5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?
5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the adequacy of accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales.
Under the Welsh Labour Government, waiting lists, educational standards and opportunities for young people have all ground to an abrupt halt. It is therefore shocking that the Welsh Labour Government are not prioritising issues that would make a real difference to the people of Wales. Instead, Labour Ministers, supported by Plaid Cymru, are ploughing tens of millions of pounds into their nation of sanctuary policy, which is believed to support services for some illegal immigrants. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is high time her colleagues scrapped this wasteful, non-devolved policy and instead focused their time on lowering NHS waiting times and improving standards?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the actions taken to secure the elimination of Hamas from Gaza and the preservation of the ceasefire.
The situation in Gaza is fragile. We all want the ceasefire to hold and endure, and for it to transition into a sustainable end to the conflict, but that requires the terms of the ceasefire to be adhered to. The scenes of masked Hamas gunmen carrying out summary executions is sickening. Their continued hoarding and disruption of aid to starve Gazans is shocking. Their refusal to disarm is disturbing, and their failure to return the bodies of the deceased hostages is distressing. The hostages and their families deserve the dignity of a proper burial. Their loved ones have already been through terrible pain and suffering. No more coffins should be released with the wrong remains. This is a disgusting game that has to end immediately. Can the Minister explain what pressure is being exerted on Hamas by the UK Government to ensure that they comply with the full terms of the agreement and release all the deceased hostages? Yesterday it was reported that Hamas gunmen killed an Israel Defence Forces soldier, violating the ceasefire and leading to the targeted IDF action in response. What is the Minister’s assessment of the threat that Hamas pose, and what practical steps is the UK taking to support the disarming and elimination of Hamas and the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza? Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that “the UK has been proposing different ways in which we can help in the process of decommissioning and disarming Hamas, using expertise that we have built up over very many years.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 150.] Can the Minister now say what Britain’s specific role is? This is a unique situation regarding Hamas, with terrorist infrastructure and threats funded by Iran across the region. What actions are the Government taking to rebuild their relationship with Israel, given the important partnership that we have with Israel? On aid, what steps are being taken to increase getting aid into Gaza? Given the remarks by the US Secretary of State about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and its role in Gaza, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration about UNRWA’s future and the implications for the UK following the Government’s decision to give it millions of pounds, despite knowing some of the risks?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important debate to Westminster Hall, and grateful to hon. Members attending the debate for championing their local independent lifeboats. I thank Chloe Swinbank, in my office, who managed to acquire me this tie, which has life rings on it to suit the theme of this debate. When people think of saving lives at sea, they often think of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—and rightly so: it is a world-renowned organisation that has saved countless lives, and it remains one the most respected charities globally. But there are other crews who do profound work to serve our coastal communities and to save lives in times of need.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is nearly my constituency neighbour. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat and the coastguard rescue team based in his constituency. It is important to realise, as I will discuss later in my speech, that although the RNLI does an amazing job, there are independent lifeboat stations around the country. They particularly struggled with fundraising during covid. Fundraising for independent lifeboats is wholly voluntary; it is done by members of the public in our constituencies. The crews of independent lifeboats across the country do profound work. Volunteer-run, community-funded rescue services provide an essential lifeline to coastal communities. As of March 2024, there are approximately 80 independent lifeboats around the UK, many of which are represented by the National Independent Lifeboat Association—a fantastic organisation founded by the former Member of Parliament for Totnes, Anthony Mangnall, who was a champion for his local area and for independent lifeboats across the whole UK. NILA has done extraordinary work to increase public awareness of these profound organisations. However, that work remains an uphill battle. They lack resources in comparison with the RNLI, and there is still a long way to go. The majority of the public assume that all lifeboats and water safety services fall under the remit of the RNLI, meaning that independent lifeboats lack recognition, which impacts funding, recruitment and inclusion in search and rescue provisions in the UK. NILA has a probational seat on the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, which is a fantastic achievement and a testament to NILA’s dedication to saving lives at sea. It is a positive and practical step to bring greater support for independent lifeboats. However, a permanent position would allow independent lifeboats a stronger strategic voice in national planning. It would mean that when national standards, such as the rescue boat code, are revised, NILA can ensure that the standards also work for independent lifeboats. A permanent position in the search and rescue frameworks would increase recognition and representation for independent lifeboats and for the immense work that the volunteers do. I welcome the Minister to her place, and ask her what discussions are taking place to ensure that NILA has a permanent position on the UKSAR Operator Group. Does she agree that a permanent position is a necessary step to shape policy and ultimately save more lives? She can answer that question in this debate if she wants—that would show her calibre—but if she cannot, will she commit to write to me and NILA, clearly communicating an answer, after this debate?
I could not have put it better myself, and of course I pay tribute to the organisations that the hon. Lady set out. It is good that she has an RNLI lifeboat and an independent lifeboat working in lockstep in her constituency, to ensure that her constituents are protected. I know a bit about that independent lifeboat because her predecessor, alongside Anthony Mangnall and myself, was involved in setting up NILA—although Anthony did most of the work. I absolutely pay tribute to those organisations, and it is a credit to her constituents that she is here today to share in this debate. At this opportune moment, I would like to commend the Hamble lifeboat, which provides a vital service in my constituency. Operating in some of the most challenging marine conditions, Hamble lifeboat has been the cornerstone of rescue operations, saving lives since 1968. The Solent presents intense challenges as it is one of the busiest waterways globally, accommodating cruise ships, freight vessels, naval ships and smaller boats, while also witnessing double tides and a few sand bars, which means that rescue operations are far more likely to encounter complications. The River Hamble also offers its own unique challenges due to extremely fast tides and obstacles. In both 2023 and 2024, Hamble lifeboat was the busiest independent lifeboat in the UK, responding to more than 230 call-outs. They work they do is tremendous, and I am honoured to be their voice in this debate. However, the recognition of independent lifeboats touches on one of the many challenges that these organisations face: they are funded entirely through local donations, grants and the power of community, as the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned. I am proud that, under the last Conservative Government, the rescue boat grant fund donated £5.7 million to more than 100 charities around the UK, including Hamble lifeboat, which as I mentioned is a fantastic independent lifeboat in my constituency. Sadly, the fund finished in 2020—and before Government Members shout at me about that, that decision was made by the last Government and I deeply regret it. Many independent lifeboats have felt the financial pressures ripple through their organisations. The grant provided a lifeline of support to independent lifeboats, helping to upgrade equipment and allowing for quicker and safer launches in emergencies. Many independent lifeboats depend on community funding, which can take years to build up, in order to replace old and outdated boats. For example, Hamble lifeboat operates two vessels, which together cost around £90,000 a year to maintain. Both are past their expected life service, having been in operation since 1997, but replacing them is estimated to cost around £1 million. It would take a small community, such as the people of Hamble village, years to raise such a sum, despite the amazing fundraising job those people do. That places significant pressure on the reliability of current boats and raises real concerns about operational resilience in future coastal emergencies. My local lifeboat is just one example of the financial constraints that independent lifeboats face. I am sure we will hear from other Members from across the House about the difficulties that their independent lifeboats endure. Government funding would make a major difference, including by helping to upgrade vessels, crew equipment and communication devices, which are all vital to saving lives at sea. Volunteers risk a lot on these life-saving missions, so it is important that they are equipped with the appropriate gear to do their jobs.
The hon. Member, my friend, makes a very good point. When writing this speech, I wanted to talk about the nuts and bolts of funding, and the operational difficulties that some decisions have involved for independent lifeboats. He is right, however, that we have to talk about the fantastic volunteers, who will be called out in wet and windy December—hopefully, not too many times this year, but they will be called out. They might have to be down at the harbour within four minutes, not knowing what they are going into. They take tremendous risks for the people of this country and their communities, and they do so on a voluntary basis. I also echo the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to volunteers who do not do those kinds of things, but something equally important—shaking the tins and going out every weekend of the year to raise money for local independent lifeboats. I pay tribute to his lifeboat in Lyme Regis, which has had 27 call-outs, showing the amazing job that they do. Our seaside towns are vibrant areas that draw high levels of tourism, but with that comes more call-outs for seaside emergencies. Changes in climate, such as rising sea levels and more unpredictable weather conditions, are making rescue operations increasingly challenging. Additionally, rising temperatures are driving more tourists to our seaside towns. That is great, but in Hamble, which boasts an affluent sailing community, it is increasing the risk of accidents at sea and in our rivers. As we work to revitalise coastal communities, as the Government have said they want to do, we must ensure that our local rescue services and resources are equipped to meet these evolving challenges.
I have been known to have some scampi and chips in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I agree that it is beautiful. I challenge her to say whether it is as beautiful as Hamble Valley, as my constituents would expect, but she is absolutely right. I join her in paying tribute to the Runswick bay crew. The hon. Lady hit the nail on the head about the role for Government. This is not a party political debate. I am a Conservative, and I think the state should remove itself from our lives on that basis. We have clear differences about some of the Government’s decisions on their fiscal responsibilities, but they have a democratic mandate to undertake that. What we are discussing involves such small resource, however, and would support the “invest to save” mentality of the services they provide around the whole of the country—£5 million was the last amount of money allocated to the rescue boat fund. That is worth doing, so that the Government do not have to take a greater role in our search and rescue services, whatever form they take in the years ahead. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that she would have more success than I do in securing a meeting with the Maritime Minister to make that point. Independent lifeboats save 25% to 30% of all lives on navigable waters. Independent lifeboats are a vital part of our national rescue capabilities, yet they operate under financial constraints. The work of Hamble lifeboat and all independent lifeboats around the country is fundamental to keeping our coastal communities safe. Their dependency on community donations underscores the need for Government support. A reinstatement of the rescue boat grant fund would not only alleviate the significant financial constraints on independent lifeboats, but ensure that life-threatening emergencies can be tackled without compromise. I strongly urge the Minister to take decisive action, reinstate the grant and support our independent lifeboats as they support our constituents. The grant would serve as more than just a financial relief; it would serve as Government recognition of their invaluable work. Finally, I encourage all Members here, when they leave the debate, to tweet and put a Facebook post up to raise awareness of the role that our independent lifeboats play. They should also raise a tin for them as well—volunteer to raise money—so that some of the issues that come up this afternoon can be alleviated without our necessarily looking just to the Government for help.
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I thank him for indulging my having a second bite of the cherry, because he makes an important point. Recently, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and I spoke in a debate about water safety education. Does he agree that we in this House should be working together to ensure that people who live in constituencies like ours have better access to water education from a young age, through our schools and the businesses that he is describing?
I genuinely thank all hon. Members for their fabulous contributions extolling the virtues of their lifeboat services. I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for being here this afternoon. I am delighted that the shadow Minister has not had to use the services of the many independent lifeboats that he listed. It just shows what a good skipper he is—for now. He is, however, a much better skipper than I am on my little 23-foot motorboat. I am not a sailor; I get shouted at too much. We have heard about so many services, but let us imagine what it would be like if those services were not there and we had no volunteers around our country. It would be a disaster for our coastal communities. The number of people who lose their lives on the water would go up, and we do not want that. The Minister’s speech was very welcome, as was her willingness to thank all our volunteers and independent lifeboat services. That is something that I really wanted to achieve this afternoon, as this debate was intended on a non-party political basis; this is not a party-political issue. Despite that, and although I am aware that a former Government Chief Whip is now sitting next to me, the Minister knows that I think it was deeply regrettable that the rescue boat grant fund was stopped under the last Government. I do not think that it is too much money. As the Minister said in regard to whether the grant should have been continued, there was an assessment that the mission was largely complete, but I think that that was the wrong assessment. There is certainly much more to do to make sure that our independent lifeboat stations get the finances that they need. I will write to the Minister again about the interpretation of whether NILA wants to stay as a probationary or permanent member. That is certainly not the message that I got a few days ago from it, but it may be an issue of communication, so I will write to her again. Lastly, we will be holding another one of these debates next year, and I hope that someone else will feel able to pick up the mantle, but let us go out and celebrate the contribution that independent lifeboats make. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats.
The Minister has given us the usual Government lines on returns under this Government, when the majority of them are obviously voluntary returns. When it comes to enforced returns, the numbers are lower than in nine of the 14 years of Conservative Government, and 15% lower than the Tory average. I want to raise the case of Hadush Kebatu. The Home Secretary said that she had “pulled every lever” to deport him, but when it emerged that he was paid £500 after threatening to disrupt his departure, we were told that was actually an operational decision. Can the Minister confirm that Kebatu withdrew his asylum claim and forfeited appeal rights, and admit that we will not be able to deport foreign criminals in sufficient numbers unless we cut off the endless routes for human rights claims and legal appeals?
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—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 3—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 4—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 5—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 6—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 7—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 8—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— ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and ‘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 9—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 10—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 11—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 12—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 14—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 15—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 16—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 17—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 18—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 19—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 20—Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements— “(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6). (2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing— (a) the relevant offender’s date of birth; (b) their national insurance number; (c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names; (d) their place of residence on the date of notification; (e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and (f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. (3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about— (a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2); (b) a change to their place or residence; and (c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section. (4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be— (a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and (b) retained for the purposes of offender management. (6) The relevant offences are— (a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); (b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933); (c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938); (d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861); (e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16; (f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003— (i) female genital mutilation (section 1); (ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2); (iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and (g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).” This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences. New clause 21—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous driving— “(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 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 driving would be banned from driving for life. 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—Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018— “(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) At the start of subsection (5), insert ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,’.” This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. New clause 25—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 26—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 27—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 28—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 29—Foreign criminals: risk assessments prior to deportation— “(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert— ‘32A Deportation following stalking offences: risk assessments (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 30—Foreign criminals: potential stalking offences following deportation— “(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert— ‘32A Potential stalking offences following deportation (1) This section applies where the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) apply. (2) Condition 1 is that 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. (3) Condition 2 is that they have— (a) committed 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) they have contacted or sought to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales. (4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the relevant authorities, setting out— (a) a police point of contact in the country to which the offender is returning; (b) steps to protect and safeguard the victim in the UK; and (c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.’” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance in dealing with foreign criminals who have been deported after a stalking conviction, and who seek to continue to stalk the victim. New clause 31—Exclusion from automatic release following fixed-term recall for specified serious offences— “(1) An offender shall not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall where they have been convicted of any of the following offences— (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 or pseudo-photographs of children; (i) grievous bodily harm (under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861); (j) grooming (under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003); (k) stalking (under section 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997); (l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult (under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); or (m) causing death by dangerous driving (under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). (2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall also be ineligible for release following a fixed-term recall if they have been convicted of an attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit any of the offences listed in subsection (1). (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add or remove offences from the list in subsection (1).” This new clause would mean offenders who had committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall. New clause 32—Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision— “(1) Where an offender is— (a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision; and (b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision, the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address. (2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where— (a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm; (b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender; or (c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice. (3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including— (a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals; (b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour; or (c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court. (4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must— (a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible; and (b) seek confirmation by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days. (5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been confirmed, revoked, or amended by the court. (6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.” This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court. New clause 33—Mandatory dependent support orders upon sentencing— “(1) Where an offender is known to have dependents who rely on them for financial or other material support, the court shall, at the time of sentencing, inquire into the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents. (2) In addition to any sentence imposed, the court must make an order requiring the offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents (‘dependent support order’), unless the court determines that such an order would be manifestly unjust or impracticable. (3) The amount, frequency, and method of payment made under subsection (2) shall be determined by the court having regard to— (a) the offender’s financial means, earning capacity, and assets; (b) the reasonable living costs and needs of the dependents; and (c) any other relevant circumstances. (4) The court may direct that payments be made— (a) through a designated collection authority; or (b) directly to the dependent’s guardian, caregiver, or other appointed representative. (5) An order made under this section shall remain in effect— (a) for such time as specified by the court; or (b) until it is varied or discharged by the court on application by any interested party. (6) A failure to comply with an order made under this section shall constitute a breach of the sentence.” This new clause would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents. New clause 34—10-year 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 10 years.” This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for ten years. New clause 35—Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving: statutory aggravating factor— “(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows. (2) After section 3A, insert— ‘3B Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving: aggravating factor for sentencing In considering the seriousness of any offence committed under sections 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZS or 3A for the purposes of sentencing, the court must treat failure to— (a) stop at the scene of the accident; (b) call the emergency services; or (c) administer first aid, where it is possible to do so; as an aggravating factor, and state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’” This new clause would create statutory aggravating factors, for the purposes of sentencing, of failure to stop, call the emergency services, or administer first aid where it is possible to do so, in cases of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving. New clause 36—Earned progression for prisoner release— “(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows. (2) In section 244, after subsection (4), insert— ‘(5) The duty to release under subsection (1) is subject to the prisoner demonstrating compliance with the earned progression scheme during the course of their custodial sentence. (6) The Secretary of State must issue regulations, under section 267 (alteration by order of the relevant proportion of sentence) setting a higher requisite custodial period for prisoners who have not demonstrated compliance with the earned progression scheme during their sentence. (7) In this section, ‘the earned progression scheme’ must include— (a) compliance with prison rules; (b) engagement in purposeful activity; (c) attendance at any required work, education, treatment or training obligations, where these are available; and (d) any other factors that the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance to prisons on the operation of the earned progression scheme.’” This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the independent review on sentencing for the release of prisoners at the one third point of their sentence to be subject to their compliance with an earned progression scheme. New clause 38—Sentencing Council— “(1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.” New clause 39—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 would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence. New clause 40—Criminal cases review— “(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows. (2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert— ‘Part IVB CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION) 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— (a) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and (b) 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.’” This new clause would allow any British citizen to refer a sentence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for the Commission to review the sentence and consider whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal. New clause 41—Sentencing statistics: duty to publish— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s— (a) country of birth (b) nationality, (c) ethnicity, (d) immigration status, and (e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced. (2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament— (a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and (b) annually thereafter.” This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status. New clause 42—Crown Court sitting days for the delivery of sentencing— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings day in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings. (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1) before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings days in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings. New clause 43—Expiry— “This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.” This new clause is a sunset clause, meaning the Act would cease to have effect after two years. Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1. Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert “before any credit is given for a guilty plea”. This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea. Amendment 35, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert “with the maximum operational period”. This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period. Amendment 33, page 3, line 9, after “individual” insert “or the public”. This amendment would mean that 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 the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm. Amendment 34, page 3, line 9, leave out “significant”. This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant. Amendment 14, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.” This amendment would require offenders (under the age of 21) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring. Amendment 15, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.” Amendment 16, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender— (a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’); (b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence; (c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions; (d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence; (e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence; (f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence; (g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer; (h) at the time of the current offence, was— (i) subject to a supervision order; or (ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall). (i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or (j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.” This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances. Amendment 17, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence— (a) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or (b) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).” Amendment 18, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.” Amendment 19, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.” Amendment 20, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,” Amendment 21, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.” Amendment 22, page 3, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).” Amendment 36, page 4, line 4, after “months” insert “before any credit is given for a guilty plea”. This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea. Amendment 39, page 4, line 7, after “order” insert “with the maximum operational period”. This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period. Amendment 37, page 5, line 20, after “individual” insert “or the public”. This amendment would mean that 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 the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm. Amendment 38, page 5, line 20, leave out “significant”. This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant. Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.” This amendment would require offenders (aged 21 or over) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring. Amendment 24, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.” Amendment 25, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender— (a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’); (b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence; (c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions; (d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence; (e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence; (f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence; (g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer; (h) at the time of the current offence, was— (i) subject to a supervision order; or (ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall). (i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or (j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.” This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances. Amendment 26, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence— (c) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or (d) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).” Amendment 27, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.” Amendment 28, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.” Amendment 29, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”. Amendment 30, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.” Amendment 31, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).” Amendment 6, page 6, line 28, leave out clause 2. Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 10, 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. Amendment 9, page 36, line 9, leave out clauses 18 and 19. Amendment 7, page 37, line 9, leave out clause 20. Amendment 11, page 47, leave out lines 16 to 19. This amendment would leave out the Bill's provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions Amendment 2, in clause 24, page 49, line 14, 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 3, page 49, line 14, 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. Amendment 12, page 66, line 34, leave out clause 36. Amendment 13, page 68, line 8, leave out clause 37. Amendment 4, page 68, line 24, leave out clause 38.
Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error. Third Reading
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Private International Law That the draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 September, be approved. Sports Grounds and Sporting Events That the draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.
I call Jim Shannon on the offshore wind supply chain in Tyneside.
I call the Minister. I believe that this is her first time at the Dispatch Box for an Adjournment debate.
Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance, and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
Well, well, well; what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question, word for word, on 9 July. Then, the Prime Minister replied with just one word—yes—and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What has changed in the past four months?
The right and learned hon. Gentleman says that no Prime Minister or Chancellor will say these things before the Budget. Has he told his Chancellor? She has been out there flying kites, causing constant speculation around the Budget that is damaging the economy. All week, the Government have been briefing about tax rises. What we have heard is that he does not have a plan, so we have some ideas for him. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that they need some ideas. On the Conservative Benches, we believe in scrapping taxes on family homes. Yesterday, we voted to abolish stamp duty; Labour voted against it. Even the former Deputy Prime Minister, who resigned in disgrace for not paying stamp duty, voted to keep it. I remind them that on this side of the House we know that abolishing stamp duty is how we get young people on the housing ladder and get the economy growing. So why will he not scrap this terrible tax?
The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled—[Interruption.]
On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?
It is not because of the Budget that the Prime Minister passed; I started that deal back in January 2024, and I welcome it. [Interruption.] It has nothing to do with the Government’s Budget; we are lucky the deal is still happening. I welcome the £8 billion deal that he has done with Turkey, but I remind him that just last month his Chancellor borrowed £20 billion. He will have to sell a hell of a lot more jets to make up for that. He will not rule out any tax rises, he cannot cut spending and he is increasing unemployment. This man knows nothing about economic growth, except how to destroy it. In his weakness, he has caved in to the unions on their regulations that will cripple businesses, costing them £5 billion every year. [Interruption.] Yes, please do speak up, because I want every single business out there to hear Labour MPs heckling when we talk about the damage that they are doing. I ask the Prime Minister: how on earth can he consider adding more burdens for these firms to deal with?
The fact that he has to stand there and make stuff up just shows what kind of Prime Minister he is. We had an itemised list worth £47 billion; £23 billion was on welfare spending, which I asked him to work with us to cut. He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax. If you work, the Government tax you more. If you save, they tax you more. If you buy a home, they tax you more. None of these taxes were in their manifesto, which he had four years to prepare. He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR. Last week, they were blaming Brexit. Is it not the truth that with this Prime Minister, it is always someone else’s fault?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that “Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given” under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If “information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to” a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question. This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so. We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl. Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate. I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate. These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful. New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week. New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility. I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change. We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder. I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver. I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just been debating the important matter of asylum seekers in MOD accommodation. Could you confirm, as I hope Hansard will, that in the nearly 37 minutes that we have spent debating this important matter, no Member of Reform has been in the Chamber or, indeed, made any contribution whatsoever?
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister rightly said, these regulations are made under powers introduced by the Media Act 2024, which is a significant piece of legislation designed to modernise our broadcasting framework for the digital age, passed under the previous Conservative Government. The draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 update the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to ensure that key definitions and obligations remain consistent with the new statutory regime established by the Act. In particular, these regulations bring the treatment of repeats within the original and regional productions quotas up to date, reflecting the way in which programmes are now produced, distributed and consumed. As members of the Committee will know, the Media Act gave the Secretary of State the power to determine whether repeats of public service content could count towards broadcasters’ quotas. These regulations delegate the responsibility to Ofcom, the industry regulator, which already sets the levels of the original productions and regional programme-making quotas for public service broadcasters, other than the BBC. Allowing Ofcom to decide how repeats are treated ensures a coherent and practical approach—one that links the measurement of quotas to the operational realities of programming, commissioning and scheduling. By modernising the definitions and entrusting Ofcom with the appropriate discretion, these regulations help to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s public service broadcasting system, while ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in a fast-changing media landscape. They are a further example of how the previous Conservative Government’s Media Act continues to provide the foundations for a flexible, forward-looking and well-regulated broadcasting sector. Moving on to the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, as members of the Committee will know, the previous regime for independent production quotas was based on linear television, requiring each public service broadcaster to commission at least 25% of their qualifying hours from independent producers. However, as audiences have increasingly turned to on-demand platforms, such as ITVX and BBC iPlayer, the old system no longer reflected how viewers were accessing public service content. The Media Act addressed this by extending the scope of the quotas so that they could be delivered across a broadcaster’s wide range of services, and by converting percentage-based quotas into minimum hours targets. This statutory instrument gives effect to those provisions, setting the new quotas for each of the main public service broadcasters—the BBC, S4C and Channels 3, 4 and 5—based on a five-year average of qualifying hours. I understand that the updated framework has been agreed with both Ofcom and the broadcasters themselves to ensure that it remains balanced, proportionate and achievable. It also updates the definitions of “independent production” and “independent producer” to bring them into line with modern industry practice without making substantive policy changes. An important part of the reform relates to Channel 4. Following the removal of the publisher-broadcaster model under the Media Act, Channel 4 has been permitted to undertake limited in-house production for the first time. To maintain its strong relationship with the independent sector, the quota for Channel 4 has been increased from 25% to 35% of its programming hours. We believe this represents a fair and reasonable adjustment that safeguards opportunities for small and medium-sized independent producers, while giving Channel 4 the scope to adapt and innovate. Overall, this instrument reflects a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to media regulation. It ensures that public service broadcasters continue to meet their obligations to commission high-quality, independent content while providing flexibility to operate effectively in a rapidly changing digital landscape. It builds on the legislative foundations set out by the Media Act and maintains the UK’s reputation for having a diverse, independent and world-leading broadcasting sector. On that note, we will not be seeking to divide the Committee.
Ever since I was elected, it has been a critical part of my work to push to secure Typhoon orders at the Warton site because of the impact those orders would have not only on jobs across Fylde and Lancashire, but on our sovereign capability to build our own military aircraft. I massively welcome this announcement and the work that has been done by Ministers on the Front Bench and former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. I was touched that the Minister invited me to join him on his visit to BAE Systems last week, although the Prime Minister did not invite me to the announcement in my own constituency yesterday—perhaps he has been taking my questions at PMQs too personally. The deal is welcome, but it means that we are now the only major partner in the Eurofighter project that is not ordering the aircraft that we are trying to sell to other countries. We are trying to sell aircraft abroad that we are not buying ourselves. I am sure it would be a great aid to future export deals—for getting that extra 20 further down the line and for looking at Saudi and other places where we are trying to sell them—and equally, it would continue to boost our sovereign capability in military aircraft and maintain jobs across our country if we placed that order for more Typhoons for the RAF. I would happily heap praise on the Minister if he did so.
I note that it takes three women to take me on now, but I very much welcome the Ministers to their places. Charles Rees, a fifth-generation Pembrokeshire farmer, has bravely and moving shared his battle with cancer on the BBC’s “Countryfile”, and I know this House will send him and his family our best wishes. His illness is not his only worry; he is also seriously concerned that his son, who is running his farm, could now be facing an unaffordable inheritance tax bill of £1 million, solely due to this Government’s catastrophic family farm tax. Despite Ministers saying differently, Charles and many other farmers across the country are fearing for their livelihoods, their way of life, their futures, and for food security. Will the Government scrap the family farm tax?
Under the watch of the current Secretary of State, opportunities for young people are now unbelievably dire. Despite what she says, unemployment is rising and employment is falling, and that situation is not good enough for the next generation in Wales. Last week, my colleague, Darren Millar, who is the Conservative leader of the Senedd group, met the Welsh First Minister—does anyone know who that is?—offering to potentially support the Welsh Government’s budget, provided Labour Ministers agree to scrapping Welsh stamp duty. That would help young people on to the property ladder in Wales, where it is the hardest to achieve that, and boost the Welsh economy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she agrees with scrapping Welsh stamp duty? If so, what measures is she taking to persuade Baroness Morgan of Ely to scrap the tax in Wales?
After wantonly scrapping the Rwanda scheme, the Labour Government are now overseeing record-breaking figures of illegal immigrants. It is reported that the scandal is now engulfing north Wales, where more than 200 illegal immigrants have tried to gain entry to the country on ferries from Dublin to Holyhead. Meanwhile, there is talk about Penally military camp in south-west Wales, which was previously condemned by the Welsh Labour Government. It appears that their policy, along with Reform’s, is from boats to barracks, as is happening in Scotland and Sussex, yet Plaid says that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that her Government and Plaid have no idea about and no interest in how to make our borders safe?
Well, what a bolt from the blue! There has been huge concern throughout the Wealden district since the news broke of a “boats to barracks” plan in Sussex. The council leadership urgently needs to speak to local MPs, as do many other councillors, to assuage deep concerns about hundreds of asylum seekers coming to a very rural part of Sussex. Does this simply mean that people living in the Copthorne hotel will move to the barracks? Will the Minister kindly try to work with the Wealden district council leadership, so that public meetings can be held locally to discuss the significant issues that have arisen and the discussions that have taken place? What is happening about the planning process, and the community and police support? Many people need to understand these matters, given the unexpected choice of such a countryside location.
Q9. I am proud that the last Government introduced the triple lock, and we have committed to keeping it. [Interruption.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?
Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed. We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan? All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis. I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?