting It Right First Time neurology programme published a national specialty report that made several recommendations to improve recognition and diagnosis of migraine by GPs. Additionally, the RightCare toolkit sets out key priorities for improving care for patients with migraine, including correct identification and diagnosis, and NHS England has established a multi-year, clinically led neurology transformation programme—so, lots. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Minister, I like your style, but your answers are far too long for my health. \p Steffan Aquarone: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a serving Norfolk county councillor.

It is two years since the Conservatives in Norfolk oversaw the closure of two convalescence facilities: Benjamin Court in Cromer and Grays Fair Court in Costessey, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). This was done without public consultation, and it has been met with outcry from local residents. This short-sighted move will only worsen the backlogs at local hospitals and reduce options for my constituents who need extra support. Will the Minister meet me and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South to discuss how we can ensure that these vital convalescence facilities will not be lost? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need shorter questions. \p Stephen Kinnock: I do not know the details of that case, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I can certainly come back to him on it. That sounds like a vital service that needs to be protected. \p Siobhain McDonagh: In the Secretary of State’s list of what has happened since his last oral questions, he failed to mention the appointment of our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) as a Minister. He is particularly looking at life sciences. Without life sciences and drug trials, we will not see an improvement in outcomes for rare cancers. Can the Secretary of State make a statement on what will be done about rare cancers? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place. I will be honest: in effect, he has been a Minister since we came into government. We very much welcome the work that he has been putting in.

We are determined to do more on rare cancers, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). All the work that she is doing, particularly on rare brain cancers, is much appreciated. \p Rebecca Paul: Most young people referred to gender identity services are same-sex attracted, neurodiverse and/or traumatised. Looked-after children are also over-represented in this cohort. Is the Secretary of State really comfortable with children being given puberty blockers, which essentially chemically neuter them, for the purposes of the PATHWAYS clinical trial? \p Wes Streeting: Within days of taking office, I upheld the judgment made by my predecessor. We need to tread carefully and be sensitive in this space. We need to take an evidence-based approach to trans healthcare in our country, and that is the approach that this Government will take. \p Sarah Smith: As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, Reform-led Lancashire county council has opened a consultation on the future of care homes across Lancashire, including the proposal to close Woodlands care home in my constituency of Hyndburn. Will the Minister join me in urging Lancashire county council not to take forward these proposals, to protect much-valued local services, and to keep care close to the community and to the amazing staff who support our residents in Woodlands care home? \p Stephen Kinnock: I absolutely agree. It has been very interesting to see that all the rhetoric of many Reform-led councils has come crashing down as they face the reality of the situation. Adult social care plays an absolutely vital role in the shift from hospital to community, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further. \p Damian Hinds: Alton and Petersfield hospitals give excellent step-up, step-down and end-of-life care. The trust is introducing more home-based care, which is good, but it also proposes closing a ward in one of the community hospitals. Will the Minister ensure that there remain sufficient beds and sufficient capacity in our local community hospitals for those patients who need them? \p Zubir Ahmed: In September, Hampshire Hospitals NHS foundation trust reported step-down intermediate care capacity as the primary reason for discharge, and at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS trust, the discharge figure was 13% lower than the average. As important as intermediate care is, we know from the evidence that getting home is better; we are putting record amounts of money into the better care fund to make that possible.[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 5WC.] (Correction) \p Clive Efford: I draw Ministers’ attention to the Prostate Cancer Research report published last week. It busts the myth that a screening programme for prostate cancer would cost the NHS too much money. It would focus on the people most at risk—in other words, black men over the age of 45, and those who, like me, have a history of it in their family. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending this report to the UK National Screening Committee? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the inequalities to which he draws our attention. We will look at that report carefully. I am awaiting the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee. We will look carefully at that, and I will report to the House on our decision. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The secure supply of medical radioisotopes is critical for the treatment and diagnosis of many conditions. Is this the Department’s responsibility, and does it support the Welsh Government’s Project Arthur scheme at the nuclear licenced site in Trawsfynydd in my constituency? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Member for that question. Security of supply is obviously of importance to the entire Government. My portfolio includes pharmacy, which is a very important part of that. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss further the matter she has raised. \p Leigh Ingham: In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I recently ran a survey, which had a whopping 99% response rate, in support of an urgent treatment centre in my constituency. Would the Minister agree to meet me to discuss urgent treatment provision in my constituency? \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend does an excellent job in her constituency. I meet her regularly to discuss issues in her constituency, and I am very happy to discuss the provision of urgent care centres with her. \p James Wild: Greater transparency about NHS data should be used to drive improvements, so what assessment has the Health Secretary made of the impact on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn of being forced to make savings of £18 million this year? What impact will that have on the need to reduce waiting times for A&E and cancer treatment, as identified in the league table that he published? \p Wes Streeting: We are putting £26 billion more into the NHS this year, which is investment that was opposed by the Conservative party. \p Juliet Campbell: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia—an issue on which I have campaigned for many years—I remain alarmed at the high number of dyslexic people who still need to use mental health services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better serve dyslexic people in Broxtowe and across the UK, and will he consider measures to prevent more dyslexic people from needing mental health services? \p Zubir Ahmed: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experiences, and I would be delighted to meet her. \p Adrian Ramsay: I welcome the approval of plans for a new dental school at the University of East Anglia. What arrangements and incentives will the Minister put in place to keep dental graduates in the most poorly served areas, such as my constituency of Waveney Valley? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Member for that question. He will have seen that, in the 10-year plan, we have committed to tie-ins. Once the current cohort is through its studies, new cohorts will be tied into doing NHS dentistry for a period after graduation. I am sure that he welcomes that very important measure. \p Helena Dollimore: Jules Fielder is a young woman from Hastings who has tragically been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after doctors repeatedly missed the early symptoms. Jules is now channelling her personal tragedy into action and campaigning to raise awareness of early symptoms, and she wants shops like Boots and Superdrug to use their shelf space to raise awareness. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Jules’s amazing campaigning work? \p Ashley Dalton: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I offer my sympathy and best wishes to Jules and her family. Of course, I commend her awareness-raising work, which is really important. Her experience is one of the reasons why we are rolling out targeted lung screening and starting to use artificial intelligence to detect discrepancies in screening. \p Ben Spencer: Children in Runnymede and Weybridge are waiting on average two years to get a diagnosis of autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS foundation trust. The trust is deviating from national guidance on new developmental pathways, and waiting times are even greater if children need medication. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns, and will he investigate the trust and make sure that children and families get the support that they need? \p Zubir Ahmed: The hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in this field, and I am grateful to him for bringing this matter to light, but he was part of the previous Government, who let waiting lists get out of control. He will appreciate that I am unable to directly interfere in ICB decisions, but I am very happy to write to the board to ask for an update, and to update him when it replies. \p Jayne Kirkham: My constituents’ baby, Bran Tunnicliffe, sadly died last year. His parents shared their experience with me, and described the wait for a coroner’s report as a lottery that depends on which hospital, pathologist and coroner is involved. I know that there is a shortage of pathologists in the UK. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my constituents’ experience? \p Wes Streeting: I am so sorry to hear that having experienced such unimaginable heartbreak, the family then had to go through that additional trauma. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and look at what we can do together with our friends at the Ministry of Justice to improve the experience for families in that awful situation. \p Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Gregory Campbell. \p Gregory Campbell: Some progress has been made in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Will the Secretary of State ensure that when the further progress that we all hope to see is made, it will be shared quickly and efficiently with the devolved regions? \p Wes Streeting: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I work very well with my counterparts across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, regardless of party affiliations. I think he makes a very sensible suggestion. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Health team may have inadvertently misled the House. In July, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation noted that respiratory syncytial virus vaccines were so effective that they should be extended to all those over 80 and those in adult care homes. The Secretary of State reassured this House in July that the recommendation had been accepted, and provision would be in place for this winter. When I asked about that today, the Secretary of State said from a sedentary position that he had delivered on that promise, and the Minister for Secondary Care then confirmed that. However, Government and NHS guidelines still show that availability of the vaccine has not been extended. How can I ensure that the record is correct? \p Lindsay Hoyle: First of all, you cannot continue the debate, but you have certainly put that on the record. \p Stuart Andrew: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before beginning my questions, I meant to pay tribute to our former colleague Oliver Colvile, who sadly passed away last night. He served as the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport between 2010 and 2017 and was named by Conservative Home as one of a minority of Conservative MPs not to have voted against the Government, which, as a previous Whip, I thought was exceptional. He was a true gentleman whose eccentricities endeared him to many. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family. \p Lindsay Hoyle: We all remember Oliver Colvile very fondly. He really was a good MP and a nice kind of guy to meet. I knew Oliver way before he came to this House. We are all saddened to hear the news. \p Wes Streeting: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government and Labour Members, I associate myself fully with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). Oliver Colvile was a decent man and a wonderful public servant—we all share that view. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will absolutely follow his example when it comes to following the Whip. \p Graham Stuart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Oliver Colvile was loved by Members from across this House. As it will soon be the 175th anniversary dinner of the Lords and Commons cricket team, it is worth remembering one of the most famous wickets ever taken, when Oliver Colvile bowled and took that wicket in India, on live television, watched by tens of millions. I had never seen a triumph like it. He will be much missed. He was always loved and respected in this House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: His brother is the famous Sky cricket commentator. \p Chris Philp: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the recent criticism of the statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal. \p Jess Phillips: As stated in my previous statement to the House on 2 September and in my letter to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Government remain resolute in delivering Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. These crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable. Baroness Casey’s report exposed more than a decade of institutional inaction, and we are determined to ensure that such failures are never repeated.

Central to our response is a statutory national inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will oversee local investigations and will have full powers to compel evidence. It will also be time-limited to three years to ensure that victims and survivors receive answers swiftly. The inquiry will examine safeguarding systems, accountability and intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, identifying failures and good practice. The inquiry will work alongside Operation Beaconport, a national police operation.

The appointment of the chair is at a critical stage, and we hope to confirm its conclusion soon. Victims and survivors have been at the heart of the process, with trauma-informed opportunities to share their views. We have engaged with them on the chair appointment and the terms of reference, which will be shaped by the chair in public consultation with stakeholders. As has been widely reported in the media, victims and survivors are meeting prospective chairs this week—today, in fact. This process, contrary to the reporting, was managed not by the Home Office but by the independent child exploitation charity NWG Network. We are gathering views to ensure that the perspective of victims and survivors remains central.

We must avoid delays, as were seen in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are progressing as swiftly as thoroughness allows. Misinformation undermines this process. Allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest and a widening or dilution of the inquiry’s scope are false. The inquiry will remain laser-focused on grooming gangs, as Baroness Casey recommended. \p Chris Philp: This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang-raped and it was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. It is all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as

“jumping on a far-right bandwagon”.

Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the Government finally agreed to the inquiry, but it is  clear that they never wanted this inquiry and were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the Government have said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos.

What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the Government or the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying that

“the secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors”

—by the Government—

“has led to a toxic, fearful environment, and there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again.”

Hours later, Ellie-Ann Reynolds also resigned, saying that the remit of the inquiry had been widened to

“downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.”

The Minister shakes her head, but that is what Ellie-Ann Reynolds said.

Fiona also raised the issue of Sabah Kaiser, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of NWG. Just two years ago, Ms Kaiser described calling out the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as “destructive, distracting, irresponsible”. Given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, will the Minister ensure that Ms Kaiser plays no further role?

Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to chair the inquiry. They do not believe that people from the professions that failed them so badly are suitable. Will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Ellie-Ann say is now happening, and that it will focus on the cover-up of the rape gangs scandal because of the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin?

Finally, Fiona said this yesterday:

“I just won’t be gagged and controlled by the Government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up.”

Will the Minister apologise to Fiona and Ellie-Ann? \p Jess Phillips: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my remarks at all if he is suggesting that the Government have silenced anybody. The Government have not handled the process; it has been handled by a grooming gang charity. He cited and named a victim of crime.

If the right hon. Gentleman had done anywhere near the level of work that I have done, he would know that not all victims and survivors are of the same opinion. They are not one homogeneous group of people who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure and who all want their identities known. I have spoken to Fiona Goddard many times, and I will continue that relationship with her, should that be what she wishes. Every single survivor who has been engaged with—there have been many—will have different feelings on the subject.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman requiring a judge, Baroness Casey said to the House in the Home Affairs Committee that she did not want a traditional judicial-led inquiry. She was explicit about that. Can anyone in the House find me an institution that did not  fail these girls over the years? That includes our courts, which took children away from the grooming gang victims and which criminalised some of them. There is no institution in our country that has not failed.

Today, I will meet many of the victims and get their feedback, and I will continue to progress with that in mind. I will engage with all the victims, regardless of their opinions, and I will listen to those who have been put in the media and are put in panels. I will always listen, and I will speak to all of them. \p Jim McMahon: Oldham has stepped forward to take on a local inquiry, and it has been waiting to understand what the move to the national inquiry means for its work. The same is true of victims and survivors, whose bravery and strength in the most difficult circumstances have been truly remarkable. What arrangements have been put in place to ensure that there is a clear front door, offering support that is fully independent of councils and police forces? While local deep dives are clearly essential, can we have an assurance that if the evidence takes an investigation beyond council and police force boundaries, it will be followed to the fullest extent? \p Jess Phillips: I will not be chairing the inquiry, so I can only say to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference—I am not sure this is usual—will be consulted on in public. That is because of the issue of bad faith and the concern about transparency. The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the chair, living within those terms of reference. Having been part of various different inquiries or watched them from a distance, I know that no stone will be left unturned. Whoever chairs the inquiry will feel empowered to do what they think is best. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun.

The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve.

Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published? \p Jess Phillips: I thank the hon. Gentleman for both his tone and his approach. As per the Inquiries Act 2005, the terms of reference have to be set and consulted on with the chair. The chair is being decided on.

I have to say, it is not taking any longer than the covid inquiry or the infected blood inquiry, which I think each took seven months from their announcement to the appointment of the chair. I do not remember huge amounts of criticism or bellyaching about that, because we wanted to get those things right. Actually, getting this right means dealing with lots of different stakeholders and victims with different views. The process has to be followed that the terms of reference go through the chair. We have already done some of the work on the terms of reference with victims’ groups, but we cannot publish those—we will do that publicly, as I said—until a chair is appointed. I will not rush that, because I will take note of all the feedback I receive. \p Natalie Fleet: Today, the Government have announced that they will take parental responsibility away where a child is born of rape. That will protect grooming victims. Children in this country will no longer be the only proceed of crime that criminals can have lifelong access to. Does the Minister agree that survivors were failed for too long by a Conservative Government who did not prioritise giving them justice? That party is led by the Leader of the Opposition, who did not mention grooming when she had the power to do something about it. Instead, survivors have had to wait for victims and activists to be on the Government Benches, and for the fiercest of advocates to be at the Dispatch Box. \p Jess Phillips: I thank my hon. Friend. I think she mischaracterises me as the fiercest of advocates because she, as a grooming victim, with a child born of rape, is the fiercest and bravest. I could cry, I feel so proud that the Government sought to get her elected. I have been campaigning for the thing she has fought for with grooming gang victims for nearly a decade. I met with Ministers of the then Government and nothing was done. [Interruption.] The exact thing that she has campaigned for was asked for repeatedly and nothing was done. I am incredibly proud of her, as it is because of her and this Government that today I can say that that will change. \p Robbie Moore: I have a copy of the Government’s response to the developments last night addressed to the Home Affairs Committee, and I find the response completely unacceptable. Are the Government seriously implying that Fiona and Ellie, who have been disbelieved and called liars by the British state their entire lives, are spreading “misinformation” about a process they have been directly involved in? That would be a deeply damaging thing for any Government to imply.

Worse, there is a line in the letter about the Government’s proposed inquiry in Oldham that says that the Government

“have been in discussions with Oldham Council about the right approach for Oldham”.

How can that possibly be right? How can the Home Office discuss the right approach with the very local authorities being investigated? It would be like the Post Office inquiry sitting down with the Post Office to  negotiate how it should be investigated. Will the Minister explain how the Government will restore trust right now in the process, given the contents of the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee last night? \p Jess Phillips: Can I be completely clear? I am suggesting that I will listen completely and utterly to the feedback from the victims who were on the panel and those who still are. They are not spreading misinformation at all, but the hon. Member’s interpretation is a brilliant case in point.

I will be completely honest. The conversation with Oldham is: do we not think it might be better for Oldham just to take part in a statutory inquiry? It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that Oldham is telling me what to do. The more people on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member can hold up his letter and have a smug face all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no council in this country that will tell the inquiry where it can and cannot go. I have said that 1 million times from the Dispatch Box, yet the same thing gets peddled again and again. \p Paul Waugh: I know that the Minister will not want to comment on individual candidates to chair the national grooming inquiry. However, may I put on record that Jim Gamble is a highly regarded police officer with a long experience of dealing with this matter? His leadership of the child exploitation and online protection centre proved what a fearless and fiercely independent figure he was, with a real track record of tracking down sick paedophiles online and off. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the inquiry must be someone who can earn the trust of those who have been let down by those in positions of authority for far too long? Will she confirm—I hope that she will—that the inquiry will not shy away from issues of race or class and will follow the evidence wherever it leads? \p Jess Phillips: First and foremost, I absolutely confirm that that will not happen. Not only that, but I confirm that the Home Office has asked police forces across the country to collect data on ethnicity. That was not done before. I will not be drawn into his point about the chair; it is not up to me. However, I will say that the gentleman my hon. Friend mentions resigned from a previous role in this field because he thought that the then Government were not invested enough in tackling child sexual exploitation. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: The victims of these crimes were vulnerable children who were ignored, gaslit and dismissed. Two victims have now resigned because of the process, its failure and their lack of faith in it. Yet, I hear what appears to me to be an aggressive and defensive tone from the Minister. \p Jess Phillips: Yes, that is because of you lot. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: She should remember that those people are watching. Will she listen to the victims and does she regret that those two individuals have resigned from the process? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely regret that they have resigned from the process. Funnily enough, in the particular instance of one of the people, I have had no involvement in that process. I do not know who are on the panels of victims; it is entirely independently managed by a grooming gang charity. One of my only interventions was to ensure that the names of some of the voices that I thought deserved to be heard were included. I have done that on a number of occasions.

I will, of course, listen to them. Actually, I am meant to be with those panels of victims, hearing their response, right now. As I have said, I will take the feedback of anyone, both publicly and should they want to speak to me, as I have approached them. I am always sad when victims feel that they cannot take part in a process—of course I am. There are many different victims and they have many different views. There are ones that we hear publicly. But I want to make it clear that there are many different victims and we have to ensure that all their voices are heard equally, whether they are part of the process or not. \p Peter Dowd: The Minister has reiterated time and again that victims must be at the centre of an inquiry. Will she tell us what she intends to do to ensure that that aim is fully implemented? \p Jess Phillips: While the inquiry is ongoing, that will be a matter for the chair. However, I know from the inquiries that I have been involved in that were successful and victim-centric that there always has to be a system for supporting the victims, both with taking part in the inquiry and with the trauma that might be brought up. Usually, those two things are separate, but I will say this once again: I will not be the chair of this committee. Undoubtedly, it is about ensuring that victims are protected throughout the process. Should they want to go out and speak publicly both negatively and positively about that process, I would absolutely welcome that. People should never be prevented from speaking. We have to ensure that support is available, regardless of how they wish to gain it. \p Carla Lockhart: There should be nothing more precious in the eyes of this Parliament than the protection of children, particularly those who suffered at the hands of these barbaric individuals. Many of us are parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents and this cuts very deep. I know that the Minister cares and is a caring person, but today we need decisive action. Given that one of the victims has walked away from the inquiry— \p Graham Stuart: Two. \p Carla Lockhart: Given that two of the victims have walked away from the inquiry, will the Minister clearly state how she will ensure that a fully independent inquiry can take place and that it prominently includes victims? \p Jess Phillips: All I can say is that there is a reason that I cannot stand in front of the victims, who I am meant to be getting feedback from right now, and definitely say when the chair will come. I could have just put my finger in the air and picked out some random judge—we could have done that—but I am listening to victims’ feedback. Again, I have to stress that that process is not easy. There are difficult dynamics within groups of  people and the people who we have asked to engage are dealing with difficult things, so undoubtedly, that is not uncomplex. As anyone who has worked with groups of people who have been wronged, shamed and treated badly will know, it would be a lie to stand here and tell them that there is a straight line and a simple answer—and I am not willing to do that. \p Harpreet Uppal: I thank the Minister for her continued work. All victims and survivors have not had their voice heard for too long. We need to ensure that that happens and I am sure that the Minister is doing that. Will she confirm what resources are available to ensure that survivors are properly supported through the process? On system delays, we know that there are still issues with court delays and ensuring we go after all the perpetrators. Will she give an update on that and on the Jay inquiry recommendations? \p Jess Phillips: I will chair an interministerial  cross-Government group next week to push through  the other recommendations. Baroness Casey made 12 recommendations, but people rarely speak about any of the others. This was not her most pressing one; instead, she gave primacy to the policing-related recommendation around Operation Beaconport. As I said in my previous statement on 2 September, the work on the 216 cases that moved forward is ongoing and runs alongside this. That is where justice will be served: in our courts—if only they had not been horrendously degraded so that rape victims wait for years and years. \p Gavin Williamson: I think we all agree that the voices of survivors have to be at the heart of this. It is worrying and concerning when two of those survivors do not feel as if the process is properly looking after them and ensuring their voice is heard. Will the Minister commit to speaking to both Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds to try and encourage and reassure them that this is a process that really will listen to their voices? \p Jess Phillips: That opportunity has already been presented to them and I would be more than happy. I know one of them but not the other. That opportunity is always available, and one of them has my phone number. On the idea that I do not listen and have not been making myself available, I have tried to keep the process fiercely independent of Government intervention so that it can happen and victims can feel safe in that, but of course I feel sad that this is how it has ended. Actually, I hope that this is not how it has ended and I will commit to making sure that this is not the end. My door is always open to them. \p Julie Minns: In 2012, a Bangladeshi national was sentenced in my Carlisle constituency for attempting to recruit four girls, aged 12 to 16, into prostitution. In his summing up, the judge described how the man’s conduct had corroded

“the foundations of decency and respect by which all right-thinking people live their lives whatever their ethnic or religious background.”

Will the Minister take the opportunity to again reassure all right-thinking people that this inquiry will look at everything to find answers, including the role of ethnicity? \p Jess Phillips: I say again and again that it will not shy away from findings where they are present. Anybody who has done the work in this space will know that that is going to be found, as the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency highlights. There is absolutely no sense that ethnicity will be buried away. Every single time that there is an apparently needless delay—even though it took seven months to put in place chairs for both the covid inquiry and the blood inquiry, and nobody moaned about that—it gets used to say that we want to cover something up. That is the misinformation I am talking about. It will not cover things up. We are taking time to ensure that that can never happen. \p Bob Blackman: The hon. Lady has been an outspoken champion for the victims, and will continue to be so, but she must be concerned that two members of the panel have withdrawn, and we understand that one of the candidates to be chair of the inquiry has withdrawn. Clearly, there is concern across the House that institutions such as the police, social services, councils and the courts are all in a position where they have failed. Whoever chairs the inquiry must, therefore, have full rigour over services that they may have been involved in. So there is an issue of confidence. Can she update the House on how the inquiry will report back to the House and what scrutiny the House will have over the actions of the inquiry and the terms of reference? \p Jess Phillips: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in a unique category of always asking a question that leads me to further questions that are pertinent. An inquiry does not usually report to the House while it is ongoing, but I will take that away to see if there is an appetite for that. All I can say is that there is no institution in the country, including this one here, that does not have skeletons. Do I think all politicians would not be robust in this? No, I do not. I think some would. I can guarantee that I can point at people, the hon. Gentleman included, who would show absolute rigour even against his own. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, IICSA, had a judge leading it and it lost the confidence of the victims. Three people lost the confidence of the victims. It took two years. There is not an institution that did not fail those girls. That is the whole point. There is no clean skin, but there are brilliant people who whistleblew and who tried, in every one of those institutions. That is essentially where we are left with this, but I promise rigour in the same way that, when I saw things happening in here, I was rigorous. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I commend the Minister for her formidable personal leadership on this, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside other formidable campaigners, too. The Minister has reiterated that the inquiry must be trauma-informed, and I know from speaking to victims in my constituency just how vital it is that we are cognisant both of the initial trauma that they have experienced and also of the retraumatising effects of going through the process of seeking justice for themselves and others. Can the Minister set out more about how she will ensure that this trauma-informed approach is woven through the ongoing inquiry? \p Jess Phillips: As the inquiry is set up—as with previous inquiries with very vulnerable groups of people, such as IICSA—things will have to be put in place to ensure that people can freely give their evidence, and that will have to be done in a trauma-informed way. The twelfth of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that all the recommendations should be fully funded by the Government, and this Government have absolutely committed to that. I very much expect that, when the chair is in place, those conversations about exactly how that will look will begin. The only thing I do control, I suppose, in any of this, is that this Government will pay for it. \p Lee Anderson: The cover-up continues. We have a Prime Minister who never wanted a national inquiry, we have a Minister who never wanted a national inquiry and we have the Labour Back Benchers who never wanted a national inquiry. Does the Minister agree that the victims of these horrific crimes will never get the justice they deserve, as long as we have a Labour Government in charge? \p Jess Phillips: It is quite impressive that the hon. Member says that after a grooming victim has stood up and spoken from these Benches, but I have learned to expect it. He talks about a cover-up—maybe he is doing it for clicks; I do not know—and I understand that he thinks he is doing God’s work in fighting this issue, but the idea that it is easy to find a chair or to find people who want to step forward and take part in this process, given the level of bad faith and when the issue is mired in political point scoring of the type he has just done! He should really question his own morality. \p Sarah Russell: Ellie Reynolds has said that financial dependency has made people stay silent when they should speak, and also alleged that people on the panel were isolated by having contact with each other discouraged. The Minister has been extremely clear that this is a fully independent process and has not had Government involvement, but how does she propose to handle the very complex relationship between the concerns that Ellie Reynolds has spoken clearly about and ensuring that the process retains the faith of everyone involved? \p Jess Phillips: As I have said, I would very much hope to hear those concerns directly from Ellie herself and to see what can be done. I only know the victims who I have worked with—when they have been on the panel, they have spoken to me, because I have personal relations with them—and what I can say is that there are differing views about the levels of confidentiality. The confidentiality is not to silence people or prevent them from speaking about their own experiences. It is necessary because there are people in those rooms who have never shown their faces who are also victims. Having run an agency myself, I know about trying to manage that. I can see why somebody might say that we should not seek out people outside the meeting, because others might have said they do not want that, but they are not going to say that in public. I can imagine all those things. I am trying to get across the idea of how complex these situations are, but I am more than happy to listen to Ellie and see what has gone wrong in the process for her and seek to make it better. I am absolutely happy to do that. \p Mike Wood: We have heard what the Minister said about diverse views among victims, but is she concerned that some survivors of these terrible crimes have described the process as a toxic, fearful environment and warned that there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again? What is she going to do to reverse that failure? \p Jess Phillips: I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. As I have said a number of times, I am going to speak to those involved and look into the process. It is not a process that I have personally been part of, and I can only speak to the victims who I happen to have known before, if they tell me that they are part of it—not the other way around. I cannot ask who is involved. That is confidential by its very nature. Of course I am going to listen to that feedback and, like I have said, I will speak to those victims involved. \p Catherine Atkinson: Victims must be at the heart of the grooming gangs inquiry. Does the Minister agree that getting the right chair is absolutely key to ensuring that that happens? Does she also agree that we have to avoid the scenes that we saw under the last Government, who appointed three chairs who then withdrew from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—an inquiry that took two years to start? \p Jess Phillips: My hon. Friend, who I know has some experience of inquiries from her previous life, is exactly right. People do not remember it now, but there were victims going out in the press complaining about what was going on with IICSA. It went through numerous chairs. There is already much worse faith in this instance, both rightly and wrongly. For me to allow the same to happen during this inquiry would just make people shout “Cover-up!”, so we are trying to do everything possible to ensure that the mistakes made by the previous Government are not made again. \p Llinos Medi: The credibility of the national inquiry rests on placing the voices, experiences and needs of victims and survivors at its very centre. Can the Minister show victims in Wales how this inquiry will be guided by their best interests, given that survivors have such grave concerns that they feel they must resign from the panel? \p Jess Phillips: To go back to the previous answer, the chair of the inquiry will set the tone for the inquiry. That is why we have to put in place the right chair and a system for victims who want to take part in the inquiry that will care for and look after them, and that is what we are working to achieve. \p Gurinder Josan: I thank the Minister for her responses, and I absolutely agree that it is crucial to get this right, so can she be absolutely clear that the inquiry will not be watered down, particularly in its focus on grooming gangs and ethnicity, including on models of grooming where groomers focused on the ethnicity of victims, whether that be young white girls or even Sikh girls? \p Jess Phillips: Absolutely. I absolutely pay tribute to the community response in my hon. Friend’s local area to recent incidences of very hideous sexual violence,  and I put on record my love to the families and victims involved. I absolutely agree: this is a grooming gangs inquiry, and it will follow what Baroness Casey stated. As I said in my statement, it will be three years long, it will not shy away and it will be a grooming gangs inquiry. \p John Glen: I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to get to justice on this issue, and I recognise the frustration that she expresses, because I was responsible for the infected blood compensation scheme, which involved meeting a diverse group of 40 different charities and representative bodies that did not agree with one another. However, I gently and respectfully say to her that we face a credibility gap on this issue, and I urge her to examine how she can get ahead with the communications so that she can continue to demonstrate her commitment to get to justice. Frankly, we as Members of Parliament have to come to this place when things get into the media and public concerns are expressed. I understand her frustration, but getting the communications right and maintaining a pathway to the delivery of justice is critical. \p Jess Phillips: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Most of what I see reported on anything in this space is largely inaccurate and often comes with an agenda, more so than in the case of the infected blood scheme, although I absolutely take my hat off to the job that he had to do. There is a balance between wanting to give a complete and utter running commentary on a very complicated thing and making sure that people feel like something is going on, because nature abhors a vacuum and so does misinformation. \p Chris Murray: The Minister has heard me implore her many times to move as speedily as possible to address the challenges of the victims of these awful crimes, but on this occasion I implore her to take the right time to find the right judge. It is not a normal public appointment; this is someone who has to command the confidence of the House, the public, and most importantly, survivors. They must leave no stone unturned and investigate everything, whether that is ethnicity, class-related or institutional, and make the Minister’s life harder if they have to do so. Will the Minister take the time to find the right judge and not repeat what we saw with the child sexual abuse inquiry several years ago? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely will, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, no matter who is picked, there will be people unhappy with it. Like most politics that we deal with, let us just call a spade a spade and stop pretending that there is a perfect situation. There is only the best situation we can have. Funnily enough, in the conversations that I have had with some of the prospective chairs, the main thing I have wanted them to take away is the feeling that, if they have to slag me off all day long, then that is exactly what they should do, and I would say the same to the victims. \p Rebecca Paul: The Minister obviously feels very deeply about this issue. I think we all agree that anyone who was involved in these awful and horrific crimes must be held to account, and we must shine a light on anyone who turned a blind eye and ensure that it does not happen again. Can the Minister provide a  commitment that the inquiry will not be politicised, particularly after multiple local authorities have attempted to block investigations? That is a really important question, because we see that happening. Everyone needs to be investigated on this—it does not matter which party they are from; this is too important. \p Jess Phillips: Absolutely—100%. Far be it from me to speculate about where I would like the inquiry to go, but if I had my way and I was the chair, I would have grave concerns about the area where I live—Members will not be surprised to hear—because that is where I worked. The fact that it has a Labour council would not stop me from wanting to look there. In fact, if the House will excuse my unparliamentary language, I could not give a toss about— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry the Minister felt she had to push it. She is doing an excellent job. She does not need to push it; she is better than that. I call Alison Hume. \p Alison Hume: I thank the Minister both for her statement and for the passion and rigour that she brings to her role. Even if sometimes she might say things that she has to apologise for, we greatly appreciate her dedication to the role. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Actually, I granted the urgent question—that is why we are here. \p Alison Hume: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Every survivor’s experience of abuse is unique. Does the Minister agree that taking the time to find the right chair will enable them to ensure that every story will be fully told? \p Jess Phillips: I really hope so, but I am not going to do what other people seem to want to do in this circumstance and pretend that there is a guarantee and that I have some sort of magic weapon. That is the process that I am undertaking: I am trying to get the very best chair, who is supported alongside the victims who have been taking part in the process. \p Graham Stuart: Getting this right is both important and extremely difficult. I have two questions for the Minister. If, when she meets Fiona and Ellie-Ann, she finds that they are right and that there is something wrong, what powers does she have to intervene? Secondly, will she provide assurances that the inquiry will not be staffed—she may be able to comment on her powers and the power to influence—by individuals who previously dismissed the concerns of survivors and campaigners as racist slurs? \p Jess Phillips: In answer to the first question, I have every power to intervene in the panel’s process, but the decision I made was that it should be independent of me and my offices, and would be better handled by experts in the field. When I speak to those involved, of course I can raise things and make decisions about how this goes forward. I very much hope that we will be drawing to a conclusion and that soon I will have much less involvement.

To the right hon. Gentleman’s other question, victims and survivors of this crime all have different political opinions. They all have different views on the substantive. They have different views about whether it should be called “grooming” or whether it should be called “grouped”. They have different views on all these things. I will not stand here and say that I would eliminate any victim or survivor working on this based on their political views, and I will continue to say that as it is. Many of them do not like me very much. Imagine if I just did not let the people who did not like me very much have their voices heard. Well, frankly, I would be guilty of a cover-up. \p Joani Reid: The Minister has made it clear that women and girls were failed by every institution, and it is a positive step that the failure has now been acknowledged by Government and that the acknowledgment is leading to action after years of inaction. But in Scotland we have had absolutely no acknowledgment or action. What advice would the Minister give me and others across Scotland who are becoming increasingly angry that the Scottish Government are doing all they can not just to block an investigation, but to block any kind of independent scrutiny or case review of organised child exploitation? \p Jess Phillips: First, while the inquiry is in England and Wales, one of the victims who we have been hearing about today—Ellie—lives very much in the borderland of our two great countries of England and Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some of the things that may get found in the inquiry will have findings across the border. Unfortunately, the trafficking of young girls does not follow lines on a map as easily as we might think it does when we administer inquiries. My hon. Friend should continue to work with survivor groups up in Scotland to push for what exactly it is that they want to see in Scotland. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers. I know her heart is in this to get justice, and I do not think that there is any doubt about that. However, it is difficult to hear the news that these victims, who have already been denigrated and treated as voiceless and worthless during their initial abuse, have been made to feel that way once again in this inquiry, and the Minister will understand that it is also difficult for us to accept that this is taking place on the Government’s watch. Does she agree that the inquiry is not getting this right? Will she instruct that immediate action is taken to give those young women their voice back to ensure that justice is served and that safeguards are in place to prevent such abuse from taking place on British soil ever again? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s upset and frustration on the matter. He knows that when I say that I will do whatever I can to ensure that these problems are sorted out, where they can be, that is what we will seek to do, and we will continue to try to do that. What we have to do with this inquiry is not just look at what went wrong and hold people to account; we have to ensure that it cannot happen again. \p Sam Carling: I say to Opposition Members that their relentless politicisation of the issue is no doubt making it much harder to find a chair because it will be putting candidates off.

As the inquiry gets under way, we must keep up progress on implementing the recommendations of the Jay IICSA inquiry. I raised concerns on Report during the Crime and Policing Bill that the Government’s proposals to implement mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse do not go quite as far as IICSA wanted, and those concerns were raised again in the other place last week by Baroness Grey-Thompson. Will the Minister ask her colleague Lord Hanson to meet me and Baroness Grey-Thompson to discuss how we can remedy that in a way that works for everyone and that protects children? \p Jess Phillips: The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. What we should all seek to be doing throughout this is to try to grease the wheels so that we can have the best possible inquiry. We should all be seeking to do that while holding people to account with as much scrutiny as is needed. I will absolutely do that, and obviously I have met my hon. Friend a number of times. Getting mandatory reporting right is vital and, much like in the survivor group, there are different views on either side. \p Chris Webb: Blackpool continues to live with the scars of Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, two young girls in Blackpool who never came home and were subject to grooming. Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the grooming gangs inquiry will be thorough and comprehensive, and committed to a full and transparent investigation, ensuring that every avenue is examined to uncover the truth? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely will. Funnily enough, this morning I spoke to one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, a grooming gang victim, to assure her of similar things. Quite a lot of this process causes quite a lot of nervousness, and there is a need to manage lots of different people’s emotions, but I absolutely make that commitment to him, as I made it to one of his constituents this morning, and I make it to the House. \p Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I invite you to examine column 652 from yesterday’s Hansard, during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets, but she went on to say:

“Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 652.]

There is a suggestion in that that my colleagues have done something other than say that everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. They were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooliganistic way at the Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what she said— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Jeremy—come on. You have certainly put your view on the record, but what we will not do is continue the debate. You know that as a long-standing Member of this House who has great respect. I will leave it at that, because you have certainly ensured that we are all aware of that correction. \p Mims Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), despite the Safeguarding Minister’s best efforts to explain whether she is involved concerning the response to the urgent question that you have granted, Mr Speaker, I am genuinely more confused and think that many constituents will be too. Despite the Minister saying that she is not looking to provide a running commentary, May I ask that she update the House clearly to assist on these matters, so that we can avoid urgent questions such as this one? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Minister. \p Jess Phillips: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what the hon. Member is confused about. A victims panel was set up to look at both the terms of reference and the appointment of a chair. There is a variety of different groups of people. Some of them have done both; some of them have taken part in just one or the other, usually depending on time and logistics, as she might imagine. That has been managed by an organisation called NWG. I have not taken part in those sessions, other than to feedback on chairs. The feedback on the chair’s appointment comes to me. I do not have to go to that, but I go and sit and listen. Usually, that is the first time I know who has been on the panel, when they have been interviewing chairs. The process is entirely managed. Because of my years of experience, I happen to know quite a lot of the people, and so I do speak to some of the people who are on the panel because I have personal relationships with them and have supported them over the years. I hope that clears that up. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the Minister for that. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Bradley Thomas: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a company that meets a specified criteria to report any cyber extortion or ransomware attack on the company to the Government within a specified time after the attack; to make provision about the content of such reports, including a requirement to provide information about any payments made; and for connected purposes.

This is a timely and pressing matter. Illegal activity across the nation is on the rise, and cyber-attacks are no exception. The National Cyber Security Centre has reported a 50% increase in British cyber-incidents deemed “highly significant” over the past year. Furthermore, of the 429 incidents the NCSC was called upon to assist with, at least half were considered of “national importance”. Among the significant threats identified in the NCSC’s 2025 annual review are hostile states such as China, linked to a co-ordinated campaign involving three China-based companies targeting foreign Governments and critical networks, and Iran, which the NCSC assessed as a highly likely threat to UK entities.

UK IT leaders are understandably alarmed. Research from Armis has revealed that 74% of UK IT leaders cite China and 71% cite Russia as their top cyber-security concerns. If that is not enough, recent espionage trials have thrown a harsh spotlight on the scale and intent of state-sponsored cyber-operations. The threat is undeniable. We must act with urgency to safeguard UK-based companies and critical infrastructure before these escalating menaces begin to seriously disrupt the functioning of our nation.

Under current legislation, cyber-attacks need only be reported in limited circumstances: organisations handling personal data must report cyber-attacks that pose a likely risk to individual rights; essential service operators and relevant digital service providers must disclose incidents with “substantial” service impact; and a few regulated bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, follow their own cyber-incident reporting requirements. Notably, there is no requirement for companies to disclose when a ransomware payment has been made, despite the significant financial burden such payments can impose.

Cohesity’s “Global cyber resilience report 2024” found that 59% of companies targeted by ransomware chose to pay, with an average cost of £870,000 and some reaching as high as £20 million. The reality is clear: cyber-crime, particularly extortion and ransomware, has outpaced existing legislation. It has allowed dangerous gaps to emerge in our intelligence gathering—gaps that criminals are likely to exploit—and has weakened the defences of our national critical infrastructure against these escalating threats.

The Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill seeks to close those gaps and reinforce the UK’s resilience against cyber-crime. Following Australia’s implementation of a mandatory ransomware payment reporting regime, which has so far been successful, it is imperative that the UK follows suit. The Bill would mandate any British company registered under the  Companies Act 2006 that has an annual turnover above £25 million or is responsible for critical national infrastructure to inform the Government within 72 hours of becoming victim to a cyber-extortion or ransomware attack, with a further report being required if any payment is made by the company or a third party on its behalf, within 72 hours of the transaction taking place.

We have all witnessed the shocking headlines about major British companies under siege from cyber-attacks, resulting in severe disruption and millions in lost revenue. From M&S to the Co-op, Harrods to Jaguar Land Rover, these attacks have been crippling, and yet the Government currently have no legal right to know whether a ransom payment was made to restore their systems. What if that payment was made to a terrorist organisation? What if it was sent to a hostile state? It is not the fault of the companies who, under immense pressure and with limited options, choose to pay to regain control of their operations. The fault lies in the gaps in our legislation—gaps that allow ransom payments to go unreported, potentially fuelling even greater threats against our nation.

The proposed threshold of an annual turnover exceeding £25 million or those responsible for critical national infrastructure has been carefully considered. It captures approximately 78% of medium-sized businesses and all large corporations, while avoiding the overwhelming influx of reports that a lower threshold would trigger due to the high number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK. National critical infrastructure comprises all 13 sectors defined by the Government: chemicals, civil nuclear, communications, defence, emergency services, energy, finance, food, government, health, space, transport and water. These criteria capture the vast majority of companies whose compromise through attack or ransom payment could pose a serious risk to the UK. It also reflects the volume of reports our resources can realistically manage, while establishing a clear, accessible threshold so that companies are not forced to navigate complex policy during the stress of an active attack.

Another imperative component of this approach is the inclusion of all payment types, whether monetary, intellectual property, exchanges of gifts or services or other forms of benefits. This broader scope will enable law enforcement to trace criminal networks, identify patterns and disrupt the flow of illicit funds. It will help to inform better resource allocation, as well as holding the potential to foster collaboration across sectors that would result in faster alerts and stronger resilience.

I understand that many companies may have reservations regarding the requirement to report incidents and ransom payments. It could leave them vulnerable to reputational damage from potential leaks, damaging their business further. This proposal is pro-business, and that is why robust legal protections would be established to ensure that any reports made to the Government remain strictly confidential, with no right of publication, unless it is deemed to be in the national interest. This will give companies the assurance they need to report without fear and the support they deserve to help their recovery.

What happens if a company fails to report within 72 hours of a cyber-extortion attack or neglects to submit a follow-up report within 72 hours of making a ransom payment? Quite simply, it will face a civil monetary penalty. Mandated reporting is essential to our national  security and collective wellbeing. Non-compliance must be actively discouraged. It is in the company’s interest, the public’s interest and the Government’s interest.

The absence of mandatory reporting, especially for ransom payments, leaves a dangerous blind spot in our national security. When companies report these payments, our security agencies gain vital intelligence—intelligence that helps us to understand who is being targeted, how attacks are evolving and where our vulnerabilities lie before they are exploited. Espionage today is not confined to spies and stolen documents. It is digital, it is silent, and it is relentless. The grey zone exists. Cyber-extortion and ransomware attacks are fast becoming the preferred weapons of hostile actors seeking to destabilise our institutions and exploit our vulnerabilities. Their attacks are becoming progressively more complex, often leaving companies with no viable alternative but to make ransom payments. From individual hackers to organised criminal gangs and state-backed attacks from overseas, we cannot afford to fall behind in the race of technological defences and expose ourselves to increasingly sophisticated cyber-extortion attacks.

While I acknowledge that the Government referenced the introduction of a cyber-security Bill in the King’s Speech, it is deeply concerning that, despite the urgency of the threat, the Bill has yet to even be brought before Parliament. Cyber criminals are not slowing down, and their methods are not becoming simpler. On the contrary, attacks are growing in complexity, scale and impact. Although I recognise that sound policy requires time to develop, we cannot afford to proceed at our current glacial pace. Delay only deepens our vulnerability, particularly in the light of recent events. We must act decisively and without hesitation to safeguard British businesses and protect our national security.

The choice before us is stark: either we allow ourselves to become increasingly exposed as criminals outpace our outdated legislation and other nations fortify their defences, or we rise to meet the moment with urgency, resolve and the protections our country demands. It is time for us to send an important message: we will not allow cyber criminals to continue operating in the shadows, unchecked and unchallenged.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Bradley Thomas, Tom Tugendhat, Alison Griffiths, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, Joy Morrissey, Saqib Bhatti, John Glen, Greg Smith, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lincoln Jopp, Sir John Hayes and Jim Shannon present the Bill.

Bradley Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 315). \p UNKNOWN: Bill to be considered in Committee

[Relevant document: Correspondence from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Lord Chancellor, on the Sentencing Bill, reported to the House on 15 October.]

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

Before I call the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to move amendment 46, I should advise the Committee that once that amendment has been disposed of at the end of the debate, I am provisionally minded to call the following amendments and new clauses for separate decision: amendment 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan); new clause 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty); new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; and new clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). \p Esther McVey: I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

“with the maximum operational period”.

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

Government amendments 2 and 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“with the maximum operational period”.

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

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

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

Government amendments 4 and 5.

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

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

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

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

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 3 stand part.

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

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

Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.

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

“(1) This section applies if—

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

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

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

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

Government amendments 6 to 8.

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

“(1) This section applies if—

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

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

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

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

Government amendments 9 to 11.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Government amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.

Government amendments 16 and 17.

Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.

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

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

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

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

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

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

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

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm;

(j) grooming;

(k) stalking;

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

(m) death by dangerous driving, and

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

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

Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.

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

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

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

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

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

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

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

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

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

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

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

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

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

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

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

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

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

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

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

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

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

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

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

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

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

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

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.

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

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

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.

Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment prevents clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament and obtain approval from both Houses.

Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.

Government amendment 19.

Clause 45 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—

New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

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

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

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

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

New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3B) Where this subsection applies—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

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

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

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

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

New clause 8—Victim personal statements—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the offence category;

(b) the sentence length; and

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

(i) nationality,

(ii) sex at birth,

(iii) country of birth,

(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(v) visa route,

(vi) visa status, and

(vii) asylum status.

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

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

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

New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

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

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

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

New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—

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

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

(3) After section 10 insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

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

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

New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—

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

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

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

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

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The report must set out—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) publish the report, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘(3A) Where—

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

(b) the qualifying period has expired; and

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

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

(3) In subsection (4)—

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

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

This new clause would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.

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

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

(a) an evaluation of its impact on—

(i) public protection;

(ii) rehabilitation;

(iii) reconviction;

(iv) probation capacity and resource; and

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 24—Sentencing Council—

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

New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 26—Criminal cases review—

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

(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert— \p UNKNOWN: 36A Scope of this Part

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

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

(3) This Part applies to any case—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(9) In this section—

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

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

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

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

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

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36C The Commission

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

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

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

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

New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—

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

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

“32A Deportation following stalking offences

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—

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

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

‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert— \p UNKNOWN: 26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.

(2) In this paragraph—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) In this section—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 32—Probation caseloads—

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

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

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

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

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

New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

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

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

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

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

New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

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

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

(a) tracking offender progress,

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

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

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

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

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

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

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

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

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

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

(2) In this section—

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

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

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

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

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

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

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

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

New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

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

(2) The assessment should consider—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

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

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

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

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

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

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

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

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

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

New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—

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

New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 62—Expiry—

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

Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.

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

Government amendment 21. \p Esther McVey: I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and  magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.

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

Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name. \p Sally Jameson: The right hon. Lady suggests that the Bill will bring law and order into question, but as a former prison officer I would say it was the previous Government running our prison system to a boiling point that nearly brought law and order crashing down, with fewer than 100 bed spaces available last summer. It might be poignant for Conservative Members to reflect a little during the debate on what they did to His Majesty’s Prison Service while they were in office—and while I was serving. \p Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built. \p Desmond Swayne: The active management of the prison service at those levels of occupation was of course hard work, but that hard work was absolutely necessary, and far preferable to simply taking a view that we will not have all those criminals in prison at all. The reality is that what we are doing now is much worse. \p Esther McVey: I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison.

Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the  Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended.

I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences.

The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply

“if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.”

Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence.

Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence.

Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences.

New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier.

Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences.

I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption  will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets? \p Wendy Morton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, because many of us will have examples in our constituencies of families who have been tragically affected by knife crime. Some go on to do amazing work to educate young people, but at the same time it is important that where a sentence has been given, it is carried out and that that deterrent is in place. Yet again, we are seeing the removal of deterrent by the Labour Government. \p Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent.

Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison? \p Warinder Juss: I understand and appreciate the effects of knife crime; we have all had cases in our constituencies that demonstrate the devastation that it causes. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should focus on rehabilitation, and on preventing people from carrying knives? Education on this issue is important. It is the way forward in ensuring that knife crime is decreased. \p Esther McVey: Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society. \p John Hayes: We hear a lot about rehabilitation from Labour Members, and we hear a lot about recidivism. The most likely spur for recidivism is letting people out who will continue to do harm. We will be told by the Government that those people are being let out on licence, so will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to predict how many people will be recalled while they are on licence? The Justice Secretary has already described that number as being too high, but will it rise as a result of these measures? \p Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.

People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.

New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are  eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.

Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:

“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:

“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]

That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.

The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.

New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.

My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had  committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence. \p Catherine Atkinson: Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen. \p Esther McVey: I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims. \p Catherine Atkinson: On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Esther McVey: I will not.

New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.

New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.

Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely   to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.

All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.

The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.

The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up. \p Jim Shannon: What the right hon. Lady is putting forward is a very logical and sensible way forward, but I am conscious that young people in particular can do something wrong in life, and then return to the area that they came from. They are subject to peer pressure, and can be affected by all the things that happen in that community. Sometimes, they probably need help from outside the legal system. Has she considered that when putting forward her amendments? Do they ensure that people get a second chance, and get help where they need it—in the place where they live? \p Esther McVey: We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist.

People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit  a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation.

Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.

I urge all my colleagues in the House of Commons to think long and hard about the likely consequences of this Bill and the needless victims of crime it will inevitably create. Anyone who allows the Bill to go through without amendments to protect the public will effectively have blood on their hands as soon as someone is injured or killed by a criminal who should have been in prison but was not as a direct result of this terrible new legislation. If the Bill goes ahead, we should add my new clause 62, which would insert a sunset clause, so that in two years’ time when we see what a catastrophic mess this Bill and this Government have created, we will all be glad that an end to it is in sight. \p Desmond Swayne: The importance of the sunset clause is that it relieves the monstrous contradiction we have had from the Government. They have presented this legislation as an emergency measure because the prisons are too full, yet at the same time they boast about their great, expansive prison-building programme. Clearly the two are at odds with one another. Who will be put in these prisons if this legislation persists? That is why my right hon. Friend’s sunset clause is so important. \p Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic.

I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built.

If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public. \p Andrew Slaughter: As I did at the start of my speech on Second Reading, I put on record the continuing crisis in our prisons. The prison population currently stands at 87,427, with usable operational capacity being 89,286. Prison population projections estimate that the population could rise to more than 100,000 by March 2029. That is an indictment of the previous Government and it gives the lie to their mantra that this Bill is soft on crime; we will have record numbers of people in prison. This Bill is a necessity, and we must make a virtue of that necessity.

I welcome the principles of the Bill and the reforms suggested in it. They are essential, both to reduce the prison population and to improve the way in which the justice system deals with punishment, rehabilitation and public safety. The measures in the Bill that derive from David Gauke’s independent sentencing review include varying suspended sentences and short custodial sentences, adopting the earned progression model for release, and changes to recall and licence. All have their risks, so the purpose of the amendments that I and other members of the Justice Committee have tabled—to which I now turn—is to reduce those risks and make practical improvements to the Bill. I have also tabled two new clauses relating to imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who are not currently considered by the Bill—in my view, wrongly.

The first amendment I have tabled is amendment 29 to clause 3, which relates to income reduction orders, or IROs. These will act as financial penalties for offenders, who will forfeit a percentage of their disposable income as a form of punishment and reparation. My amendment would change the definition of monthly income for the purposes of an IRO so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income because of other enactments, such as child support maintenance payments or an attachment of earnings order, is not counted. This will ensure that IROs do not impact on an offender’s ability to pay outstanding debts or, in the case of child support maintenance, to meet their obligation to support their children and family members in the community.

My second set of amendments relates to clause 6, which introduces a statutory requirement for courts to make a formal finding of domestic abuse where relevant during sentencing. My amendments 30 and 31 introduce two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse. First, the court must have indicated that it appears that the offence may have involved domestic abuse. Secondly, the court must have given the offender and the prosecutor an opportunity to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse. \p Calum Miller: The Chair of the Select Committee is talking about indications of domestic abuse. Does he agree that, particularly in cases of domestic abuse—as I have heard from constituents of mine—it is critical that resources are allocated through this Bill to the Probation Service and for electronic tagging? The legislation allows for it, but does he agree that it is very important that the Government make clear how they will adequately resource those two elements, so that victims of domestic abuse—who will have this indicator to identify that perpetrators have committed domestic abuse and violence—will be properly protected after the potential release of the perpetrator? \p Andrew Slaughter: I do agree with that, and in a moment I will talk about a new clause that deals specifically with tagging. I am rattling through my speech because I have a lot to get through, but what I am specifically talking about in relation to domestic abuse is simply the need for there to be due process. That is something that I think we all want to see. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the requirements of clause 6, which are important in allowing police and probation services to track perpetrators of domestic abuse, are carried out in a manner that is as thorough and fair as possible.

My next amendment, amendment 32, relates to clause 35, which amends the sentencing code to allow for the publication of the photographs and names of offenders serving community sentences. The explanatory notes say very little about this clause, but the justification in the memorandum on human rights suggests that the Government believe that this measure will have a deterrent effect on criminals, although there is little evidence for that assertion. The measure engages the article 8 right to private and family life for the individual, their victims and their family. Some concerns have been raised about how this measure can be operated safety in the modern social media age, in which photographs and names can be readily and quickly shared.

My amendment would prevent clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament, and obtain the approval of both Houses. That would ensure proper parliamentary oversight of this measure. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is indicating his diligence—as though any evidence of that were required—in tabling these technical but important amendments. However, will he deal with the fundamental issue? As he has just said, the Criminal Justice Act 2003—from memory, section 250—allows criminals who are released on licence to be subject to all kinds of conditions, but the truth is that if we let more dangerous people out, more people will be recalled, because they will do immense amounts of harm. Recalls are going to go up as a result of this legislation, and many more people are going to suffer because of those who are let out early. \p Andrew Slaughter: I have quite a lot to say about recall, which I will come to in a moment, but I have reflected on this question. Licence is an established part of the criminal justice system, as indeed is probation. Almost every prisoner, other than a handful of the most serious criminals, comes out of prison at some stage. The issue of public safety when people are released from prison is one that this Bill is trying to address. We may disagree on the means to that objective, but I am sure we agree on the objective itself.

I also tabled new clause 18, which relates to the provision of information to Parliament regarding offenders who are subject to electronic tagging and the operation of the tagging contract. The success of the measures in this Bill will rely heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised concerns about the performance  of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. As a reminder, on 7 May, the Prisons Minister revealed to us that at that point, Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract on 1 May 2024. Ministers have assured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve.

New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. That report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance, and the cost of administering those requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament. This would improve transparency and allow parliamentarians to assess for themselves how successfully Serco or other providers are administering tagging contracts. \p Josh Babarinde: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. New clause 18 makes the point that the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year should be released. Does he agree that that should include the size of the fine that is imposed on the provider? When I have asked the Ministry of Justice for that information, it has not been able to release it. I think it is a matter of public interest to know what the fine for the provider’s failures is. \p Andrew Slaughter: I am delighted that my friend is still taking a strong interest in these matters and remains on the Justice Committee, even though he no longer has his Front-Bench responsibilities—we know that he has other responsibilities that he wishes to take on. I entirely agree with him; it is a point that we have made in Committee, and I hope the Minister has listened to it. I am sure that the words “commercial confidentiality” were used at some point, but this is not about commercial confidentiality; it is about us knowing how well electronic tagging is working, which is a very serious matter in the criminal justice system. That is very well illustrated by the level of fines imposed.

I have tabled two new clauses, new clauses 19 and 20, regarding prisoners who are subject to imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of those sentences has severe consequences for those who are serving them and for their loved ones. New clause 19 would implement the recommendation of the previous Justice Committee’s 2022 report that there should be a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, and that a time-limited expert committee that includes a member of the judiciary should be established to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way and for speaking to his new clause. It contains similar wording to the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which Ms Nokes has indicated we may get a separate vote on. Does that mean that the Chair of the Select Committee will be voting with the Liberal Democrats and encouraging his Back-Bench colleagues to do the same? \p Andrew Slaughter: It means that I will listen very carefully, not only to what the hon. Member says but to what the Government say. I know that the Government are unlikely to accept new clause 19, because they have made their position on resentencing clear. Nevertheless, I wanted to set out that that is the best option, but I am just about to talk about other options, which might be more practical and which I urge on the Minister today.

The Justice Committee remains of the view that a resentencing exercise is the best and most comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison. Knowing, however, that the Government are yet to be persuaded of the merits of resentencing on the balance of risk, I have also tabled new clause 20, which would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an annual application for termination to the Parole Board. This would increase the opportunities for the licences of IPP prisoners to be terminated, and would reduce the amount of time those prisoners have to wait in limbo between Parole Board hearings. In contrast to resentencing, this more modest amendment would enhance the process for IPP licence terminations. IPP terminations have been the single most effective measure in permanently reducing the stain of the IPP sentence. Some 28% of IPP sentences have been terminated by the Parole Board, ending the shadow of the sentence by cancelling it and removing the risk of recall for those who have been deemed safe by the Parole Board or complied with their licence for two years.

The new clause would build on the success of that process by reintroducing the right to apply for annual review that was removed by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. At present, if a person’s IPP licence is not terminated when the Parole Board first considers it, or if they had already had an unsuccessful review at the point when the 2024 Act came into force, the only option for ending the licence is when it automatically expires after two years in the community without any recalls. Equally, the one-off nature of the current termination process means that victims are deprived of the opportunity to make representations between an initial decision not to terminate and an automatic termination. They are simply informed that the licence has expired automatically once a continuous two-year period has been achieved. This technical amendment would have a significant effect and would in many respects put the law back to how it was previously. I hope the Minister will look at that and respond when he replies to the debate.

I have also tabled an amendment and a new clause relating to recall and further release. Amendment 33 to clause 26 would give effect to recommendation 4.3 of the independent sentencing review about stricter criteria and thresholds for recall. The Bill as drafted does not deal with that aspect of the recommendation. A fixed-term 56-day recall is akin to multiple short sentences, which have been acknowledged as ineffective and disruptive to long-term rehabilitation. The amendment would put into statute the requirement for recalls to be used only where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review.

New clause 21 provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to the new legislation being rolled out to ensure that it is effective and adequately protects the public. \p Graham Stuart: On another form of recall, does the hon. Member have any sympathy with new clause 62, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and the idea that there should be a sunset on this provision? However we look at the contents of this Bill, it is a bit of an experiment, so we should make sure that two years on we examine it and, if the circumstances require, renew it. \p Andrew Slaughter: We have to do something about recall and do it now. The number of prisoners on recall has more than doubled over the seven-year period from March 2018 to 2025. It was 6,000 then and it is now 13,500. That is a significant part of the prison population. \p Graham Stuart: rose— \p Andrew Slaughter: I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences.

The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls.

Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to  make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare.

I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body.

This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight.

Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison.

To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity  to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.

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

First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased. \p John Hayes: I pay tribute to that campaign, and in particular to my hon. Friend’s commitment to victims, which I know is outstanding. Will he acknowledge, too, that many of the people who suffer are suffering at the hands of repeat criminals—career criminals? Sometimes people who have been let out on licence breach the licence conditions. For instance, in my constituency a young woman was killed by a dangerous driver, on licence, who had been banned from driving. There are many like her, and my hon. Friend is standing for them. Will he therefore impress on the Government that they are letting out people who cause grief, harm and hurt? That is just not good enough. \p Kieran Mullan: As my right hon. Friend says, we can do what we want when it comes to placing conditions on people and expecting them to behave differently, but the only place where we can be sure they are not out committing further offences is prison. Across the board, this measure will let very many serious offenders out of prison earlier, and I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech.

In respect of the undue lenient sentence scheme, the Government have previously said that they will await the outcome of a review of criminal appeals—a review that has already said that the system is working fine,  and for the implementation of whose recommendations we have no timetable or plan. The opportunity to make that change is here, and I urge Ministers to take it.

New clause 8 relates to what are clearly unacceptable restrictions on what people can say in victim personal statements, often described as impact statements. This is a further issue that the Justice for Victims group and others have raised. The parents of Sarah Everard, Susan and Jeremy, have made it very clear that the people advising them on their statements were doing their best to act in their best interests, and to help secure the best possible outcome for justice for Sarah, but the system and the rules around this are leading to too many people, like Susan and Jeremy, being told that they cannot say what they should be allowed to say. Glenn and Becky Youens, also from Justice for Victims, had the same experience when making statements about their feelings towards the vile criminals who had killed their precious daughter Violet-Grace. Our new clause will ensure that the Government can help victims to secure the best possible opportunity to say what it is that they want to say, while recognising that the statement is still being made in a court.

New clause 16 is intended to close a loophole that I think all Members agree needs to be closed. Our current sentencing laws require a whole-life order to be passed for those who murder a police or prison officer in the line of duty. That is an important deterrent, and enables the delivery of justice for people who put themselves in harm’s way, dealing with violent criminals, should the worst happen. However, it is clear to me that the courts have not interpreted the meaning of that legislation as I—and, I think, most other Members—would have wanted them to.

In 2024 a former prison officer, Lenny Scott, was murdered. He was murdered by a seriously violent criminal for doing his job as a prison officer. Lenny had bravely stood up to threats from this criminal while he supervised him in prison, as he had reported that he had contraband. Years later, this despicable person came back for his revenge. He was convicted of Lenny’s murder, but the courts decided that the whole-life order tariff did not apply because he had not been actively on duty when the murder took place. I think that is counter to the spirit of the measure. Our new clause would remove the loophole, so that in future if a prison or police officer is murdered because of something they did in their role, whenever that might be, the sentence will be a whole-life order. I imagine that of all the measures we are proposing, that will secure the greatest amount of cross-party support—not at this stage of the Bill, but during future stages in the Lords.

New clause 10 supports greater transparency in our justice system by ensuring that sentencing remarks in the Crown court are available to everyone, and transparency is also at the heart of new clause 9. For too long, for the wrong reasons, we have not been transparent about criminals’ backgrounds. We know that political correctness led to the vile grooming gangs scandal going unchallenged, which should never have been allowed, for many decades. Part of the issue is that we did not have the data and the information that would have enabled us to understand what was happening and who was committing those offences. Why should we not have basic information about criminals that would enable us to have an honest debate about different patterns of criminal behaviour in  different communities and different parts of the country, especially when we know that if we refuse to do this—if we refuse to be transparent—all that we do is give fuel to the wrong people? At best, indifference to the need to share this data is looking more and more like a desire to cover up what it might reveal. That has to stop, and our new clause will ensure that it does.

New clause 11 relates to steps that the courts should take to limit parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex offences. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) campaigned on this in support of a constituent who met Ministers in that Government to discuss it. In the current Parliament, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has joined the campaign, along with other Members. I understand that yesterday the Government tabled an amendment to the related Victims and Courts Bill, which is due for further consideration, and of course we will look closely at that to consider whether it meets the reasonable expectations of parents seeking to protect their children from child sex offenders. New clauses 13 and 14 also relate to child sex offenders.

As I have said, I will go on to talk about the wider plans to release offenders earlier, but when the Government first announced those plans they made an obvious attempt to distract the media from their actual plans by giving the impression that they would introduce the mandatory chemical castration of sex offenders. What they have actually pledged to do is nothing of the sort. We intend to deliver where they have not: we want to ensure that, when appropriate, courts can impose this, and make sure that there are consequences for offenders who do not comply. The Government have pretended to do whatever is necessary to help reduce the risk posed by child sex offenders, but we actually will.

New clause 14 relates to our broader intention to reform the accountability of our justice system. We will begin by restoring accountability for the provision of sentencing guidelines. We saw that the Sentencing Council was intent on introducing two-tier sentencing guidelines, and resisted all attempts to prevent them from doing that. Too many organisations have become disconnected from public accountability. They think that simply putting something on a website, or holding focus groups, means that they understand what the public want and are accountable to them. That is not accountability, and in the coming years we will set out a programme of reforms to ensure that, while the judicial establishment retains its independence when it is vital to its successful operation, it is not sitting in an ivory tower, separated from accountability to the wider public whom it serves.

Let me say to Reform Members that this new clause is a good illustration of the fact that it is not enough just to be unhappy with the status quo; we need a proper plan to address it. Their new clause 24 would abolish the Sentencing Council, but provides for nothing to replace its functions. If we cannot issue sentencing guidelines, victims have no realistic basis against which to challenge shorter sentences. New offences could be introduced without any way for the courts to understand the expectations in respect of sentences.

I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) relating to suspended sentences. I think that she did an excellent job in laying out the deep, deep flaws in the Government’s plans, which I agree are being driven by ideology and belief rather than reality. I think that her amendments in themselves demonstrate the number of ways in which these measures are not sufficiently robust, containing so many gaps and loopholes that those amendments seek to address. Let us be clear: the courts already do everything that they possibly can to avoid custodial sentences. They are required by law to set the minimum sentence possible that still meets the interests of justice.

There is often confusion about what is described as the impact of short sentences. Association is not cause, but many people, it seems, do not understand that. Short sentences are frequently imposed on recurrent prolific offenders for whom community measures have been tried and have not worked. By definition, they are a challenging cohort. Comparing their reoffending rate with the reoffending rate for offenders receiving community sentences is very misleading. When we do the more detailed work of comparing like for like in terms of offending history and other characteristics, we see that the difference in reoffending rates falls back dramatically to single figures. Offenders receiving short sentences deserve to receive them. Very many of them are individuals who assault emergency service workers. As was highlighted powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, when in opposition Labour Members said that that was intolerable and that dealing with it was a priority. Why should such offenders escape punishment in prison? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has drawn specific attention to that with her amendments and her speech. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend is now coming to the nub of the issue. There are different views across the House. There are those of us who believe that the justice system should be retributive, that punishment matters and that punishment should fit crime, and there are those who do not. There are those who do not think that the justice system should be punitive, whereas I think that it should be punitive. I think that more people should go to jail and should go for much longer, not just because it is a deterrent but because it signals public outrage at these heinous acts. That is why it matters, and everyone in the House should realise it. \p Kieran 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. \p Jake Richards: indicated dissent. \p Kieran 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. \p Grahame Morris: I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.

I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister and his team for their engagement and time both before and since Second Reading. My intention is to support the Bill, but also to seek to improve it. On that basis, I have had extensive discussions with the justice unions, notably the prison officers in the Prison Officers Association,  probation officers in Napo, prison educators in the University and College Union and, indeed, staff in the Public and Commercial Services Union.

I have added my name to new clause 2, tabled by my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), which seeks to ensure that the Probation Service, not Serco or any other private company, oversees this increasingly important criminal justice technology, as is the case in almost all of Europe. The key to the success of the Bill is the tremendous opportunities for this new generation of electronic tagging of offenders. The new clause would also ensure that it is not the responsibility of an already overstretched Prison Service to tag offenders before release—not when Serco is being paid handsomely for this contract. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick has pointed out, such contracts were awarded by the previous Conservative Government, and Serco, as the provider, has suffered considerable financial penalties.

I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister, which I hope he can respond to either in his speech or at a later date. Does he agree with Napo and the POA that, with such a huge expansion of electronic monitoring envisaged by the Bill, the safeguards set out in new clause 2 are sorely needed? Does he also agree that we urgently need a full debate about whether we want the public or the private sector in operational control of electronic tagging?

I pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I hope I have said her constituency name correctly, and I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for coaching me in its pronunciation, although it is work in progress—for tabling new clause 4, to which I have added my name. This amendment calls for probation to receive a clean bill of health by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation before any increase in pressure on the service. It also provides a much-needed power to trigger what is called a prioritisation framework, so if there are serious concerns about a particular region’s or unit’s capability, probation officers can focus on high-risk cases instead of non-essential tasks. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and I appreciate his attempt to improve the Bill. The new clauses that he supports are interesting and have merit. Will he acknowledge, though, that it is not just probation services that will be put under extra pressure by this Bill, but that the police will be too? Will he invite the Minister, when he sums up, to talk about the extra resources he can make available to Lincolnshire police and other authorities, as well as to the Probation Service, to implement the provisions of the Bill that he has brought to the Committee? \p Grahame Morris: I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.

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

Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill? \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30. \p Emma Lewell: I am going to make a short speech on new clause 27, tabled in my name and the name of other hon. Members.

After a short relationship, my constituent Sophie Hall has suffered and continues to suffer from a prolonged and relentless stalking campaign from her ex-partner, who was residing illegally in the UK. In November last year, he was arrested for these offences, but was never  spoken to about them, as no interpreter could be found. No risk assessment was done, and he was placed in temporary accommodation on bail, which he continued to breach.

In February, Sophie’s ex-partner was convicted and sentenced under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and was subsequently deported to his home country of Brazil with a 10-year re-entry ban effective from March. He then made his way to Europe, travelling across several countries before ending up back in the UK. In May, he was arrested in Belfast boarding a flight to Inverness. His aim, as always, was to get to Sophie.

The Crown Prosecution Service then charged him with stalking and breaches of restraining order and immigration offences and he was remanded in custody. After review, the CPS stated that no charges could be filed for stalking under the current law because the stalking had happened outside the UK, the perpetrator is not a UK citizen or resident, and the existing law does not give the UK courts jurisdiction over stalking offences committed from abroad under these circumstances. This is the crux of new clause 27.

Sophie’s ex-partner was then placed on remand and, on 15 September, sentenced to four years and four months for once again breaching a restraining order. He is now in Durham prison, where he continues to show no remorse for, or acknowledgement of, the harm that he has caused. Sophie has been told by her victim liaison officer that he is likely to be deported, will be banned permanently from the UK, and will receive a lifetime restraining order prohibiting him from ever contacting Sophie again. Whether abroad or in the UK, though, he has consistently stalked Sophie, including by sending her letters when he was in a detention centre, because the Home Office failed to transfer information relating to his restraining order. Sophie does not think that she will ever be safe; nor does she feel that the indefinite ban is much of a deterrent. Once he is in Brazil, no one will have sight of him or manage the risk that he poses. She knows that he will try to travel back to her, because he always does.

I am aware from correspondence with the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls that the Government are already looking at the extraterritorial jurisdiction of stalking legislation, and that new measures on stalking will come forward in the Crime and Policing Bill next week. However, I have looked at those measures carefully, and they will do nothing at all to prevent what is happening to Sophie.

Sophie is right that it remains the case that online stalking of UK citizens by foreign nationals, even if it is persistent, harmful and criminal in nature, can go unpunished simply because of where the perpetrator is located when committing the abuse. This legal loophole gives perpetrators the freedom to act with impunity as long as they are physically outside the UK.

Sadly, there are many of us in this place who know the heart-stopping fear and worry when we see threats online or in writing, knowing that the person who is making them will carry them out and does really mean it. Sophie has suffered this relentlessly. She has been let down by the agencies that were meant to protect her, and the law has allowed her perpetrator to continue to  torment her. Sophie is not alone, though. Paladin advocacy service, which has worked with me on new clause 27, is supporting many other victims.

As the law stands, the UK has limited powers to prevent foreign nationals convicted of stalking from continuing to harass their victims after being deported. My new clause aims to rectify that. \p Graham Stuart: As we move to an ever more digital world, the capacity for people to stalk and perpetrate this kind of oppressive action on people will only grow. I just want to say how delighted I am that the hon. Lady has tabled this new clause, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that he will look at this matter carefully, because this will be a growing issue—although, as the hon. Lady has shown with Sophie, it is already horrific in its impact. \p Emma Lewell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support.

Simply put, I want no one else to go through what Sophie is going through. She has to live her life in constant fear and has been through absolute hell. I hope that the Minister will give my new clause proper consideration. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I wish to speak to my new clause 6, which calls for the implementation of a lifetime driving ban for those convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving.

Last year there were 380 convictions for causing death by dangerous or careless driving. Of those convictions, 202 were for causing death by dangerous driving, 150 were for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 23 were for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, two were for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and three were for causing death by driving while disqualified. Fewer than 1% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given a lifetime driving ban; the figure was just two.

Since 2017, there have been 1,348 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, 1,314 convictions for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, 158 convictions for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, 17 convictions for causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, and 11 convictions for causing death by driving while disqualified. There have been nearly 3,000 convictions for causing a death through negligence or recklessness of the driver. Those are thousands of lives lost—husbands and wives who have lost their partner, children who have lost a parent, and parents who have lost a child. Thousands more lives are impacted tragically, forever changed, shattered. \p Munira Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with some shocking figures. Just last Friday in my constituency surgery, Sarah Imi came to talk to me about her husband Jason. Seven years ago, he and his colleague were killed after a work dinner by a 17-year-old driving well above the speed limit and high on cannabis. He was given a £120 fine and a few hours of community service. He has subsequently reoffended 27 times, including committing a dangerous driving offence. Sarah had three teenage  children at the time. Does the hon. Member agree that the family deserve justice and that this man should never be able to drive again? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all our constituencies, and they indicate just how lenient we have been towards those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who have caused a fatality. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 6. I believe that families like the one she mentions deserve justice and the closure of knowing that those people will not go on to reoffend.

Under section 163 of the sentencing code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after 1 January 1998. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months. The sentencing guidelines for a driving disqualification following a conviction for causing death by driving illustrate the leniency that our judiciary applies to these cases. There is something badly wrong with our approach to justice when life is considered as cheap as it is in the current guidelines.

The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, as it covers excessive speeding, drink driving, and dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres—the type of driving that leaves us horrified. Now consider a case in which the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed. The minimum disqualification period is five years—an inconvenience. It speaks to a narrative of, “Whoops, I killed somebody.”

The sentencing guidelines include the option for a lifetime disqualification, but reluctance to impose it is currently priced into the guidelines, which state:

“Lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications will generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and/or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender would be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.”

Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? The guidelines refer to an “increased risk of breach”, but if someone is caught driving while disqualified, having been banned from driving for life after killing someone, perhaps we should send them to prison.

Those who know me will know that I am far from anti-motorist. I am no fan of low-traffic neighbourhoods, blanket 20 mph speed limits or terribly designed cycle lanes, but while I have been a car enthusiast for many years, I am also a cyclist, and these days very much a MAMIL—a middle-aged man in Lycra. I have been knocked off my bike twice by cars that “didn’t see” me. I have been doored, and close-passed at 60 mph. I ride with cameras on my bike so that there is evidence of me being knocked off, and some of the driving I could show would deter Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again—but I have been lucky.

Mike Gough was not lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too was a keen cyclist, and he often cycled on the country roads around the town—the very same roads I was out on this past weekend. In March last year, as he headed back into Huntingdon along the Brampton  Road towards George Street, he was struck by a Ford Transit van attempting to pass him. Paramedics attended the scene and attempted to give CPR, but Mike had been crushed and could not be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. Along the Brampton Road today, a white ghost bike now marks the site, as a tribute to Mike.

The driver received a 12-month sentence—suspended for two years—and a two-year driving ban. As it stands, he will be back on the roads before the next election. Mike’s relatives said that the sentence did not reflect

“the seriousness of what has happened or the catastrophic impact on our lives. Michael was the pinnacle of our family and a huge part of the local community. As a family we will never be the same again and our grief is immeasurable.”

It is with these events in mind that I have tabled new clause 6. \p Luke Taylor: The hon. and gallant Member speaks very strongly about this issue. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications for rehabilitation, but he has spoken about the huge impact on families when a life is taken in that way. Can he give some reassurance about the balance between rehabilitating through custodial sentences, for example, and the lifelong impact on families of incidents that happen in a moment? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The hon. Member makes a valid point. My amendment seeks to remove the chance that those people will reoffend further down the track. The custodial element remains unchanged, so there will still be the possibility of rehabilitation through the prison system to reduce the rate of recidivism. The issue here, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also pointed out, is about giving families closure and the knowledge that those who are guilty of committing these crimes will not be able to go on to reoffend.

New clause 6 proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—those I covered at the beginning of my speech. Having spoken to Mike’s widow Hazel and his daughter Kim, I can say that it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day that they had to attend the scene where their husband or father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did. It was not an error, or avoidable on his part. The driver alone was at fault; it was his casual negligence that caused Mike’s death.

Mike’s daughter Kim recounts:

“On 27 June 2025, the driver, Dennis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect, given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and has to pay court charges of around £200. The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice? In two years’ time he will be able to drive again. Would you give someone who used a gun carelessly and someone was killed their gun licence back after two years? I doubt it. They would most likely have a custodial sentence too.”

I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, parent or child had been killed in a road traffic accident. \p Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Like him I am a cyclist and have been subject to dangerous driving, but I am also a driver, and I am sure that few of us would say that we had not driven carelessly at some point. Has he given thought to whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate in all circumstances, for anybody who has ever caused death through carelessness? I am not yet convinced. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk later about whether it is too draconian. The issue here is one of finality. I am sure we have all had close shaves while driving a car, but the fact of the matter is that if a driver has killed somebody—no matter how unlucky that may have been—that is final. The grief of the families I have spoken to and the stories I have heard from other hon. Members show that we cannot overstate how much of an impact that has on not just the lives of the family but on friends and colleagues. There are opportunities that those people will never, ever have.

Beyond that unimaginable pain, think how a family might be left feeling if they find that, far from the accident having been unavoidable, the death was caused by the reckless action of somebody who was playing with their phone, speeding, driving like a boy-racer or drunk. Think of the feeling of injustice when the driver is sentenced and receives little more than a slap on the wrist.

The driver who killed Mike was given a two-year driving ban. Hazel will never get to see Mike again. They will never have the opportunity to live out the rest of their lives together. Kim said:

“The long-term impact on our family is huge. Although my mum has returned to her job at the hospital she is unable to fulfil her role on a rota and shift system and is unable to reduce her working hours. She has therefore been forced into taking early retirement from a job she has been at for nearly 42 years. We never want my dad to be a statistic, and to never be forgotten.”

I tabled new clause 6 because of Mike, because of conversations with Hazel and Kim, and because victims like him need justice, which, as things stand, they will not receive. How can we put such an incredibly low tariff on being directly responsible for someone’s death? The option to ban a driver for life is at the court’s disposal, yet it appears not to be the preference of judges. That leniency suggests that life is cheap and that, far from being a tragedy, a death at the hands of someone careless or dangerous elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders. In the event that somebody with a licensed shotgun killed somebody because they were careless—or, worse still, because they were dangerous—would we allow them to regain their shotgun licence? Why do we so readily return people’s driving licences after they have taken a life?

There is an argument that a lifetime ban is too draconian, does not leave room for rehabilitation and will not work as a deterrent. The new clause is not supposed to be a deterrent; it is for the courts to decide whether a conviction should result in a custodial sentence and thus what degree of rehabilitation, and therefore  recidivism, should occur thereafter. The new clause is not too draconian; it is robust. It would take drivers who have killed permanently off our roads and mean that those who have already proved themselves to be fatally unsafe behind the wheel would never again be in a position to take another life or destroy any further lives.

I was moved recently by the story of one family. Clare O’Neill spoke to Sky News following the conviction of the driver in their story. She said:

“It was a normal Saturday morning. It was quite busy. We were going to go home via the school fair, and we got to the school crossing, which was behind the school. We pressed the button and waited for the cars to stop. She took a couple of steps out in front because she was responsibly crossing, and I was encouraging her brother to catch up, and then, in front of our eyes he ploughed into her, massively fast, and he carried her off on his wing mirror.

I’ve got this very clear image of her being swept off her feet and then she tumbled off. By the time I got to her, it was almost like she was gone.”

Alice died a few days later. She was nine years old.

The light had been red for seven seconds when the driver overtook cars to speed through the pedestrian crossing. Qadeer Hussain was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. He was also disqualified from driving for 10 years and two months; he will be out in four.

Clare’s victim impact statement illustrates the devastating effect of such tragedies:

“I feel blinding, chest-crushing, white-hot rage at you, unlike any emotion I’ve ever felt before. She wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time, you were. You knew it all along, I’m helpless to express my anger that you stole everything from her”.

I tabled the new clause because I believe that as a nation we do not take the necessary steps to make our roads safer, and we do not punish those responsible robustly enough. Should it go to a vote, I believe that the support for it, acknowledged by the Government, shows that more robust measures are possible. Victims and their families deserve justice, and while the issue of sentencing for these crimes is a wider discussion, ensuring that those responsible for destroying so many lives do not drive on our roads again is an issue that we could address in the Committee today.

The new clause will never bring back the victims who have been lost, nor heal the pain felt by those left behind, but it may offer some closure if such crimes do not go unpunished and if causing a fatality does not occur with impunity. I thank hon. Members who have supported the new clause and ask everyone to vote in favour of it this evening. \p Sarah Russell: I thank the hon. Member for Huntington (Ben Obese-Jecty) for speaking to his new clause, although I do not support it because the minimum needed to cause death by careless driving is a momentary lapse of concentration. Of course, he was talking about a death, and I am not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but a full lifetime driving ban meaning that someone who had a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 still cannot drive at 55 does not feel proportionate. However, I agree that we should look much more closely at all driving-related  offences, including all offences relating to dangerous driving, careless driving and, in particular, causing death by dangerous driving. Those are horrendous crimes.

I have met families who have been bereaved in that way, and those have been some of the most impactful conversations I have had in my life. The impact on those families simply cannot be overstated. We are expecting the road safety strategy imminently, and I hope that these matters will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at sensibly, because it is a really important topic. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast. \p Sarah Russell: I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated. \p Kieran Mullan: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Sarah Russell: I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.

For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.

New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.

Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] \p Kieran Mullan: Does the hon. Member think it appropriate for an immigration judge to support and advocate for a charity that is actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented? Should an immigration judge be involved in an organisation like that? \p Sarah Russell: I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not. \p Richard Tice: Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody? \p Sarah Russell: The hon. Member appears to be ignoring the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which fundamentally, at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference, and also the fact that the application of the law should not be subject to political interference in this place. That is absolutely fundamental. Judges are not getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous leftie positions.  The picture that is sometimes painted by those on the Opposition Benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis. \p Monica Harding: Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks? \p Sarah Russell: The members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. They are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs, and that will be affecting judicial recruitment. We need immigration judges to be able to stand up and serve the judiciary. Many judges take a pay cut to become a judge, and they deserve our genuine respect. They work very hard in a system that has been grotesquely underfunded for 14 years.

Lastly, I would like to mention new clause 40, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it might not be in the exactly right format for the Government to it take forward today, but I hope that the Minister will consider how we will deal with the fact that people are not receiving training when they are on remand and are often released at the end of that time. It is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.

I have asked previously in the Justice Committee about what work is done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences. In my opinion, we are missing an opportunity for people, without accepting any sort of guilt, to engage in services that many would benefit from, considering their general behaviour, irrespective of whether their original offence was related to domestic abuse. In fact, all of us could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People spend a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like it to be. That brings me back to my original point. Government Members absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we also believe in rehabilitation, and the emphasis on that in this Bill is very much to be welcomed. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I will speak to my new clauses: new clause 4 on probation capacity and new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I also support new clauses 2 and 3, as well as new clauses 19 and 30, which relate to relate to IPP sentencing.

First, let me commend the diligent work of my constituent, Rhianon Bragg, and fellow activists who have helped place vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of the Bill, particularly in relation to the restriction zone conditions in clauses 16 and 24. I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further clarification on the details of those measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhianon and other victims and survivors. The measures entail putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than the victim, and that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims.

There is no escaping the fact that the Bill will heap extra pressure on the Probation Service, which is slowly coming back from being on its knees following the transformation of rehabilitation under the last Government. I would like to put on the record that, last week, I had the honour of addressing the annual conference of the probation officers union, Napo, in my capacity as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group.

Speaker after speaker at the conference, including Chief Inspector Martin Jones, warned that probation officers are under unprecedented pressure and simply cannot cope with their current workload. Staff are genuinely worried that the Bill will make that already acute problem worse and will risk destabilising the service further, which will lead to a greater risk to public protection. That is why, as is proposed in new clause 4, an independent assessment of whether the Probation Service has the capability and the capacity to take on additional work is vital.

New clause 4, which is fully supported by Napo, would require the inspectorate’s approval to be provided before extra pressure is placed on our overstretched Probation Service by provisions in the Bill. It would also empower the inspectorate to trigger special measures for probation delivery units or entire regions, and a prioritisation framework that would give probation officers more flexibility to focus on high-risk cases and drop the non-essential and lower-priority tasks that take up so much of their time.

Since those years when there was so much pressure on the Probation Service, probation officers have effectively been penalised for their willingness to take responsibility for risky decisions, which we are going to require them to make. If we are to enable probation officers to do their work more effectively, we must give them the capacity to think through the risks in order to be prepared not to go ahead on the safest possible route.

Currently, only regional probation directors have the power to ask for their region or unit to be put into the prioritisation framework, the criteria for which I am told is based solely on the number of probation officers. Napo believes that criterion to be wholly inadequate, as it does not take into account the grades of the staff or their workloads, and that it must be broadened to take into account probation officers’ day-to-day workload. Resting such powers with directors also disincentivises the triggering of special measures because it leads to accusations of their being allowed to mark their own homework. If the inspectorate had that power instead, there could be an objective, holistic assessment of the full capacity of that area, which would include much broader criteria than is currently the case. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen and support the spirit, if not the specific text, of new clause 4.

New clause 17 would do what many have long called for: devolving probation and offender management to Wales by amending the Government of Wales Act 2006. That is not a political ask; it is an operational one, and it comes from within the service. When Napo Cymru executive Su McConnel gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in May, she not only provided on-the-ground insight into the realities of the Probation Service in Wales, but made it clear that the UK Government are ignoring expert advice by refusing to turn away from their failing centralised approach to probation. Locally  based and community-centred probation is desperately needed and is loudly advocated for by probation staff in Wales and experts and academics alike. As the chair of the Thomas commission rightly said, following a question from my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, it would be useful to know why the unanimous recommendation of a completely apolitical group of experts is thought to be wrong by the UK Government. I add to that the recommendations of the Silk commission report, the Gordon Brown report and that of the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales. Gordon Brown—a former Labour Prime Minister—made this recommendation. Although the reports recommend the devolution of justice to Wales to various degrees, the devolution of probation is an undebatable commonality—it is asked for by all those reports.

This is not an ill-prepared amendment; it is rooted in years and mountains of evidence, data and analysis. This is what the experts say needs to be done for the situation in Wales, where we have the jagged edge of devolution and so many of those critical services already devolved. This is different from any region of England, and for it to work more effectively, the devolution of probation would be the first step in bringing all that together.

If this proposal made it into law, a wealth of knowledge would be at our fingertips waiting to be used, as the now disaggregated justice data for Wales has been finally published after years and years of demanding it. I mention in particular the diligent work of Cardiff University’s Dr Rob Jones in helping secure that data, and I look forward to his analysis of it.

The point is that if probation were finally devolved, the data could inform our services and practices in the specific context of Wales, addressing the structural issues that we see and experience, and integrated with those areas crucial to rehabilitation that have already been devolved for over a quarter of a century—namely health, housing and social policy. That is what people on the frontline actually want. Probation officers are crying out for reorganisation and for a Welsh probation system uncoupled from the Prison Service, and informed by and responsive to our communities. That is what they know will work for them on the frontline, not for executives at the Ministry of Justice or at private companies. This will work best for communities in Wales.

Instead of ideologically clinging on to a centralised England and Wales service and “exploring”, as we understand the Government intend to do, the prospect of devolving probation, this Labour UK Government should just get on with it. Labour in Wales agrees with Plaid Cymru, and it agreed back when the Conservatives were in government, that justice should be devolved in full. When the Conservatives were in government, Labour in Wales pushed for that, but now we have Labour in power at both ends of the M4, we are experiencing a watering down of those ambitions for Wales. What was said before is not being said now, and that is deeply disappointing.

With so many of our social policy levers already devolved, full devolution would provide Wales with the opportunity to create and implement a cohesive, holistic justice and rehabilitation strategy that works for the people of Wales and for our specific communities and needs. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response  to these arguments on both amendments at the close of the debate, and I hope to see his Government act on the actual calls of probation staff dealing with these issues on the frontline. \p Allison Gardner: I will speak to new clause 28, “Gambling treatment requirement” and new clause 29, “Gambling addiction: support for offenders”. I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice, the NHS, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care for their sustained engagement and understanding on this topic. These are probing amendments, and I will withdraw them. However, I wish to highlight the real urgency with which we must treat gambling disorder with parity of esteem to drug and alcohol addiction in the criminal justice system.

Gambling can be a fun hobby which many of us enjoy—even I like a flutter on the lottery and have a soft spot for bingo. But what begins as the odd bet or game can quickly escalate, and some sadly spiral into problem gambling. Once an addiction takes hold, disordered gambling can break down families, cause people to lose their jobs and may trigger criminal behaviour. Those affected may turn to acquisitive crime to fund their addiction or pay their debts, and affected others may turn to crime to recoup their partner’s debts. Problem gambling is associated with not only acquisitive crimes, but street violence, domestic abuse and neglect. That, of course, leads to many harms for the person themselves, their families and the victims of their crimes.

Although the link between problem gambling and crime remains relatively under-researched, the available evidence illuminates several concerning trends. Problem gamblers are over four times more likely to be in prison. While there are examples of good support specific to problem gambling, there is currently no statutory requirement to provide treatment to people convicted of gambling-related offences. I have received reports of people with problem gambling only being given treatment designed for drug or alcohol dependency, general mental health support or no treatment at all. None of those options treats the very specific and complex issues related to problem gambling and crime. Without this, people risk entering a cycle of reoffending, with harms escalating each time and more and more victims.

I was given a case recently in which a woman who developed a gambling addiction after a traumatic life event received no support during her custodial sentence. She was instead directed to a drugs and alcohol course, which she found incredibly unhelpful. In another case, a man imprisoned was not offered any treatment in custody at all and experienced a rife culture of gambling while in prison. He left prison with no treatment and no path to recovery.

It must be acknowledged that in many cases, gambling disorder is one part of a wider network of vulnerabilities contributing to offending and reoffending. Problem gamblers often struggle with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health issues or underlying trauma. \p Linsey Farnsworth: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case that I wholeheartedly support. She is outlining not only the real problems that gambling addiction causes but the trauma that often leads to it, which shows how important rehabilitation is.  We have heard much from Opposition Members today about how everybody should be punished and how this Bill is a soft option. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring people to drill down into the causes of their offending is far from an easy option? It is a very difficult thing to ask people to do, and it is essential that we give them the support they need to look at their life and turn it around. \p Allison Gardner: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Prison should be rehabilitative. Any offender should have that support, to prevent reoffending. It is right for our society, it is right for potential victims, and it is right for offenders, who often resort to criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma.

Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition. Leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM-5—the fifth edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—and the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases classify gambling as an addiction with similar cognitive and psychological effects to those of substance use disorders. Research indicates that once an individual begins chasing their gambling losses with further gambling, their cognitive functioning becomes impaired. Changes can occur in brain chemistry and neurocognitive function, and the ability to make rational decisions—such as choosing whether to engage in criminal behaviour to manage debts or to continue gambling—becomes compromised. There is the link.

The criminal justice system recognises the psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency. Drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors, with sentencing guidelines, treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements, as set out in the Sentencing Act 2020. \p Anna Dixon: My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument, drawing parallels between gambling addiction and drug and alcohol abuse. Earlier this year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned Government officials about the endemic use of drugs in prisons. The Carol Black report looked at this back in 2020— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in? \p Anna Dixon: No, I have not just walked in. This is the third speech I have listened to. \p Nusrat Ghani: Okay. Make sure your intervention is short. \p Anna Dixon: A lot of drug users are repeat offenders, as my hon. Friend was saying about those with a gambling addiction. Does she agree that a shift to community provision might enable people to get the rehabilitation they need for their addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol or gambling? \p Allison Gardner: I do. I reiterate that to break the cycle of reoffending or recidivism, rehabilitation must be at the heart of all sentencing and punishment, be it community or custodial.

Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an individual suffering from drug and alcohol addiction receives targeted support through the alcohol treatment and drug treatment requirements for community orders and suspended sentences, yet no such legislation ensures that individuals serving community orders or suspended sentences for gambling- related offences seek rehabilitative treatment. Pre-sentence reports can include problem gambling, and the court may decide that an offender is suitable for a mental health treatment requirement as part of a community order or suspended sentence. However, although problem gambling is associated with depression and a heightened risk of suicide, the mental health treatment requirement does not directly treat gambling disorder.

At present, no specific requirement directly addresses disordered gambling. New clause 28 seeks to resolve that by establishing a statutory gambling treatment requirement for those serving community orders or suspended sentences. Most of those facing a custodial sentence leave custody without treatment. They do not recover from their addiction, and they are at an increasingly high risk of reoffending after losing their homes, jobs, and experiencing family breakdown. Prisons are often a hotbed for gambling activity, and treatment is absent. Ten per cent of men report gambling regularly while in prison, and 41% of people on probation report gambling more than once a week. Gambling disorders should therefore be recognised throughout the criminal justice process where gambling disorder is a causal factor.

As with drug and alcohol treatment, courts should be empowered to impose community orders and suspended sentences that include referral to specific gambling disorder treatments. Where custody is imposed, prisons should provide access to gambling treatment and peer support, equivalent to that available for drug and alcohol addiction. New clauses 28 and 29 seek to establish statutory parity, ensuring that treatment-based sentencing options are available, with continuity of care in both custody and upon release.

There are already examples of good practice. GamLEARN offers incredible support, and its model shows what works: treatment, peer support and family support. The West Midlands Gambling Harms Clinic offers free evidence-based specialist psychological therapies to individuals harmed by gambling. Trained psychological professionals provide cognitive behavioural therapy in a variety of formats, including SilverCloud, a confidential online platform. Online support could follow people if they are moved on, whether in custodial or community sentences, ensuring continuity of support.

I thank GamLEARN and the West Midlands Gambling Harms Clinic for working with me. I also thank Sarah Page from Staffordshire University, whose research has been instrumental in highlighting the challenges faced by problem gamblers in the criminal justice system. Although I will not be pressing my amendments, I believe that we must break the cycle of reoffending and make a difference to individuals, their families and their victims. Without statutory recognition and parity with drug and alcohol addiction, people in recovery are being held back, their families are destabilised, and prisons are left to manage untreated addiction without dedicated provision. I again acknowledge the positive engagement with the Minister thus far, and I support the Bill. I look forward to  further discussions about the work being done to provide appropriate rehabilitative treatment for those convicted as a result of their problem gambling. \p Sarah Pochin: Today I speak in favour of the eight amendments tabled by Reform UK. Simply put, the Bill is motivated by the desire to free up prison spaces, and not by what is the best way to administer justice. Its primary function is not the protection of the public, or the protection of victims of crime or abuse—in fact, it is the opposite.

Clause 1 is about the presumption of suspension of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. We proposed an amendment to remove clause 1, which effectively discourages the magistrates court from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances when a custodial sentence of 12 months or less is entirely appropriate, and the clause is tying the hands of magistrates, who will be under pressure from the clerks not to impose a prison sentence. What does that mean for those found in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife—an offence that currently attracts a mandatory six-month prison sentence?

With this presumption of suspension clause, is the Minister now suggesting that offenders who are found guilty of carrying a knife will now have their sentence automatically suspended? If so, what does this mean for knife crime on our streets and the protection of the public? Community sentence options are often limited due to defendants claiming anxiety and depression, meaning that unpaid work is not an option and that tagging may be limited. In addition, fines are often meaningless because so many defendants are claiming universal credit.

Let me turn to clauses 18 and 19. We have tabled new clause 24, which would abolish the Sentencing Council all together. The Sentencing Council was introduced to give statutory guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe that its work has become prescriptive and politicised, as shown by clause 19. We live in an era of two-tier justice. Let us not forget that in March, the Sentencing Council proposed treating ethnic minority offenders more leniently than white offenders. The Justice Secretary had to step in and overrule the Sentencing Council in order to stop this madness. For these reasons, the Sentencing Council should be abolished and sentencing powers should lie solely at the discretion of judges. \p Rachel Gilmour: I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this year, we investigated the state of our prison system and all the sorts of things that one should describe as restorative justice. The facts are that our prisons are overflowing, they are not making anybody any better or turning people around, and they do not provide restorative justice. As I know to my own cost, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton. \p Sarah Pochin: I thank the hon. Lady for the Eton example. I am sure that will resonate very well with my constituents in Runcorn. \p Esther McVey: Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what  we should be doing—[Interruption.] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners. \p Sarah Pochin: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] \p Lee Anderson: On a point of order, Ms Ghani. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) just swore at my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). \p Luke Taylor: indicated dissent. \p Nusrat Ghani: I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that? \p Luke Taylor: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: Sarah Pochin, will you please continue? \p Sarah Pochin: We proposed an amendment to remove clause 20 all together. The clause proposes to reduce the time served of a custodial sentence from a half to a third in order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals who have been locked up for some of the worst possible offences, including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving only a third of their sentence behind bars. Only the most serious offenders, including those convicted of rape, will serve half their sentences in jail, reduced from two thirds. [Interruption.] \p Kieran Mullan: As the hon. Lady is laying out the reality, Government Members are chuntering and suggesting that what she is saying is not true, so may I point out that the Library briefing clearly says that those with sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence who are currently released at the two thirds point of sentence would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions? That is a fact. \p Sarah Pochin: I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.

I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service. \p Sarah Russell: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Sarah Pochin: No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.

Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.

Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that

“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”

In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.

Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as

“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.

Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Catherine Atkinson. [Interruption.] I call John McDonnell. \p John Martin McDonnell: Thank you, Ms Ghani; it is nice to be a substitute.

Like others in the Chamber, I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I will speak very briefly to new clause 3. As many Members know, the justice unions group comprises the probation officers’ union, Napo, as well as the Prison Officers Association and the PCS. It acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament from those particular unions. There is an overall welcoming of the Bill by the unions themselves, which is good, but a specific concern has been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and community service, and how that is managed in the future.

Many Members will also know about the history of community service; in fact, in the past we have had a few Members in this House who did a bit of community service—but that is another issue all together. Historically, it has been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences: by working in the community and making reparation for the damage that they have often caused in it. I think we can report that it has been relatively successful in most of our constituencies.

Unfortunately, though, there have been experiments with privatisation, including of the management of the service; and there has been debate about whether this could be unpaid labour for private companies. In London, in 2013, community service was privatised to Serco. It was an absolute disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, and a lack of tools being delivered. It was also exposed that offenders were sometimes being crammed into vehicles that were unsuitable and unsafe. As a result, that privatisation collapsed. The last Government then engaged in a wholesale privatisation of probation, under the title, “transformation of rehabilitation”. That included unpaid work and community service. Again, even the last Government had to accept that probation would have to be brought back in house because of a combination of incompetence and profiteering, alongside a failure to go for realistically effective rehabilitation.

During that period, the National Association of Probation Officers expressed to the Government its opposition to privatisation, and took action by referring the matter to the International Labour Organisation, as a breach of the ILO’s convention on forced labour. The ILO found in favour of the union, framing its judgment in this way:

“All work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself”

or herself voluntarily is forced labour. It made an exception of

“work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law”.

However, the ILO also said that the person must not be

“hired or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”.

The union is seeking an assurance from the Government that they will abide by the ILO convention, and will not place this forced labour with private companies, as that would enable those companies to profiteer from those workers, and would prevent those who want a job from being hired legitimately. The union also asks that we prevent a repetition of the disaster of privatisation. It says that if there is an increase in community sentences, there obviously has to be adequate staffing through the Probation Service, as has been said, and recognition of the failure of the private sector to manage this process in the past.

The union wants to remind Members that there is a requirement for supervision to be adequately staffed, because there is a concern about the nature of unpaid labour placements and how they will be supervised in future. There are already concerns about what is happening; we are dealing with cases involving people who have committed knife crime, domestic violence or stalking, and there are issues with the mental health of some of the offenders being supervised, as well as drug-related issues.  There is a fear of heightened risk if privatisation is attempted again, and if private companies offer placements in their companies for the sake of profiteering.

All new clause 3 seeks is an assurance from the Minister, preferably in the Bill, that unpaid work will be undertaken only for non-profit organisations. In the past, such work has been undertaken for these bodies, including social enterprises, voluntary organisations and, yes, local authorities, working with local community initiatives. The private sector should never be allowed to profit from such work. \p Anna Dixon: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarification that charities would still be able to provide these placements. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency, upCYCLE, which teaches bike maintenance skills to help rehabilitate people. Currently, that is done in prisons, but when there are more community sentences, that sort of charity will want to give people skills and meaningful work in the community. I just want to clarify that this is not about excluding charities. \p John Martin McDonnell: That is exactly in the tradition of community service as it was founded and developed over the years, but the experiments with privatisation have been a disaster. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that. \p Kieran Mullan: The right hon. Member is well known for his long-term support for the Prison Officers Association. While he is on his feet, will he commit to supporting our new clause 16, which would close the loophole relating to whole life orders for the murder of prison officers? \p John Martin McDonnell: I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.

My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes,  the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion. \p Blake Stephenson: Last week, I met one of my constituents, Tracey Hanson, in Parliament to honour the 10-year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work that she has put into campaigning for victims’ rights, and I heard more about how the law that she wants to introduce—Josh’s law—would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders.

I will speak specifically to new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). After cruelly taking the life of Josh Hanson, Shane O’Brien absconded and evaded police for three and a half years before he was finally caught. Dubbed Britain’s most wanted man at the time, O’Brien was sentenced to at least 26 years in prison, just one year above the minimum sentence. After just missing the deadline to appeal the sentence as a result of unclear information about victims’ families’ rights under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, Tracey has spent years campaigning to ensure that no other victims face what her family did. Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families face the same problems, simply because they are not being made aware of their right to appeal sentences.

There are also concerning numbers of cases in which clerical errors—in one case I heard of, it was an email stuck in a barrister’s outbox—lead to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. While appeals from offenders will still be considered by the Attorney General outside the 28-day window in exceptional circumstances, appeals from victims or their families will not. Historically, victims were at the centre of the justice system. Victims were the driving force in bringing criminal cases, and played a central role throughout the process. It was not until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state-led prosecutions, with the victims, rather than criminal cases, significantly diminished. The focus only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victim’s charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of the focus from the state, and divert it back to those who are most directly impacted by crime.

The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. They should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and should have received the same rights, and information about their right to appeal against the sentencing decision, as the offender did. It is vital that victims and their families are clearly informed about their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 12 would require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, providing details of the unduly lenient sentence scheme,  the application process for the scheme and the deadlines, which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the scheme. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend is making a bold case on behalf of victims. I hope that he will agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. Over the whole of my lifetime, the focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately it has permeated so much of the establishment, including the judiciary; sentences are sometimes inadequate for that very reason. \p Blake Stephenson: I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.

New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality. \p Jessica Asato: I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.

The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.

This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk. \p Josh Babarinde: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Jessica Asato: No, I will make progress.

The expansion of specialist domestic abuse courts is also very exciting. I am concerned, however, by the provisions that allow for the automatic re-release of recalled perpetrators after 56 days, and fear that they may place some victims at serious risk of harm. Those who perpetrate crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking know everything about their victims—where they live, where they work, where their children go to school, their regular routines—and we know how fixated such abusers can be.

Although I welcome the exemptions of those managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—categories 2 and 3, I must note that this will not capture the vast majority of domestic abusers. By the point a perpetrator is sentenced, it is likely that their victim has already been subject to abuse for years. SafeLives, a domestic abuse charity, has found that high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.5 years. They will just be beginning to rebuild their life when their perpetrator is released from prison. If the perpetrator goes on to harass their victim, their probation officer may decide to recall them to prison, but after 56 days they will be released again, potentially to harass or abuse. They may again be recalled, and then released again 56 days later. I can see no provisions in the Bill to prevent this cycle, which could end in serious harm or the death of a victim.

It is right that breaches of domestic abuse protection orders or other orders may send perpetrators straight back to prison. However, the sad truth is that victims may not always recognise breaches of an order, or they may be too scared to call it in. Even when they do, very few breaches are acted on by the police. Recall is an important tool in ensuring that victims are safeguarded in the short term, but we cannot create a system in which there is a cycle of ever-increasing risk. As a result, I have tabled amendments 22 and 23, and new clause 5, which seek to address this issue by ensuring that any offenders who are recalled on the basis of contact with their victim are not automatically released after 56 days, but are instead holistically risk assessed and held in custody until their risk to the victim has been reduced to the extent that it can be managed in the community. By breaking the cycle, my amendments would address some of the concerns raised by senior police and probation officials regarding the resource pressure of recall and holding in custody.

We know what the Tories did to address the prison overcrowding crisis—absolutely nothing—and we will not take lectures from them. In clearing up their mess and avoiding the collapse of our criminal justice system, we must ensure that safeguarding victims is our first priority. I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues from across the House to ensure that we can do just that.

Finally, I was interested to hear about new clause 38, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on screening for traumatic brain injury. I worked with brain injury researchers on their early research on screening, and hope that the Minister looks closely at this vital new clause. \p John Hayes: I had not intended to start this way but I will do so, following the last remarks by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about acquired brain injury. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and we recently held a session specifically on the relationship between acquired brain injury and the criminal justice system. She is quite right to emphasise that. I will say no more in detail about it, except to refer the Minister to the report that we published, which includes a section on criminal justice and acquired brain injury.

Beyond that, in talking about the fundamental consideration of this Bill, I want to speak about the facts, the reasons for them, their effects and the alternative,  very much in the spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke in when moving her amendment. I recommend her amendments, almost without reservation. They are a bold attempt to rescue the Bill from the damage it might do. I do not claim that that damage is intentional, because I do not think that anyone in this House intends to do harm—we would not be here if we did. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, harm, whether unintended or otherwise, will be the result of this legislation.

It is undeniable, I am afraid, that the Government present to the House a paradox. On one hand, they say that this Bill is necessary because of practicalities, including the inadequate number of prison places. That is a plausible argument, because the prison population has grown, as we heard earlier in the debate, and we simply do not have enough places to accommodate all those who might be sent to prison. On the other hand, they say that it is a matter of principle, and they tell us that short sentences do not work. In doing so, they are conceding to the rehabilitationist argument that has pervaded criminal justice thinking and criminology more generally for the whole of my lifetime. I remember that when I was studying criminology at university, there was exactly that narrative. Other academics challenged it: Philip Bean, the criminologist, wrote a definitive book called “Rehabilitation and Deviance”, in which he made the case for just retribution. The public certainly believe that the criminal justice system should be retributive. \p Kieran Mullan: My right hon. Friend is talking about a contradiction in the Government’s position, but is there not another one? Labour Members and Ministers in particular talk about the volume of people who are going to be released as a result of their measures, but whenever they are confronted with examples of actual offences committed by the sorts of offenders they will be letting go, they always say, “Well, it wouldn’t apply to them.” The Government cannot have it both ways: either a lot of people are getting out of prison, including some of these people, or they are not. They have to make up their mind. \p John Hayes: It is certainly true that a very significant proportion of criminals are repeat offenders, and there are people who choose to live a life of crime. This is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice to be dealt with through punishment, because we need to punish people for doing harm. That is not complicated—it is what all our constituents would take as read—yet, as I say, we seem to agonise about it perpetually. \p Anna Dixon: Referring to my earlier comments, the data show that one in four prisoners are drug users and have a drug and alcohol problem, and they constitute many of the reoffenders. Given that data, does the right hon. Member not agree with me that we should be rehabilitating and medically treating those addictions, so that they are not caught up in the criminal justice system? \p John Hayes: It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of  measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. You should learn that one tempers oneself, Sir John. \p John Hayes: I am extremely grateful, Madam Chairman. \p Kieran Mullan: This is very much still on topic. The challenge with the argument that Labour Members put forward on rehabilitation is that it presupposes that all we need to do is put someone on a drug rehabilitation course once, and they will stop offending and it is all fantastic. The evidence shows the complete opposite. Even the very best drug rehabilitation courses that money can buy at the Priory have a long-term success rate of about 50%. In reality, whatever we do, some of these offenders are going down a path from which they will not be turned for a significant length of time, and that is when we have to put them in prison. \p John Hayes: I do agree with my hon. Friend.

Just stepping back a moment, Ms Ghani, I am mindful that the only female Speaker we have ever had once famously declared, “Call me Madam”, so I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than anything else.

It is certainly true that we need a war against drugs, drug dealing and all the effects of drugs, but it would be quite wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately. When those bad things are at their extreme, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, we are speaking of extremes—acts of violence against women, minors and, let us face it, men—they need to be dealt with with severity. There is nothing wrong with saying that because it is what most people intuitively feel, and it is right that they do. Grotius, the jurist, once said that criminal justice was about

“the infliction of an ill suffered for an ill done”,

and that sense that the punishment must fit the crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation.

The Minister needs to explain whether the Bill is about practicalities or principle. I have yet to determine which position the Government have taken. \p Sally Jameson: I just want to highlight the fact that it is possible to believe that offenders need to be punished, as I do—when I was an officer, I was part of delivering that punishment—and simultaneously that rehabilitation should be a part of the prison system. While I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that some offenders are not ready to begin the rehabilitation journey, that does not mean that we should not stand ready to provide it for those who are ready, as it ultimately drives down reoffending and reduces the number of victims, which should be at the heart of everything we do. Punishment and rehabilitation need to work hand in hand. \p John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. While I attack the rehabilitationist dogma, I do of course believe that we should try to save souls, and the best way of doing that is to address people’s fundamental problems, as many Members across the Committee have said in the course of this debate. That might be about ensuring that people have adequate learning, or it might be about the acquisition of a particular skill. The hon. Lady will know from her rich experience in these matters that if someone can get a job when they leave prison, they are much less likely to reoffend. When someone in those circumstances is unable to get a job, it is usually a result of the fact that they do not have core skills, in terms of basic competencies, or specialist skills. Where those can be provided through learning in prison, that undoubtedly has beneficial results—I have seen that myself in prison, where I have met both the people who run such services and the people receiving them. The hon. Lady is therefore right.

However, I am really speaking about something more fundamental than that, which is a willingness to recognise —as the hon. Lady did, by the way, in her brief intervention —that punishment matters. The reticence or unwillingness to declare that as openly as I have, or the attempt to ignore or avoid it, is at odds with the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It is, perhaps, a product of a society that has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong have been eroded through a kind of moral relativism. Perhaps it is because of some quasi-Freudian need to explain crime in more complex terms than it may warrant—for it is simply a question of someone wanting something they cannot get and using force, violence or some other means to get it. \p Anna Dixon: The right hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and principled speech about punishment, but we are dealing here with practicalities. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has looked at the prison estate capacity. There was a pledge under the previous Government for 20,000 additional prison places; just 6,518 of those were actually built. If the right hon. Gentleman were to pursue this line of saying that everybody needs to have a punishment without rehabilitation, I do not understand where, in practical terms, he is going to put people. \p John Hayes: I agree with the hon. Lady, actually. I remember visiting the former Justice Secretary—the former Member for Cheltenham, Alex Chalk—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to tell him that we would not vote for it if that Government brought forward a measure to let people out early. My position on this matter has been entirely consistent; I would not have voted for a Conservative measure that let people out of prison early any more than I will vote for this measure tonight.

I suggested three things to the then Justice Secretary: first, that we deal more robustly with foreign national offenders; again, our constituents would be astounded and appalled if they realised just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons. Secondly, I suggested taking emergency measures to provide prison places. After all, during covid, we built Nightingale hospitals; I suggested that we build Fry prisons, named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, which will not be lost on the historians here in the Chamber. I do not see why that could not be done.

Thirdly, we should certainly explore prisons that have been closed in recent times, under Conservative and Labour Governments, and see which could be used, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. There is a whole range of measures that we could take. It is not easy, and I say that knowing what it is like being a Government Minister. None of those things are easy, but they are all worthy of further exploration because of the effects that the legislation will have.

I said I would talk about the effect of the measures, which is that very large numbers of people will be released from prison. The figures are alarming; we could see over 40,000 people released early. We could see thousands of violent offenders released. I appreciate that they were released on licence and that measures can be taken through the Probation Service and the police to try to limit the harm they might do, but the reality is that there has already been a 36% increase in recalls. My estimation—I would go as far as to call it a prediction—is that that number will rise if we pass the Bill. I think recalls will soar and the police and Probation Service will struggle to deal with that. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister predicted, I would not be surprised if the Minister comes back to the House with an amendment to this legislation to deal with that emergency, for that is what it will become. It will be a profound emergency for people affected by those who are released and commit crime again, because they will not all be petty offences. \p Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone? \p John Hayes: As my right hon. Friend says with her typical clarity and passion, it may be that the Government bow to public pressure—and there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind she describes. We are speaking about people who have done serious harm, including sex offenders of the most extreme kind and violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have committed minor indiscretions; they are very serious criminals. The public will resist their release and protest about it, and the Minister may well feel obliged, as I am sure he is a man of principle, to return to the House and amend the legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen.

My judgment would be that the facts speak for themselves: thousands of people will be let out of prison who certainly should not be. The reasons are as I described them; they are practical, but there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate: it is a fear of punishment and an unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) set out far more eloquently than I ever could, the effects are likely to be devastating for our constituents and communities across the country—and bear in mind that it will happen in every part of this country, every constituency will suffer as a result of the legislation. Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs, have to cope with some of these effects.

The alternative is, as I described when responding to an earlier intervention, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated— \p Ben Maguire: rose— \p John Hayes: I am coming to my exciting finale, but I will happy give way on the way to it. \p Ben Maguire: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that the Conservative Government’s record on prison building was shameful? The former “Minister for Common Sense”, the hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), has been nodding along when Members have said that we need to build more prisons. It certainly sounds like common sense, but why on earth did the Conservative Government not do that? \p John Hayes: On a purely technical point, I am right hon. and so are my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), but let us put that to one side. It is a matter of public record that I almost never disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. The truth is, she is right: we should have built more prisons much earlier. We could have anticipated these things—they can be modelled, after all. By the way, Governments are often surprisingly poor at modelling—I saw that throughout my time in government—but we should have modelled this, given the trend change in the prison population. \p Esther McVey: It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way. \p John Hayes: I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [Interruption.] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period.

It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling.

It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing—[Interruption.]  Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats. They say one thing but go back to their constituencies and campaign against opening a prison. \p Paul Kohler: rose— \p John Hayes: With that, I give way to the hon. Gentleman. \p Paul Kohler: I say to the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members that the prison population is a supply-led industry. If we build more prisons, we will just get more prisoners. It does not address the issue. All history tells us that—look at America. We imprison more people in this country than is done in Europe, yet we have a higher rate of criminality. More people are imprisoned in America than here, yet America has a higher rate of criminality. Building prisons is a fool’s errand. \p John Hayes: The thing that I most admire about the hon. Gentleman is his sartorial style—I glanced across towards him earlier, and I was going to say to him as I left the Chamber, “I love your suit”—but I rarely agree with what he says. We come from very different perspectives. In a sense—I do not mean to be unkind—his view is part of the problem. The problem is the persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. Of course, it is pretty nasty, and most of our constituents think it should be—in fact, they probably think it should be nastier than it is. Our difference of opinion will never be reconciled in a few brief exchanges, but it is important to note that a range of sentences are available to the courts—not just prison—and the key thing, about which I am sure we agree, is that those sentences need to be fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime and fitting to the interests of the victims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said in moving his new clause. \p Josh Babarinde: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sartorial appreciation some time ago of my green suit, when he went on to ask whether I won it at a village fête. \p Esther McVey: And did you? \p Josh Babarinde: I did not, but maybe the right hon. Gentleman can agree on the point that I want to make. He spoke about the challenges that Governments have had when modelling prisoner numbers and the prison population. Does he therefore agree with David Gauke, who recommended in his report that there should be an independent body that does that modelling, and is he disappointed that there is not a feature of that in the Bill? \p John Hayes: No, I do not. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on using the word “appreciated” exactly as in its dictionary definition. I did appreciate his sartorial style, but that is not to say that I either admired or approved it. [Laughter.]

In respect of David Gauke, who is a former colleague and was commissioned to produce that report, I do not agree in essence with it. I am more inclined to agree with  the analysis of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. There is a huge mistake in assuming that incarceration is not of itself beneficial—to deal with the simple issue of recidivism, people cannot do harm when they are locked up. By far the best and most straightforward way of dealing with recidivism is to take people out of harm’s way, and by that I mean taking them out of doing harm.

If someone has committed a very serious crime, such as rape, murder or very violent assault, locking them up means they will not do it again. Releasing them means, too often, that they will; the statistics speak for themselves. If the Government want to really deal with recidivism, they should do three things: increase the number of whole-life sentences, raise the minimum sentence for a whole range of crimes and raise maximum sentences. To do that, they have to build more prisons. The mission I give to the Government is that they jettison the Bill before it does harm, think about how they can devise and deliver alternatives to that and be bold in making a case for a retributive system of criminal justice in a way that so few people have for so long. \p Warinder Juss: As a member of the Justice Committee, it is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill. I welcome the much-needed reform that it will bring to our courts and prisons system. I wish to speak in support of clause 1 and amendment 36, relating to sentences of 12 months or less, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox).

We are well aware in this House of the disastrous situation our prison system was left in by the previous Government and I am proud that this Government are now confronting the crisis head on. We are committed to not just short-term fixes, but long-term reform. The Bill will tackle the root causes of the issues that lead to the crisis in the first place and rebuild a justice system that delivers fairness, safety and accountability to all in society. Amendment 36 will do more than just reduce the pressure on our prison system; it will represent a vital cultural shift, placing rehabilitation and reintegration at the heart of our sentencing system.

Since becoming an MP, I have visited several prisons and one thing that has become clear is how easy it is to fall into the reoffending cycle, especially for those who are serving short sentences. A minor offence can lead to a short prison sentence that can affect a prisoner’s entire life. They leave prison and they have no home, no connections and no job. When they are released from prison, they have no option but to fall back into the same behaviours that put them in prison in the first place.

We have already heard this afternoon that 80% of offenders in prison are reoffenders. The prison environment can have a hugely detrimental effect on prisoners. We know, for example, that last year there was one prison where 21% of the prisoners developed a drug problem only after entering custody. These prisoners are stripped of having a second chance. The whole House agreed earlier this afternoon that everyone deserves a second chance, but our justice system is compounding the very problem it is trying to solve.

Yes, justice is about punishment and retribution, but let us be clear, it is not just about punishment. It is not just about building as many prisons as possible. Our focus in the justice system must also be on preventing further harm and supporting rehabilitation programmes to enable people to build a better life and help them to make the right choices. The suspended sentencing and community sentencing recommended by the amendment will help our courts to focus on what works. They will not only help to reduce prison overcrowding but provide an overall net benefit to our society. Community sentences allow offenders to access mental health or addiction support while continuing to maintain their lives, so that they can get rehabilitation and reintegrate back into society as responsible citizens. The financial case is equally compelling. Reoffending is estimated to cost over £18 billion every year, and it costs the taxpayer over £50,000 to imprison just one person for a single year. If we break the cycle, we can redirect those resources to our crucial public services.

I agree that victim protection must be at the heart of all decisions made in the justice system, and I am glad that while the Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less. This is simply a presumption, which means that judges will always have the option and the power to send dangerous offenders or prolific lawbreakers to prison. Furthermore, the presumption will not apply where an offender has breached a court order—including in the case of any violence against women or girls—or a related protective order, where the offender has reoffended in breach of a previous suspended sentence, where the prisoner poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual or where there is a clear risk to public safety. \p Calvin Bailey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about amendment 36. It is imperative that when we look at improving the system as a whole, we understand the pressures that we are placing on our courts, including Snaresbrook criminal court in my constituency. Does he agree that it is imperative that this should be a facet of all the changes we hope to bring about? \p Warinder Juss: I have visited Snaresbrook Crown court and I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a valid point. The pressures on our courts system and our prison system are all interlinked.

It is important that victims get the justice they deserve, that the courts are able to deliver it and that offender rehabilitation does not come at the cost of victim confidence. However, we must recognise that short-term prison sentences all too often do not work and instead merely cause disruption to people’s lives and kick-start a cycle of reoffending. Where the courts believe that justice is better served through community rehabilitation, we must empower them to do put that in place. Amendment 36 would require judges also to consider whether a community sentence was better than a prison sentence or a suspended prison sentence.

I am proud to support this Bill because it centres on victims and allows them the protection and dignity that they deserve. The Bill and the amendment will also allow those on trial a proper consideration for rehabilitation and an opportunity to make amends and have a better life.  I urge Members to support clause 1, to support amendment 36 and to support the Bill. It is a vital and crucial step forward for our courts, our prisons and our communities, and for a fair justice system that works for all. \p Paul Kohler: Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge.

My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders? \p Julie Minns: I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.

Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:

“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]

It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well. \p Kieran Mullan: I did try to explain that there is a difference between association and causality. The hon. Member is comparing two different cohorts. If she were to match the cohorts properly, the difference in reoffending rates is nothing like that; it is more like 3% or 4%. \p Julie Minns: I think the hon. Gentleman is making a correction to the former Lord Chancellor, because those were his words. I am sorry that the Conservative party has moved so far in two years that you wish to disown the work of a Lord Chancellor who stood in this Chamber just two years ago. \p Nusrat Ghani: Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate. \p Julie Minns: I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.

Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.

Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.

New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.

Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime. \p Ashley Fox: Does the hon. Lady not accept that most victims of crime would say that a suspended sentence is very much not a custodial sentence? \p Julie Minns: It is nevertheless a suspended sentence. By passing new clause 1, we are saying that serious offences—whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in the community—carry consequences, including the possibility of removal from the UK. \p Paul Kohler: Could the hon. Lady tell us why a judge would suspend the sentence? \p Julie Minns: I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.

The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it. \p Ashley Fox: The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this. It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions.

We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.

Ben and Amy Branson live in my constituency. In 2022, their daughter Bethany was killed by a drunk driver who then fled the scene. When arrested shortly afterwards, he admitted his guilt and said:

“I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what, I will get three, four, five years. Hopefully I killed them.”

This person has already received a one-third discount on his sentence for pleading guilty. Can any Member of this House say that it would be just for his sentence to be reduced even further?

This amendment protects trust in justice. It ensures that victims and their families are not forced to see their attackers walking free halfway through their sentence. It sends a clear message: if you commit crimes of sexual violence, if you abuse a child or if you cause grievous harm or death, you will face the consequences of your actions. We owe that to victims, and we owe it to communities, who need to know that the justice system is on their side.

I also support new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, which would introduce a clear and practical duty to collect and publish sentencing data, including information about nationality, visa route and asylum status, within 24 hours of sentencing. This measure is about transparency, accuracy and trust. At present, we simply do not have a full picture of who  is committing offences in our country. Without reliable data, we cannot make informed policy decisions on border control, integration or criminal justice. Collecting this information will allow Parliament and the public to see whether our systems for managing migration and visas are working as intended. It will also help to identify genuine issues and give the Government the evidence needed to respond proportionately and effectively.

We already collect detailed data on age, gender and offence type. Adding nationality and immigration status is a logical next step. It will help policymakers target resources where they are most needed, while maintaining the fairness and integrity of our justice system. We have all seen how quickly rumours spread online about the background or immigration status of offenders in serious cases. The best way to combat that is more transparency. This will protect the police and the wider system from accusations of complicity in cover-ups. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Both amendments I have spoken in favour of today would serve to increase trust in the justice system. I encourage colleagues from all parties to consider what they can do to repair the confidence that has been damaged in the last year. \p Kim Johnson: I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges  on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown.

There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill?

New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable  campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today.

My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies.

We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had

“been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”.

The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers.

The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it.

I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information  on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring.

Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments. \p Luke Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government.

I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving.

I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right.

I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal  and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required.

Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation. \p Zöe Franklin: Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled.

The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today.

Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law. \p Monica Harding: Alex’s mother, Sally, is a constituent of mine in Esher and Walton. She shared Alex’s story in one of my surgeries, so I am very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend will help to ensure that people such as Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law that is obsolete. All of us can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is and the unfairness of what my hon. Friend has described. I urge Members across the Committee to support the new clauses so that there is a course to justice. \p 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. \p 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. \p Kieran 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? \p 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.

I understand and sympathise with the aims of amendments 22 and 23 and new clause 5, which I discussed yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato)—who made a characteristically powerful speech—and others. As one who spent many years representing victims of domestic violence in court before entering this place, I know full well the importance of rigorous risk assessments in such cases. However, the Government believe that the current measures are sufficient: a longer recall period to ensure that assessment is full and protective measures can be taken; and the domestic abuse identifier, a key reform that will better enable safeguarding services to remain alert to threats posed by perpetrators. \p 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? \p 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. \p Kieran 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? \p 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. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me. \p 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. \p 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. \p Sarah Sackman: Shocking! \p Esther McVey: “Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.

As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 381.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 2, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(ea) the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order,”

This amendment makes clear that the presumption to suspend certain sentences under section 264A of the Sentencing Code (inserted by this clause) does not apply to offences (or offences associated with those offences) committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order (as defined by subsection (7) of that section).

Amendment 3, page 3, line 2, after “constituted” insert

“, or occurred in circumstances closely connected with,”.

This amendment provides that the presumption to suspend certain sentences under section 264A of the Sentencing Code (inserted by this clause) does not apply to offences (or offences associated with those offences) committed in circumstances which are closely connected with the breach by the offender of a court order or an order or award in proceedings in respect of a service offence.

Amendment 4, page 5, line 7, at end insert—

“(ea) the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order,”.

This amendment makes clear that the presumption to suspend certain sentences under section 277A of the Sentencing Code (inserted by this clause) does not apply to offences (or offences associated with those offences) committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order (as defined by subsection (8) of that section).

Amendment 5, page 5, line 9, after “constituted” insert

“, or occurred in circumstances closely connected with,”.—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment provides that the presumption to suspend certain sentences under section 277A of the Sentencing Code (inserted by this clause) does not apply to offences (or offences associated with those offences) committed in circumstances which are closely connected with the breach by the offender of a court order or an order or award in proceedings in respect of a service offence.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 389, Noes 102.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 6, page 14, line 31, leave out “or officer”.

This amendment and amendment 9 would correct drafting errors in new section 56A of the Sentencing Code and new section 253A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, namely that the reference to an officer should appear in section 253A(1)(b) and not in section 56A(1)(b).

Amendment 7, page 14, line 32, after “abuse” insert

“carried out by the offender”.

This amendment and amendment 8 would make it clear that in making a finding of domestic abuse when passing sentence for an offence, the court is concerned only with the conduct of the offender.

Amendment 8, page 14, line 34, after “abuse” insert

“carried out by the offender”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 11, after “court” insert “or officer”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 6.

Amendment 10, page 15, line 12, after “abuse” insert

“carried out by the offender”.

This amendment and amendment 11 would make it clear that in making a finding of domestic abuse when passing sentence for an offence, the court or officer is concerned only with the conduct of the offender.

Amendment 11, page 15, line 14, after “abuse” insert

“carried out by the offender”.—(Jake Richards.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 10.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 12, page 22, line 41, at end insert—

“(12) Part 1 of Schedule (Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision) makes consequential provision.”—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment introduces the consequential amendments of sentencing legislation that applies in Scotland made by the Schedule inserted by NS1.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 13, page 25, line 22, at end insert—

“(6) Part 2 of Schedule (Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision) makes consequential provision.”—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment introduces the consequential amendments of sentencing legislation that applies in Northern Ireland made by the Schedule inserted by NS1.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 14, page 26, line 26, leave out “as follows” and insert

“in accordance with subsections (2) to (7)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Amendment 15, page 28, line 22, at end insert—

“(8) In section 177H of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (availability of driving disqualification order), at the end insert “(including where the court makes a service community order, an overseas community order or a suspended sentence order which imposes a driving prohibition requirement).”—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment would clarify that a service court may make a driving disqualification order in a case where it makes a service community order, an overseas community order or a suspended sentence order which imposes a driving prohibition requirement.

Clauses 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 16, page 31, line 31, leave out “as follows” and insert

“in accordance with subsections (2) to (12)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 17, page 34, line 12, at end insert—

“(13) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsections (14) and (15).

(14) In section 182(3)(c) (application of section 208(2) of, and Schedule 9 to, the Sentencing Code to overseas community orders), after sub-paragraph (ix), and on a new line, insert “(see also the modification to paragraph 8D of Schedule 9 made by section 183(5A) of this Act);”.

(15) In section 183 (modifications of the Sentencing Code in relation to overseas community orders)—

(a) in subsection (1), for “(5)” substitute “(5A)”;

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Paragraph 8D of Schedule 9 (restriction zone requirement) has effect as if sub-paragraph (6) were omitted.””—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment would have the effect that an overseas community order made by a service court which imposed a restriction zone requirement was not required to include an electronic monitoring requirement.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 24, page 37, line 14, at end insert—

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

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

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

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

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

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

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm;

(j) grooming;

(k) stalking;

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

(m) death by dangerous driving, and

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 20 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 disagreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 19, page 75, line 17, leave out paragraph (d).—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment has the effect that an amendment or repeal made by the new clause inserted by NC1 will have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 20, page 76, line 9, leave out “Schedule 1” and insert

“Schedules 1 and (Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision)”.—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In section 38(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (meaning of “period of imprisonment” for purposes of condition 1 in definition of “foreign criminal”), omit paragraph (a).

(2) In section 117D(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (meaning of “period of imprisonment” for purposes of definition of “foreign criminal”), omit paragraph (a).” —(Jake Richards.)

This amendment inserts a new clause which provides that for the purposes of certain legislation relating to the deportation of foreign criminals and the application of Article 8 of the ECHR a sentence of imprisonment includes a suspended sentence order. This new clause is intended to substitute existing clause 42.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—

(a) the offence category;

(b) the sentence length; and

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

(i) nationality,

(ii) sex at birth,

(iii) country of birth,

(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(v) visa route,

(vi) visa status, and

(vii) asylum status.

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 104, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 16 September).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D). \p UNKNOWN: ‘(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) In this section—

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

“original offence” means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’ —(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

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

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 77, Noes 390.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

1 In section 5(1)(da) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it forms part of the law of Scotland (disclosure periods for particular sentences), for “(terrorism sentence for young offenders or children)” substitute “(sentence with fixed licence period for young offenders or children)”.

Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989

2 In section 39(7B)(a) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (rules for the management of prisons and other institutions), after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993

3 (1) The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(9) (release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners)—

(a) the words from “in respect of an offence” to the end of the subsection become paragraph (a);

(b) at the end of that paragraph insert “, or

(b) under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security).”

(3) In section 1AB (restricted eligibility for release on licence of terrorist prisoners)—

(a) in the heading, at the end insert “and other prisoners serving a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act”;

(b) after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) This section also applies to a prisoner other than a life prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security).”;

(c) in subsection (3), for “case of a terrorist prisoner” substitute “prisoner’s case”;

(d) in subsections (4) and (5), omit “terrorist”.

(4) In section 1B (prisoners serving consecutive sentences including at least one terrorism sentence)—

(a) in the heading, after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(b) in subsection (1), for paragraph (b) (but not the “and” at the end of that paragraph) substitute—

“(b) one or more of the sentences (the “terrorism or national security-related sentence”) was imposed—

(i) in respect of an offence within section 1AB(2), or

(ii) under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security),”;

(c) in subsection (2)—

(i) after “terrorism”, in both places it occurs, insert “or national security-related”;

(ii) for “imposed in respect of an offence that is not within section 1AB(2) (a “non-terrorism sentence”),” substitute “that is not a terrorism or national security-related sentence,”;

(iii) for “the non-terrorism” substitute “that other”;

(d) in subsection (3)—

(i) after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(ii) for “non-terrorism” substitute “other”;

(e) in subsections (4) to (7), (9), (10) and (13)—

(i) after “terrorism”, in each place it occurs, insert “or national security-related”;

(ii) for “non-terrorism”, in each place it occurs, substitute “sentence that is not a terrorism or national security-related”.

(5) In section 2 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners)—

(a) in subsection (6), after “(6B)” insert “, (6C)”;

(b) after subsection (6B) insert—

“(6C) No requirement may be made under subsection (6) by a life prisoner who is also serving or liable to serve a sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security) before the day on which the Scottish Ministers are required to refer the prisoner’s case to the Parole Board under section 1AB(3).”;

(c) in subsection (7), after “(6B)” insert “or (6C)”.

(6) In section 3A (re-release of prisoners serving certain terrorism sentences and extended sentences)—

(a) in the heading, for “certain terrorism sentences” substitute “serious terrorism sentences, sentences with a fixed licence period”;

(b) in subsection (1ZA)(b), omit “terrorism”.

(7) In section 3C(6) (prisoners not to be released early by virtue of regulations under section 3C)—

(a) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security);”;

(b) in paragraph (d), after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”.

(8) In the italic cross heading before section 26ZA, after “terrorism” insert “and national security-related”.

(9) In section 26ZA (terrorism sentences)—

(a) in the heading, after “terrorism” insert “and national security-related”;

(b) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) This section applies to a person (“the prisoner”) who—

(a) is not a life prisoner, and

(b) is serving a terrorism or national security-related sentence.”;

(c) in subsection (2)—

(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(ii) in paragraph (b), omit “terrorism”;

(d) in subsection (3), after “terrorism”, in both places it occurs, insert “or national security-related”;

(e) in subsections (4) and (5), for “a terrorist” substitute “the”;

(f) in subsection (7)—

(i) for “a terrorist” substitute “the”;

(ii) after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(g) in subsection (8)(b), omit “terrorism”;

(h) in subsection (9)—

(i) for “a terrorist” substitute “the”;

(ii) after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(i) in subsection (10), after “terrorism”, in both places it occurs, insert “or national security-related”;

(j) in subsection (11), in the definition of “appropriate custodial term”, in the words before paragraph (a)—

(i) after “terrorism” insert “or national security-related”;

(ii) omit “terrorist”;

(k) in subsection (11), in the definition of “extension period”, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), omit “terrorist”.

(10) In section 27 (interpretation of Part 1)—

(a) in subsection (5), for “subsection (5A)” substitute “subsections (5A) and (5AA)”;

(b) after subsection (5A), insert—

“(5AA) Nor does subsection (5) apply in relation to a sentence (a “national security-related sentence”) imposed on a person under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act in respect of an offence listed in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security).”;

(c) in subsection (5B)—

(i) for “an offence within section 1AB(2)”, in the first place it appears, substitute “a sentence passed on a person in respect of an offence within section 1AB(2) or a national security-related sentence”;

(ii) after “1AB(2)”, in the second place it appears, insert “or a national security-related sentence”.

Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984

4 (1) In the Schedule to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, paragraph 2 (application of early release provisions) as it applies in relation to prisoners repatriated to Scotland is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (3D) insert—

“(3E) If sub-paragraph (3F), (3G) or (3H) applies by virtue of an offence in relation to which a determinate sentence is to be served, Part 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 applies to the prisoner as if the prisoner were serving a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in respect of an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to that Act (sentence with a fixed licence period imposed in respect of an offence involving or connected with a threat to national security).

(3F) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served corresponds to an offence specified in any of paragraphs 9 to 11, or paragraph 13 in a case where the listed offence is an offence specified in any of paragraphs 9 to 11, of Part 2 of Schedule 5ZB to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (certain offences under the Official Secrets Acts or the National Security Act 2023).

(3G) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that—

(a) the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served (“the overseas offence”) corresponds to an offence under the law of Scotland (“the corresponding offence”),

(b) the overseas offence was committed on or after the day on which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 came into force,

(c) the corresponding offence—

(i) is a “relevant electoral offence” within the meaning of that section, and

(ii) is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and

(d) findings made by the court before which the prisoner was tried or sentenced for the overseas offence would, had the prisoner been tried and sentenced in Scotland for the corresponding offence, have justified a determination under that section that the foreign power condition is met in relation to the conduct that constitutes the offence.

(3H) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that—

(a) the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served (“the overseas offence”) corresponds to an offence under the law of Scotland (“the corresponding offence”),

(b) the overseas offence was committed on or after the day on which section 21 of the National Security Act 2023 came into force,

(c) the corresponding offence—

(i) is not an offence mentioned in subsection (6) of that section, and

(ii) is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and

(d) findings made by the court before which the prisoner was tried or sentenced for the overseas offence would, had the prisoner been tried and sentenced in Scotland for the corresponding offence, have justified a determination under that section that the foreign power condition is met in relation to the conduct that constitutes the offence.

(3I) The Scottish Ministers may amend a warrant (whether issued before or after sub-paragraph (3E) comes into force and whether or not the transfer it authorises has taken place) so as to specify the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (3F), (3G) or (3H).”

(3) In sub-paragraph (4), for “that Act” substitute “the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993”. \p UNKNOWN: Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008

5 (1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I 2008/1216 (N.I.1)) is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 3(1) (interpretation of Part 2), in the definition of “Article 15A terrorism sentence” omit “terrorism”.

(3) In Article 8(1)(a) (setting of custodial period), for “Article 15A terrorism sentence” substitute “Article 15A sentence”.

(4) In the heading of Chapter 3 of Part 2, for “other terrorist” substitute “certain other”.

(5) In the italic heading before Article 20A, at the end insert “and other prisoners serving an Article 15A sentence”.

(6) In Article 20A (restricted eligibility for release on licence of terrorist prisoners)—

(a) in the heading, after “prisoners” insert “and other prisoners serving an Article 15A sentence”;

(b) after paragraph (2A) insert—

“(2AB) This Article also applies to a fixed-term prisoner who is serving an Article 15A sentence imposed in respect of an offence which is specified in Schedule 2B (offences involving or connected with a threat to national security).”;

(c) in paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (7) omit “terrorist”;

(d) in paragraph (8)—

(i) omit “terrorist” in both places it occurs;

(ii) for “Article 15A terrorism sentence” substitute “Article 15A sentence”;

(e) in paragraph (9)—

(i) in the definition of “appropriate custodial term”, for “Article 15A terrorism sentence” substitute “Article 15A sentence”;

(ii) in the definition of “relevant part of the sentence”, for “Article 15A terrorism sentence” substitute “Article 15A sentence”.

(7) In Article 33(6) (custodial periods to be aggregated in case of consecutive sentences), in sub-paragraph (a)(i), for “Article 15A terrorism sentence” substitute “Article 15A sentence”.

Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984

6 In paragraph 2A of the Schedule to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (application of early release provisions to prisoners repatriated to Northern Ireland), after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—

“(4E) If sub-paragraph (4F), (4G) or (4H) applies by virtue of an offence in relation to which a determinate sentence is to be served, Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 applies to the prisoner as if the prisoner were serving a sentence imposed under Article 15A of the Order in respect of an offence specified in Schedule 2B to the Order (sentence with a fixed licence period imposed in respect of an offence involving or connected with a threat to national security).

(4F) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served corresponds to an offence specified in any of paragraphs 1 to 3, or paragraph 5 in a case where the ancillary offence relates to an offence specified in any of paragraphs 1 to 3, of Schedule 2B to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (certain offences under the Official Secrets Acts or the National Security Act 2023).

(4G) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that—

(a) the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served (“the overseas offence”) corresponds to an offence under the law of Northern Ireland (“the corresponding offence”),

(b) the overseas offence was committed on or after the day on which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 came into force,

(c) the corresponding offence—

(i) is a “relevant electoral offence” within the meaning of that section, and

(ii) is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and

(d) findings made by the court before which the prisoner was tried or sentenced for the overseas offence would, had the prisoner been tried and sentenced in Northern Ireland for the corresponding offence, have justified a determination under that section that the foreign power condition is met in relation to the conduct that constitutes the offence.

(4H) This sub-paragraph applies if the warrant specifies that—

(a) the offence or any of the offences in relation to which a sentence is to be served (“the overseas offence”) corresponds to an offence under the law of Northern Ireland (“the corresponding offence”),

(b) the overseas offence was committed on or after the day on which section 20 of the National Security Act 2023 came into force,

(c) the corresponding offence—

(i) is not an offence mentioned in subsection (2) of that section, and

(ii) is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and

(d) findings made by the court before which the prisoner was tried or sentenced for the overseas offence would, had the prisoner been tried and sentenced in Northern Ireland for the corresponding offence, have justified a determination under that section that the foreign power condition is met in relation to the conduct that constitutes the offence.

(4I) The Department of Justice may amend a warrant (whether issued before or after sub-paragraph (4E) comes into force and whether or not the transfer it authorises has taken place) so as to specify the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (4F), (4G) or (4H).””—(Jake Richards.)

The Schedule inserted by this amendment makes provision which is consequential on clauses 8 and 9 (availability in Scotland and Northern Ireland of custodial sentence with a fixed licence period on conviction for an offence relating to a threat to national security).

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 21, in title, page 1, line 3, leave out from “criminals” to “; and” on line 4.—(Jake Richards.)

This amendment amends the long title to remove reference to provision no longer contained in the Bill as a consequence of the insertion of the clause inserted by NC1 which is intended to substitute existing clause 42.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).

Bill to be considered tomorrow. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 6 together.

Ordered, \p UNKNOWN: That Ellie Chowns be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Carla Denyer be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Peter Fortune and James Murray be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Rupert Lowe and Dan Tomlinson be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Danny Kruger be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Joy Morrissey be added.—(Gen Kitchen, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p Markus Campbell-Savours: Many years ago, the community in Cockermouth saved Wordsworth House from demolition when plans were proposed to build a bus station, and the birthplace of William Wordsworth now stands as a historic gem on Cockermouth’s main street. Over the summer, following concerns about its future, I launched a similarly worded petition, which attracted more than 1,200 signatures. That campaign secured a commitment from the National Trust that the facility would not close. However, the trust has admitted that its long-term sustainability remains uncertain. I urge the National Trust to honour its promise to me to work with local businesses and the community to secure its future. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the National Trust to keep Wordsworth House fully operational and open to visitors. And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Penrith and Solway,

Declares that Wordsworth House and Garden, a Grade 1 listed national treasure, birthplace of poet William Wordsworth, is vital to our national heritage, education and local economy and its potential closure would be an incalculable loss, robbing future generations of a direct link to a pivotal era of English literature and a key contributor to Cumbrian tourism.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the National Trust to keep Wordsworth House fully operational and open to visitors.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003120] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.) \p Roz Savage: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of social housing in the South Cotswolds, and I thank the Minister for being here this evening.

Across our towns and villages, from Biddestone to Barnsley and Hullavington to Hillesley, the story is the same. The need for genuinely affordable, safe and well-maintained housing has never been greater, yet precisely when the need is most acute, the supply of such homes is being allowed to dwindle away. In Wiltshire today, more than 3,600 households wait on the council’s housing register. Families and individuals are waiting for a secure, affordable home. Many are in the higher-priority bands, recognised as being in significant need.

Local parish surveys tell the same story. Biddestone and Slaughterford parish council has undertaken two surveys in recent years, both confirming a clear and continuing demand for affordable housing. There is also a growing need among older residents for smaller, adapted homes so that they can downsize locally, which will free up family houses for the next generation, yet in many villages that option simply does not exist.

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating arbitrary housing targets. I am talking about ensuring that the right kind of homes are built—homes that local families, key workers and older residents can actually afford to live in and want to live in, and homes that have the infrastructure that they need. While the Government have set new national housing targets that will more than double the number of homes expected in areas such as the Cotswolds, those figures risk doing more harm than good if they ignore our local realities. \p Rachel Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that schemes such as the new social housing in Minehead—the first social housing for a generation—coupled with more social housing in Mid Devon specifically for elderly people to downsize from their own social housing are the way forward? Does she also agree that the Liberal Democrats in both institutions should be recognised for doing a jolly good job? \p Roz Savage: That does indeed sound like an excellent idea. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to get an idea of what she would be referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one point that came through very clearly was affordability. House prices can sometimes be over 10 times the average of what people can afford from their earnings. In my constituency—I suspect it is the same in the hon. Lady’s—many young people want to buy for the first time but cannot get a mortgage because the houses are too expensive. Does the hon. Lady agree that to address the needs of those who want to buy a house or access social housing, the Government must build more houses to bring the prices down so that people can actually afford them? \p Roz Savage: I agree with the hon. Member about the financial impacts and even more so the social impacts of young people not being able to afford their first home and fly the nest of their parents. It is having a catastrophic impact on young people.

Returning to the South Cotswolds, around 80% of Cotswold district lies within a designated national landscape—the Cotswolds area of outstanding national beauty—and of the remaining 20%, roughly half is flood plain. \p Matt Rodda: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and highlights perfectly the pressure on the landscape in southern England. Does she agree that there is a great deal of scope in many towns and even some larger villages for building on brownfield land? In Reading there are a number of examples of this, and I am sure colleagues have examples from their own areas. Brownfield could provide a very valuable resource to help protect the countryside. \p Roz Savage: I could not agree more that we should be prioritising brownfield sites as well as refurbishing existing housing. We could very nearly, if not completely, meet the housing target through those means without needing to take space away from nature or food production.

Imposing a target of over 1,000 homes a year in the Cotswold district may make a good headline, but in practice it encourages speculative development on greenfield sites, where services are often poor and flood risk high, rather than genuinely affordable homes for local people in more appropriate locations. But I want to be clear that the debate is not about opposing new housing; it is about ensuring that what we build reflects local need, protects our environment and natural heritage and strengthens our rural communities rather than undermining them.

Our infrastructure is already stretched thin. Many of our villages have limited public transport, ageing drainage systems and GP surgeries that are full to capacity. Broadband and mobile coverage remain unreliable in too many places, and with climate change flood risk is rising with every winter storm. We simply cannot add hundreds of new homes without first ensuring that the essential services of water, drainage, transport and healthcare can cope. Our infrastructure is fragile. Growth must be planned sensibly, sympathetically and in a logical order according to local constraints, not imposed from the top down and literally bulldozed through.

These homes must also be genuinely affordable. Over the years, many local authority homes have been transferred to housing associations under large-scale voluntary transfer. In North Wiltshire, that happened back in 1995. Those homes now belong legally to the housing associations, not to the council, but too many of those housing associations are now selling off rural homes rather than refurbishing and retaining them. In some villages, every remaining affordable home could be lost. Once they are sold into the private market, they are gone forever—they will never again be available at social rents. That result is devastating for rural communities. Young people who grew up in these villages find they can no longer afford to live in them. Teachers, carers and nurses are priced out, and older residents find nowhere to go when they want to downsize. If we want our villages to remain vibrant, living communities and not just be picture postcard backdrops, we must ensure that people of all incomes can afford to live and work in them. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is speaking with a huge amount of common sense. Of course, her problems in the South Cotswolds are replicated in the North Cotswolds. The problem with increasing the housing numbers—doubling them from 500 to 1,000 a year, as she said—is that the planning system is not delivering us the number of affordable houses. The developers will argue against building affordable housing, because they can make more money out of executive three, four or five-bedroom houses. We need to alter the planning system so that developers, through viability arguments, cannot exclude the building of social housing in some cases altogether. \p Roz Savage: I thank my friend and neighbour for his intervention. We do not agree on everything, but we are definitely of like mind on this. I also defer to his experience as a surveyor with great knowledge of the building industry.

Moreover, those who remain in the existing housing stock are too often living in conditions that are simply unacceptable. One of my constituents lives in a flat with her two daughters. The elder daughter developed what was thought to be asthma, but doctors now believe that her breathing problems are caused by mould spores in their damp home. She describes nights spent in panic as her daughter coughs uncontrollably. The landlord’s response has been seasonal mould washes rather than a proper fix that would get to the root cause of the mould problem.

Some social housing providers have proved difficult for my team even to get a response from, let alone resolution. Other constituents tell me of homes left empty for months in villages where people are desperate for somewhere to live, of properties that could easily be brought up to modern energy standards just left to deteriorate and moulder, and of repairs delayed or done poorly. That is inefficient and frustrating. It borders on the inhumane.

To be fair, the Government have recognised the issue in principle, for which I thank them. The recent policy paper, “Delivering a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing”, calls on providers to work with the Government both to build new homes and to upgrade existing ones, but the reality on the ground is that policy is not being enforced. Associations continue to sell off rural stock while neglecting maintenance and retrofit. I urge Ministers to pause the disposal of rural affordable housing by GreenSquareAccord and similar providers until the new policy framework is clarified. It makes no sense at all to sell the very homes our communities so desperately need.

We also need stronger enforcement to ensure that housing associations meet their obligations both to build new homes and to maintain existing ones to a decent standard, and there must be consequences for failure to meet those obligations. I ask the Government to support councils in rebuilding their capacity to own housing stock directly. Wiltshire council has expressed that ambition and deserves the financial flexibility to make it a reality. \p Martin Wrigley: On housing stock, I am proud to have been the leader of Teignbridge district council—I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am still a member—which has built council  houses for the first time in 30 years. There are a number of adjustments that can be made, including increasing the number of homes from 200 to 500 before needing a housing revenue account, and I had a meeting with the Housing Minister on making that easier. The Minister told me that he was going to announce that and make that happen, but I am not convinced that that has yet happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of several adjustments the Minister could easily make so that it is easier for councils to build more council houses? \p Roz Savage: That seems like an eminently sensible plan that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Coming back to genuinely affordable housing across the South Cotswolds, there is a planning tool designed for exactly that purpose. Rural exception sites are small parcels of land on the edge of villages, released specifically for affordable housing for people with a strong local connection. They are protected by legal agreements so that the homes remain affordable in perpetuity. When properly supported and implemented, rural exception sites can deliver well-designed homes that keep communities alive. Alongside that, we also need to see community-led housing playing a bigger role, with schemes initiated and owned by local people, often through community land trusts. Such schemes build not just houses but communities.

The affordable homes programme, which is the Government’s main grant scheme for affordable housing, has real potential to help, but it too often works for large urban developments rather than smaller rural ones. It is an urban tool being implemented in a rural setting. It can provide vital funding for social rent and community-led schemes, yet the rules and deadlines are often too rigid for parish-level projects. I therefore urge the Minister to make the programme more flexible and to strengthen the rural uplift, so that building a dozen good-quality, energy-efficient homes in a Cotswold village is just as viable as building hundreds on the edge of a city.

I am inspired by the tradition of alms houses, which is one of Britain’s oldest and most dignified forms of social housing. I was encouraged to see an architecture award recently given to some alms houses in London that show how modern design can honour that alms house heritage: small, beautiful, and community-oriented, with shared gardens and growing spaces. I can just imagine developments in our market towns and villages similar to those we already have in Cirencester, although those are many hundreds of years old. \p Matt Rodda: Does the hon. Lady have anything she wants to say about the value of good design principles and linking to the existing traditional architecture in specific communities? We have had a great deal of success in our community in preserving the historical brickwork of Reading and encouraging new developments to copy that style, colour and range of bricks. I see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) is nodding. He has the same local architecture with the same wonderful array of bricks and sometimes use of flints as well. Would the hon. Lady like to see that highlighted and encouraged? \p Roz Savage: This is what we all want to see. Modern housing can be beautiful and blend almost seamlessly with existing housing stock in a way that is pleasing to the eye. It also helps communities to meld together  when housing melds together. There are many villages in my constituency, and obviously the Cotswolds are associated with beautiful architecture in that lovely, honey-coloured Cotswold stone. Where the development is sympathetic, it is welcome, but there are other places where it is has been less sympathetic, and that tends to have an impact on the relationship between the residents in the old village and those in the new development—so yes, I wholeheartedly encourage and endorse the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.

I can imagine developments like almshouses in our market towns and villages: clusters of low-energy homes built with local materials and ideally by local building firms, surrounded by shared green space for fruit and vegetables. That is how we build not only homes but communities. To make this happen, planning policy must reward quality and community value, not just sheer quantity. Rural exception sites need to be protected and strengthened, and national targets must recognise environmental constraints. We cannot meet housing numbers by paving over flood plains and protected landscapes.

Public bodies should be required to release small sites near services and bus routes at fair value for social housing, for convenience. Councils must also be able to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, with longer timelines, so that they are able to replace lost homes on a like-for-like basis. We must also address the pressure from short-term lets and second homes. A distinct planning use class for short-term lets, coupled with local powers to limit numbers and apply fair premiums, would help to ensure that homes remain homes, not vehicles for investment. This would help to keep our villages alive. So many of them are being hollowed out, with half or more of the homes empty for much of the week, meaning that local pubs, shops and schools really struggle to remain viable.

Finally, I ask the Minister to consider, please, a South Cotswolds pilot, bringing together Homes England, local councils and housing associations to plan small-scale, sustainable, community-oriented social housing. This would showcase what can be achieved when we design for place, people and planet, not for spreadsheets. Social housing is not a statistic; it is a lifeline. It keeps the nurse in Tetbury, the teaching assistant in Fairford and the young electrician in Cirencester living in the communities they serve. It keeps our schools open, our shops busy and our bus routes viable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to working with her to ensure that every community in the South Cotswolds has the affordable, safe and sustainable homes it needs. \p Samantha Dixon: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and I thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions today. I have noted their comments carefully.

The Government recognise the acute housing pressures facing rural communities, and are committed to ensuring that the homes built reflect genuine local need, are affordable and are supported by appropriate infrastructure. This Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, and social and affordable homes will make up an essential part of that. We also  acknowledge that not enough social and affordable housing has been delivered in recent decades. That shortfall is now being felt acutely in areas such as the South Cotswolds, where 80% of the district lies within protected national landscape and further development must be carefully planned. \p Lee Dillon: I support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. This debate refers more to social housing and I wonder whether you could give an indication from the Dispatch Box— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting. \p Lee Dillon: Apologies. Can the Minister give an indication of how many of those 1.5 million homes will be for social rent? \p Samantha Dixon: I will come to that point for the hon. Member’s benefit.

A crucial first step is ensuring that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That means assessing housing need and then identifying how much development is realistically deliverable, taking into account land availability, environmental constraints such as flood risk and protected landscapes, and other relevant factors. Local authorities can choose to go beyond their assessed need to support wider goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure investment, and to accommodate housing from elsewhere. We expect local authorities to explore all options, including maximising brownfield land, collaborating across boundaries and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on planning improvements, we heard from the Home Builders Federation that 34,000 social houses in England and Wales remain unsold. That seems to be an absolute tragedy when there is such demand for social housing. I ask the Minister to look at that urgently. \p Samantha Dixon: I will certainly consider that.

The national planning policy framework sets out that local plans must deliver, where practicable, the amount, type and tenure of homes that communities actually need. That requires carefully striking a balance between enabling necessary development, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. \p Martin Wrigley: I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. The numbers have doubled in my district of Teignbridge; 40% of Teignbridge is within Dartmoor national park, the rest of the area is constrained by the coast, and houses become more and more expensive to deliver as the numbers go up. Because of that expense, fewer and fewer affordable homes will be delivered. The standard method is not working to reduce house prices. Will the Minister reconsider how these numbers are determined, so that the standard method is no longer used to enforce a central number of homes, rather than the number of homes that the district actually needs? \p Samantha Dixon: I note the constraints that the hon. Member raises, and I will certainly ask officials to consider that in any plans.

These are not just planning challenges; developing local plans involves human challenges. We are now living with the cost of more than 169,000 children in temporary accommodation and more than 1.3 million households on local authority housing registers. That cannot be allowed to continue.

We recognise the shared ambition of those from across the sector to build more, build better and build sustainably, and we know that in areas like South Cotswolds, where planning constraints are real and community character matters, they are essential partners in helping councils to meet targets and to safeguard what makes places special.

Strategic, evidence-led local planning will ensure that development happens in the right places with proper community buy-in. Housing associations must be part of that conversation from the outset. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which includes the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable way. Local development plans must address infrastructure needs and opportunities, identifying what is required and how it can be funded and delivered. That is essential to ensure that new homes are not just built, but are part of the thriving, well-serviced communities that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds has described. \p Matt Rodda: Will the Minister give way? \p Samantha Dixon: I am not going to give way again, I am afraid.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised very real concerns about flooding. Flooding can have a devastating impact on communities, homes and infrastructure, which is why we take it seriously. The Government’s approach is guided by the NPPF, which is designed to protect people and property from flooding. It sets out a clear expectation that inappropriate development in flood-prone areas should be avoided. The sequential test aims to ensure that new development is directed to areas of lower flood risk wherever possible.

Where development must occur in higher-risk areas, the exception test requires that it delivers wider sustainability benefits and is made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Those safeguards are in place to ensure that new homes are not only safe but resilient to future climate impacts. We are also committed to delivering more sustainable drainage systems through the planning system.

As set out in our plan for change, we are firmly committed to delivering the biggest boost in a generation to social and affordable house building. To achieve that ambitious target, we need every part of the sector, including councils and housing associations, to be working in lockstep and delivering to their full capacity. We are taking steps to create the conditions to ensure that providers across the country can once again deliver social and affordable housing at scale. That includes supporting councils to update their local plans, locating sites for future development, balancing homes with infrastructure like schools and healthcare, and actively engaging communities through public consultation.

Since coming to office, we have sought to engage with the sector at every opportunity. We have listened carefully to the views of social housing providers and their tenants on the problems they face and how best to resolve them. But we have not only listened; we have acted. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced a record package of investment designed to ensure that councils and registered providers can increase development of social and affordable housing. As has been highlighted, the decade of renewal represents a step change in our ambition to deliver social and affordable housing, setting out a long-term vision for building more homes, improving quality and strengthening communities. We recognise that for many, the reality on the ground has yet to match that ambition, but we are committed to bridging that gap through practical action.

Step one of the decade of renewal has been to deliver the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent times. We have confirmed a new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. During its lifetime, we hope to deliver around 300,000 new homes, with at least 60% for social rent. That would result in around 180,000 homes for social rent—six times more than the decade up to 2024.

We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, particularly in areas with environmental constraints or   infrastructure gaps. The programme has been designed to be flexible in order to ensure that it works not just for large urban developments, but for small-scale rural projects. We encourage applicants to be ambitious when coming forward with bids. The programme’s full prospectus will be published in the next few weeks and open for bids in the new year. I encourage all prospective providers to review their supply plans now—to think bigger, be bolder and come forward with ambitious plans.

The hon. Lady should be assured that we understand the scale of the challenge and that we know the strength of this sector, which is why we have pledged to forge a renewed partnership with the social and affordable housing sector to support building at scale. She raised many other points, to which I will fully respond in writing, with the support of my officials. The important point to stress is that together we can deliver the homes our communities need, not just for today, but for generations to come.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.