Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Sentencing Bill

   It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Sentencing Bill

   I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests. As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable. In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true. If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased. When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities. As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today. As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Sentencing Bill

   I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown. The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished. There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Engagements

   Q10. Given all the hatreds there are in the world today, was it not a lovely moment to see the King and the Pope pray together in the Sistine chapel? Does it not give us hope that these historic divisions can be resolved? Does it not give us hope that, despite the fact that Ukraine and Gaza may seem intractable problems, if we have the will to preserve the freedom of all people to live in their own country, and if we have the will to have faith in our common humanity, these problems can be resolved and we can win through?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Farmers: Inheritance Tax

   1. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Farmers: Inheritance Tax

   I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

   International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school. I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today. The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to? Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences. Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision. As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth? I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students. We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases. No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision? The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers. In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers. With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions. Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life. We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

   International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

   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?

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Asylum Seeker Accommodation

   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.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Asylum Seeker Accommodation

    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?

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Gaza and Hamas

    (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.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Gaza and Hamas

    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?

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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?

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    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.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

    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?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Gaza and Hamas

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal)

    Order!

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    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.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    Then I call John McDonnell.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    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

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Privileges

    I call the Chair of the Privileges Committee.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business without Debate

    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.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Offshore Wind Supply Chain: Tyneside

    I call Jim Shannon on the offshore wind supply chain in Tyneside.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Offshore Wind Supply Chain: Tyneside

    I call the Minister. I believe that this is her first time at the Dispatch Box for an Adjournment debate.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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.]

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    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?

    Hansard source