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

1. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Mandatory Digital ID

   I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent. Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring. Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of ensuring that genuine parking violations are fairly and consistently enforced. Effective enforcement maintains order and encourages compliance, but it should never become a source of excessive revenue or allow over-zealous practices to flourish. Unfortunately, motorists’ experience with some private parking operators has too often been poor. We have heard of cases involving unclear signage, punitive charges and threatening correspondence from debt collectors. That background means the Government must take care before extending their powers any further. The draft order extends existing keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to railway property—land that has until now been subject to railway byelaws rather than civil enforcement. On paper it may look like a technical change, but in practice it could give private parking firms greater ability to pursue motorists for payment on railway land. Before agreeing to such an extension, we should be confident that the wider regulatory framework is robust, transparent and fair. That is why the timing of this proposal is somewhat problematic. The Government’s consultation on the private parking code of practice closed only on 26 September. Those responses from motorists, consumer groups and the parking industry itself have not yet been published or analysed. It is therefore premature to legislate before that evidence has been properly considered. The responsible approach would be to review the consultation findings first, finalise the new code to ensure that it genuinely curbs poor practice, and only then revisit any question of expanding enforcement powers. Our concern is not about legitimate enforcement. Where parking rules are clear and proportionate, they help to keep stations accessible and traffic flowing, but enforcement must always be fair, transparent and accountable to the travelling public. At present, key safeguards are clearly missing. The Government have not released a Treasury estimate of the potential enforcement revenue, so the financial impact on motorists is equally unknown. Nor have we seen confirmation that the forthcoming code will provide effective oversight and meaningful appeal rights. Without that assurance, it would be wrong to widen private operators’ powers on railway land. Although we will not divide the Committee this afternoon, I would like the Minister to reflect on those points, pause, and hear our call for proper process and proportionate changes. Motorists deserve confidence that parking rules are enforced in the public interest, not driven by other motives. The Government should publish the consultation outcomes, set clear limits on private enforcement practices, and demonstrate that passenger and driver interests come first. Once that framework is in place, any further legislative changes can be judged on their merits and with full transparency.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Hospital to Community Care

   Ironically, getting care out of hospitals and into the community very much depends on a functioning hospital. Last month, I met the group chief executive officer of Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust, following news that it had been placed in segment 4 of the NHS acute trust league table. She acknowledged the urgent need for improvement and expressed clear ambition for change, but she will not be able to deliver the transformation of that important hospital alone. Could I meet the Secretary of State or Ministers to discuss what more can be done to support that hospital on its road to transformation and improvement?

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Points of Order

   Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Oliver Colvile was loved by Members from across this House. As it will soon be the 175th anniversary dinner of the Lords and Commons cricket team, it is worth remembering one of the most famous wickets ever taken, when Oliver Colvile bowled and took that wicket in India, on live television, watched by tens of millions. I had never seen a triumph like it. He will be much missed. He was always loved and respected in this House.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

   Two.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

   Getting this right is both important and extremely difficult. I have two questions for the Minister. If, when she meets Fiona and Ellie-Ann, she finds that they are right and that there is something wrong, what powers does she have to intervene? Secondly, will she provide assurances that the inquiry will not be staffed—she may be able to comment on her powers and the power to influence—by individuals who previously dismissed the concerns of survivors and campaigners as racist slurs?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Sentencing Bill

   On another form of recall, does the hon. Member have any sympathy with new clause 62, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and the idea that there should be a sunset on this provision? However we look at the contents of this Bill, it is a bit of an experiment, so we should make sure that two years on we examine it and, if the circumstances require, renew it.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Sentencing Bill

   rose—

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Sentencing Bill

   As we move to an ever more digital world, the capacity for people to stalk and perpetrate this kind of oppressive action on people will only grow. I just want to say how delighted I am that the hon. Lady has tabled this new clause, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that he will look at this matter carefully, because this will be a growing issue—although, as the hon. Lady has shown with Sophie, it is already horrific in its impact.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Sentencing Bill

    My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Like him I am a cyclist and have been subject to dangerous driving, but I am also a driver, and I am sure that few of us would say that we had not driven carelessly at some point. Has he given thought to whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate in all circumstances, for anybody who has ever caused death through carelessness? I am not yet convinced.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    Draft Companies (Directors' Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025

    It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I welcome the Minister to his place; it is a great appointment, and it is good to know that he comes to the position with a good deal of experience, which I know will be valuable to both officials and the House more broadly. I also welcome this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to address this issue. No matter where we represent, MPs across the House all know, from our meetings with constituents and businesses, that late payments are a scourge on small and medium-sized businesses. At the very least, we must appreciate that late payments cause a tremendous amount of short-term cash-flow problems that prohibit investment and, in turn, economic growth—and at worst, they cause existential liquidity problems for the market as a whole. British small businesses are owed an average of almost £21,500 in late payments, and an almost unbelievable 62% of small businesses report being impacted by them. I therefore completely appreciate that the aim of these regulations is to boost the transparency around how large companies pay their suppliers, so that suppliers will be able to make a more informed choice about who they partner with, while also imposing accountability and positive incentives for large companies. As the Minister will know, this measure builds on a lot of the regulatory work the previous Government in particular did in support of small businesses, which he kindly alluded to; he will also know that the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 already require companies to release much of the same data required under the proposed regulations before us today, via a web portal. The 2017 regulations were extended beyond their initial sunset date for a further seven years, following a consultation led by the small business Minister at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). With that in mind, having companies report annually on their payment practices and performance should not in theory have an unfair or overbearing impact on companies over and above the existing requirements. That was a view shared by many companies that fed into our 2023 consultation, which the Minister will be aware of, which said that this measure would be a step in the right direction. It will not be a surprise to you, Ms Vaz, that the Opposition will not be opposing the regulations today, but I want to ask a couple of questions of the new Minister. First, given that companies are already required to report this information as part of the Government portal under the 2017 regulations, can he share the Government’s assessment of how effective this additional regulation will be in further reducing late payments? We both agree that they are an issue, but I did not quite hear him outlining the Government’s intentions, plans and ambition for how effective these measures will be, or over what time period. Secondly, the regulations do not appear to require companies to include the same amount of information in the annual reports or directors’ reports as they do in the twice-yearly Government portal findings. There is a slight inconsistency there, which I hope the Minister can address and clarify for us. How will he ensure the consistency of the information provided both to directors’ reports and through the web portal?

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Ending Homelessness

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to take part in this debate about the progress on ending homelessness. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) both for securing this debate and for their opening remarks. I know that both those hon. Members have made combatting homelessness a central part of the force that drives them in Parliament. As we have heard, their excellent work as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness has been solid, earnest and methodical, and has produced robust conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in particular has made a demonstrable difference in this field, with his 2017 private Member’s Bill, which went on to become the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I will refer to shortly. I do not doubt that all Members gathered here today share a strong desire to end rough sleeping and homelessness for good. Homelessness is a social tragedy, wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. No one in our society should be forced to live on the streets, and it is incumbent on us all to do our best to ensure that constituents can live in a safe, decent and secure home. Although progress was made to that end under the previous Government, work remains to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech. I offer my full support to the Government for their shared desire to end homelessness once and for all. As policymakers have increasingly come to appreciate, homelessness does not simply begin at the point someone finds themselves on the street; rather, it is rooted in long-term causes, whether persistent issues with mental health or substance abuse, offenders stuck between prison and the streets, with no place to go, or young people in care leaving the system without a fixed destination. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and implemented by the previous Government, recognised that fact in law, placing an enhanced duty on local authorities to intervene at an early stage in an effort to prevent homelessness from occurring. Over 740,000 households have been prevented from becoming homeless or were supported into settled accommodation since the introduction of the 2017 Act—an achievement that should be acknowledged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree said in their opening speeches, prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision to continue the previous Administration’s approach of offering more effective support to prevent rough sleeping from happening in the first place. At the heart of the previous Administration’s approach was the rough sleeping initiative, which saw pioneering work across society between local authorities, voluntary organisations and healthcare providers to tailor support where homelessness occurs, meeting the individual needs of people facing homelessness and helping them to build an independent life once off the streets. Ending rough sleeping for good will require a whole-Government and a whole-society effort to be achievable, which is why it is vital that there is a sense of purpose from the very highest levels of Government to drive change. Although the Government’s ambition to carry on this work is laudable, it is disappointing that the full cross-Government strategy for ending homelessness that they promised in their manifesto has yet to emerge, despite repeated promises from Ministers of its publication. Commentators such as the Institute for Government have already warned that a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments is undermining progress when tackling homelessness, preventing public bodies from working together to be proactive and focus on the root causes of homelessness. The previous Government’s “Ending rough sleeping for good” strategy brought together seven Departments from across Government to that end. I fear that, without a similar statement of intent from the current Government, their approach to ending homelessness will fall short and fail those in need. The consequences of the lack of clarity are already becoming clear, not least in the effects of the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market. Although Ministers and Labour Members continue to claim that that legislation will make it easier to find a home, the message from the private rented sector appears to be quite the opposite, with 41% of private landlords saying, at the end 2024, that they were planning to sell their properties. The Government’s proposals look set to cut supply in the private rented sector, which will in turn inevitably risk driving rents up and making it harder for people to find a rented home. That is exactly what we have seen in Scotland, where similar measures to what the Government are proposing were implemented in 2017. In England, we have already seen a seven-year drop, with Savills reporting that the number of rental properties on its books dropped by 42% in quarter 1 of this year compared with the same period in 2024. That means 42% fewer homes available for families, less choice and more pressure on rents. That is not theoretical; it is happening now, and the Renters’ Rights Bill is accelerating that trend. Of equal concern is what effect an increasing number of people who are unable to rent privately will have on the temporary accommodation provision. An accessible private sector is vital to providing the housing stock that reduces homelessness pressure. If the Government are serious about reducing the demands on local authorities for temporary accommodation, they need to do far more than simply announce stop-gap measures. That is especially pressing, as has been repeated during this debate, when 172,420 children in England are living in temporary housing, which is up 7.6% on this time last year. Only by making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living and make private housing more affordable will the Government get people out of temporary accommodation and into long-term secure homes of their own. Sadly, the signs on that front are not encouraging, and the same goes for the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes. The most recent estimates for additional net dwellings for 2024-25 show the Government on course to miss their house building target by more than 100,000 homes this year. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the latest spending review, which promised more funding for the affordable homes budget, is less generous than on first appearance, with funding hardly different from previous levels. I am sure hon. Members will agree that Britain desperately needs new affordable homes to ensure the long-term supply of housing for those currently without a place to call their own. That is why under the previous Government, 800,000 people bought their first home, through schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty relief. Yet in the current economic climate, more social and affordable homes look increasingly difficult to deliver. Ending homelessness must not be simply an idealistic ambition, but a clearly defined goal, with policies set out to achieve it. None of that is possible without a clear vision of what steps need to be taken. I urge the Government finally to publish—

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Ending Homelessness

    With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, given that I have to allow time for the Minister and the two proposers to speak, I cannot give way. I urge the Government to finally publish the strategy in full and provide much-needed clarity to the individuals and organisations on the frontline of tackling homelessness about how they plan to support them to do so. No amount of good intentions or Government interventions can compensate for the unaffordable economic reality facing those trying to find permanent housing. I further urge the Government to consider the long-term consequences of many of their housing policies. A private rented sector, where supply is driven out of the market by over-regulation and costs that continue to rise, can lead only to even more people being unable to find a secure place to live—a fate the Government must do everything they can to avoid. I end my remarks by calling on the Minister to respond more quickly and effectively to ease the temporary accommodation issue, to work with local communities to supply good-quality homes for families, and to publish the homelessness strategy, which was promised more than a year ago.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”. The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue. We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime. Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison. Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended. I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences. The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply “if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.” Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence. Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence. Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences. New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier. Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences. I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent. Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison?

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks. People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures. New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year. Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said: “the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.] The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said: “We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.] That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that. The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases. New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions. My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I will not. New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances. New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences. Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all. New clause 59 lists “poor compliance with court orders” as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence. All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system. The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more. The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist. People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation. Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic. I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built. If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what we should be doing—[Interruption.] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone?

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    And did you?

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    “Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill. As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    NHS Trusts: Performance

    With reports of over £1 billion in costs for integrated care board redundancies and the chief executive officer of NHS England warning that services could have to move to plan B, could the Secretary of State set out what plan B is?

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    NHS Trusts: Performance

    I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but waiting lists have risen for three successive months now, doctors are on strike, GPs are in formal dispute with the Government, and the ICBs are cutting 50% of their staff and do not have £1 billion to pay for it, all while the NHS 10-year plan has been published but with no delivery chapter. When will the Secretary of State come to the House with the delivery plan for the NHS 10-year plan?

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House. I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates. First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    As my right hon. Friend says, we can do what we want when it comes to placing conditions on people and expecting them to behave differently, but the only place where we can be sure they are not out committing further offences is prison. Across the board, this measure will let very many serious offenders out of prison earlier, and I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech. In respect of the undue lenient sentence scheme, the Government have previously said that they will await the outcome of a review of criminal appeals—a review that has already said that the system is working fine, and for the implementation of whose recommendations we have no timetable or plan. The opportunity to make that change is here, and I urge Ministers to take it. New clause 8 relates to what are clearly unacceptable restrictions on what people can say in victim personal statements, often described as impact statements. This is a further issue that the Justice for Victims group and others have raised. The parents of Sarah Everard, Susan and Jeremy, have made it very clear that the people advising them on their statements were doing their best to act in their best interests, and to help secure the best possible outcome for justice for Sarah, but the system and the rules around this are leading to too many people, like Susan and Jeremy, being told that they cannot say what they should be allowed to say. Glenn and Becky Youens, also from Justice for Victims, had the same experience when making statements about their feelings towards the vile criminals who had killed their precious daughter Violet-Grace. Our new clause will ensure that the Government can help victims to secure the best possible opportunity to say what it is that they want to say, while recognising that the statement is still being made in a court. New clause 16 is intended to close a loophole that I think all Members agree needs to be closed. Our current sentencing laws require a whole-life order to be passed for those who murder a police or prison officer in the line of duty. That is an important deterrent, and enables the delivery of justice for people who put themselves in harm’s way, dealing with violent criminals, should the worst happen. However, it is clear to me that the courts have not interpreted the meaning of that legislation as I—and, I think, most other Members—would have wanted them to. In 2024 a former prison officer, Lenny Scott, was murdered. He was murdered by a seriously violent criminal for doing his job as a prison officer. Lenny had bravely stood up to threats from this criminal while he supervised him in prison, as he had reported that he had contraband. Years later, this despicable person came back for his revenge. He was convicted of Lenny’s murder, but the courts decided that the whole-life order tariff did not apply because he had not been actively on duty when the murder took place. I think that is counter to the spirit of the measure. Our new clause would remove the loophole, so that in future if a prison or police officer is murdered because of something they did in their role, whenever that might be, the sentence will be a whole-life order. I imagine that of all the measures we are proposing, that will secure the greatest amount of cross-party support—not at this stage of the Bill, but during future stages in the Lords. New clause 10 supports greater transparency in our justice system by ensuring that sentencing remarks in the Crown court are available to everyone, and transparency is also at the heart of new clause 9. For too long, for the wrong reasons, we have not been transparent about criminals’ backgrounds. We know that political correctness led to the vile grooming gangs scandal going unchallenged, which should never have been allowed, for many decades. Part of the issue is that we did not have the data and the information that would have enabled us to understand what was happening and who was committing those offences. Why should we not have basic information about criminals that would enable us to have an honest debate about different patterns of criminal behaviour in different communities and different parts of the country, especially when we know that if we refuse to do this—if we refuse to be transparent—all that we do is give fuel to the wrong people? At best, indifference to the need to share this data is looking more and more like a desire to cover up what it might reveal. That has to stop, and our new clause will ensure that it does. New clause 11 relates to steps that the courts should take to limit parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex offences. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) campaigned on this in support of a constituent who met Ministers in that Government to discuss it. In the current Parliament, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has joined the campaign, along with other Members. I understand that yesterday the Government tabled an amendment to the related Victims and Courts Bill, which is due for further consideration, and of course we will look closely at that to consider whether it meets the reasonable expectations of parents seeking to protect their children from child sex offenders. New clauses 13 and 14 also relate to child sex offenders.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    My right hon. Friend has frequently raised this issue, and we are in violent agreement. In my experience, there is intellectual snobbery towards people who think there is moral value in, and an ethical basis for, punishing people properly. Anyone who talks about that often gets labelled as some bigot who does not understand patterns of criminality and all these other things. Of course they are important to consider, but none of these things means that we should not appropriately punish people. It shocks me that that still remains not part of the statutory purposes of sentencing. Punishing people is important, and we do not consider it enough. For all the reasons I have set out, this Bill is incredibly important. Today is incredibly important too, because it is the last chance for Back-Bench MPs to decide for themselves which parts of this very significant Bill they will support. Next week we will have Third Reading, where Labour MPs will have no choice but to vote for or against the entire Bill. We know that a major part of this Bill is the earlier release of nearly all offenders. The Opposition are opposed to the programme as a whole, but it is clear that this Bill is a major part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing. It would be asking a lot of Labour MPs to ask them to consider voting against the entire programme, but we are not asking them to do that. Our amendment 24 gives Labour MPs the route through which they can most justifiably say to their Whips and the Prime Minister, “No, I can’t support this.” We are asking them to say no and to vote against the early release of rapists, paedophiles, seriously violent criminals, criminals who cause death by dangerous driving and attempted murderers. We are giving Labour MPs a clear route out of doing what would be absolutely unprecedented in the management of offenders in our prisons and a deep insult to the victims of serious violent and sexual crime. Labour MPs, many of whom I have got to know, work with and respect, will know that I spent the last week trying my utmost to encourage them to avoid being put in a position where the Whips will make them vote to release rapists, paedophiles and serious violent criminals earlier. Most shadow Ministers would happily sit back and watch Labour MPs vote for something that will blight their time in Parliament in the eyes of their constituents, but we have not done that. That is because whatever damage voting for this Bill might do to the electoral prospects of Labour MPs, what is more important to me is that its measures do not go through. As I have said before, I understand the frustrations that MPs of different parties have had over decades about the resources provided to our justice system and the prison estate. I mentioned on Second Reading that when Labour was last in power, it released more than 80,000 prisoners early because of the capacity issues built up during its time in office. This Government and the last Government have operated similar programmes. I wish that emergency release measures never had to be used, and if—this is a very big “if”—I had ever been Prime Minister or Chancellor during these periods, I would have taken different decisions. But at least these measures have to be announced in the full glare of the public eye, carry a political price and are genuinely legislated for as responses to short-term emergency challenges. I want Labour MPs to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that what we are voting on today is not a short-term response to prison crowding challenges. It is a medium to long-term plan—a decision about how we as a country want to respond to people who commit serious violent and sexual offences. I have never met a victim of a serious violent or sexual offence who thinks that the present system suitably punishes serious offenders. I have never met a victim who thinks that we should let these sorts of people out of prison earlier, but that is what this Bill will do. On Second Reading, I explained the sorts of offences that are included in these measures. Ministers have said that the very worst offenders will be excluded. Since Second Reading, the Opposition have been able to review sentencing data to try to understand what that means in reality. It highlights a disturbing truth and leaves the Government and any MP who votes for this Bill with a difficult question to answer. Those serving extended determinate sentences and life sentences will be excluded from the early release elements of this Bill, whereas those serving standard determinate sentences will not. Prisoners on standard determinate sentences will have their prison time cut. Every year, more than 60% of criminals sent to prison for rape are on a standard determinate sentence. Over 90% of criminals sent to prison for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence. Around half of criminals sent to prison for attempted murder are on a standard determinate sentence. Hundreds of criminals guilty of child rape and sexual assault, including rape of children under 13, are in prison on standard determinate sentences. In total, more than 6,500 criminals sent to prison every year for serious violent, sexual and other offences are given determinate sentences. If Labour MPs vote against our amendment 24, every single one of those criminals will be able to get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs will be voting to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so. Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences? The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says: “As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.” I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria. Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision. This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn. I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
38. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    Does the hon. Member think it appropriate for an immigration judge to support and advocate for a charity that is actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented? Should an immigration judge be involved in an organisation like that?

    Hansard source
39. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    As the hon. Lady is laying out the reality, Government Members are chuntering and suggesting that what she is saying is not true, so may I point out that the Library briefing clearly says that those with sentences of over four years for a violent or sexual offence who are currently released at the two thirds point of sentence would be released at the halfway point under the new provisions? That is a fact.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    The right hon. Member is well known for his long-term support for the Prison Officers Association. While he is on his feet, will he commit to supporting our new clause 16, which would close the loophole relating to whole life orders for the murder of prison officers?

    Hansard source