Jake Richards
MP for Rother Valley · Labour · United Kingdom
“There is also the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. That covers driving that falls below the expected standard but does not reach the higher threshold for dangerous driving. The maximum sentence is a five-year imprisonment, alongside a minimum 12-month driving ban.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not going to criticise independent judges or the sentences given in any individual case—it would be wrong of me to do so—but I accept that too often victims feel that justice has not been done.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Critically, it is not for my Department to consider it, but the Department for Transport is certainly looking at it and is alive to the international evidence that has been raised by a number of Members. I cannot get ahead of what the Roads Minister will set out, but I will make sure that he has heard the contributions to this debate.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The road safety strategy seeks to do that, and we want to get on with it. I am pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to make sure that seriousness of these offences is reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible. As well as sentencing, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke about graduated driving licensing.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is right to raise the duration of the period before trial or conviction; too often, it is far too long, but solving this problem is not as straightforward as potentially suspending someone immediately after the event. As she is no doubt aware, often very complex investigations have to take place.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It struck me, having been a Member of Parliament for only just over two years, that MPs get exposed to aspects of our country that normal citizens perhaps do not, and one of them is the prevalence and tragedy of road deaths.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
818 held · 686 searchable for Jake Richards. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course. I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), regarding the awful Crown court delays we experience in this country—another element of the rotten legacy we received from the Conservative party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services will bring forward the Government’s response in due course. It is an urgent issue, because all these problems—prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending—can be solved only if we have a functioning courts system. Sorting out and stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and dealing with the Crown court backlog will be at the heart of the Government’s approach through this Parliament.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. There are still challenges, looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those who are returned on recall. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that Lord Timpson and I are aware of, and we will make progress on it in due course. I turn very briefly to new clause 42, tabled by the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, but it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way that various new clauses seek to do. I will turn now to new clause 31 on exclusions from recall measures, which was spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. A number of offences listed in the new clause are already excluded from the fixed-term recall provisions, while many others carry sentences that would be beyond the scope of the provisions. However, we understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chichester. There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring a sustainable system.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House, and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and to do so properly and rigorously. I have organised a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to discuss this issue and to ensure that the points and individual cases raised in this and last week’s debates are considered in the Government’s road safety strategy, which is being developed. It is right that we undertake proper and further analysis of the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans. I promise that I will ensure that this House is updated on the development of that work. I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure that they are consulted and kept informed, too.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I turn now to driving. There are an array of measures before the House that relate to driving offences, and there is an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and to strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences. New clauses have been put down by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), among others, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has raised this issue in the House. It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence even if their offence did not relate to driving.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parent or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child. Whether they are used in each particular case is best determined by the court with professional advice from the youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on a child’s individual circumstances, retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation. I undertake to the House today that I will look at this matter as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of the new clause. We therefore urge the House to reject this new clause, too.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply with certain requirements for up to 12 months, and non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court. While parenting orders can be a good option for some children, youth offending teams that I have spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities and programmes. On financial orders, children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is always a balancing act in the judge’s consideration between the principles of open justice and the welfare of the child, and it is right that discretion remains with the judge. I also gently say to the hon. Member that the scope of the Bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system; we will be taking steps to look at it in due course, and we may come back to this as part of that provision. However, the focus in this Bill is much more on the adult estate. The same point also applies to new clause 1, again tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this new clause because it is an important issue. On parenting orders, it is right that those responsible for a child’s care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am getting increasingly confused by these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I outlined before, the Government are setting out very clear measures to improve discipline in our prisons. That is part of the progression model, learned from the Texas model, which has seen crime reduce by 33%, with 16 prisons closed at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad. The Opposition have no idea what their position is any more. I will turn to new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The most serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown court, even those involving offenders aged under 18, and whether an offender’s identity is reported on is at the discretion of the judge.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this Government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%. We have accelerated decision making on deportation, which can now happen when 30% of the sentence has been served. That is something that the Tories never did. Because of this legislation, we can go even further and deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. These are practical measures from a Labour Government who are cleaning up the Tory mess.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following the changes to be brought in by this Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before—2,000 more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, Reform has no serious plans to keep our communities safe. The Tory position is even more absurd, if that is possible. Last week the shadow Minister began to apologise for the legacy that the Conservatives left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor it would not have happened. We had five Tory Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors in 14 years. I am not sure that giving another one a go would have made the difference. Meanwhile the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), says, “Deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all.” Completely unserious.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In July last year our prisons were essentially full, and the Government disgracefully could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they caused. The changes that the Bill makes are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. What have heard from Opposition Members, carping from the sidelines, are wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say that we should build paperweight temporary prisons. Portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards? No thank you. Let me clear: that would place the public at serious risk of harm. We cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This Government are building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes. Legal aid is vital, and the right to legal aid is important. The Government understand that right and will continue to look at it. There are financial constraints, which we are all aware of, but legal aid is very important. We have made certain commitments with regard to employment tribunals, and we will continue to look at that over the coming months. Amendment 7 would remove clause 20 regarding changes to be made to the release of certain offenders. Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system. When offenders are caught who pose a risk to the public, we ensure that there is capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward and a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the Tory Government.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend’s father for his service. Prison officers across the country do a brilliant and important job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and while it has been important, the crowing from the Tories is galling considering the legacy that they left behind. This Labour Government faced a crisis when we came into power last summer. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, and lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out. We took action, with plans to build 14,000 prison places—the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era—and 2,500 places in our first year, compared to just 500 places that were built during 14 years of the Conservative Government.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will ensure that our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment that works. We will ensure that we will never again face the chaos of Tory misrule. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member always makes that point, and he thinks it a good point. Towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, the Conservatives suddenly realised they had not done anything to our prisons—it was an absolute shambles—and they started to take action. We have actually delivered those places, with 2,500 in one year compared with just 500 in 14 years. It is shocking. That is not a good point, and he should not keep raising it. The Government began an independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure that our system was sustainable. The Bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order on the streets.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government, on the other hand, are getting on with the job and making difficult decisions to ensure that we can keep our promise to the British people: we will never let our prison system collapse like the last Government did, when even the most serious offenders might have avoided prison altogether. This Bill will ensure that our prison system is sustainable, while reducing reoffending and crime, and it will keep our communities safe. I commend this Bill to the House.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill goes further than simply stabilising the system; it confronts reoffending—the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities—and learns from the Texan earned-progression model to encourage rehabilitation. Confronting reoffending and improving rehabilitation used to be policies that the Conservatives supported, but today they have provided nothing but opposition. Meanwhile, Reform’s Justice spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), has not bothered to attend this debate at all, and inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black people on her TV. She should concentrate on coming up with workable policies; we cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform UK is simply not credible.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—and a particular shout-out for my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for her tireless campaigning on tool theft. Through their personal experience, or the experience of their constituents, hon. Members have powerfully raised issues that the Government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses. The debates we have had on this legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative party is in complete denial, with not a single word of apology. It is their mess that this legislation begins to clean up.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, for his work in leading the independent sentencing review. It is a rigorous and serious piece of work, and while the Government did not accept all the recommendations, it is the basis of many of the provisions before the House today. We thank David Gauke for his work, and perhaps look somewhat regretfully back at what a serious Conservative Justice spokesperson looked like. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. It is a pleasure to speak at the Third Reading of this landmark legislation. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system. It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), when they entered Government on 5 July 2024. Prisons were at breaking point, with a very real risk that the most dangerous offenders would not face custody at all and that our communities would be left vulnerable. They took urgent, necessary and decisive action to stabilise the system and keep our prisons afloat, and then they went further.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Therefore Parliament, and where appropriate the devolved legislatures, retain the ultimate say regarding the use of these powers. I would further add that several consultees noted the proportionate use of the powers to date and the effectiveness of the safeguards, and judged that the benefits greatly outweighed concerns raised during the passage of the Act. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to approve the regulations.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members will be aware from the explanatory memorandum, the Government held a targeted consultation of experts on whether to extend the power for a further five years. Those experts included academics, lawyers and professional bodies from all parts of the UK. The vast majority agreed with the extension of the powers, for the reasons I outlined earlier. During the passage of the Act, concerns were raised in the other place regarding the extent of the powers, which led to amendments introducing various safeguards. Those include the prohibition on granting legislative powers, a ban on the creation of imprisonable offences, and the establishing of the five-year extendable time limit, which is the subject of the instrument before the Committee. Furthermore, most regulations made using the powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government propose that the powers will now be used to implement the Singapore convention on mediation, which would allow cross-border commercial mediation settlements to be recognised and enforced more easily before UK courts. That will save businesses time and money that would otherwise be spent on proceedings for breach of contract, and support our world-renowned legal and alternative dispute resolution sectors. Furthermore, in July 2023, the Government confirmed their intention at this stage to implement two model laws that had been adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, of which the UK is a member state. The Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before using the powers. As hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are vital in ensuring the UK’s credibility with its international partners, reassuring them that PIL agreements can be implemented in a timely way and granting our promises extra weight. By way of example, the powers were used to implement the 2019 Hague convention on judgements. Absent the powers granted by the Act, primary legislation would have been needed, thereby delaying implementation. Our ratification of Hague 2019 was warmly welcomed by the legal sector, and indeed Members of this House, as an important step for international civil and commercial co-operation. The Government consider that PIL agreements are a useful way of supporting the success of the Prime Minister’s mission for growth, and the powers will ensure that all parts of the country can take advantage of that.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Scottish and Northern Irish national authorities can grant permission to the Secretary of State to make regulations on their behalf, including regulations extending the five-year operative period in their jurisdictions, as they have done in this case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its review of this instrument and for its clear and concise summary in its 36th report. These powers provide a single, clear method for implementing PIL agreements, protect the public interest by ensuring that parliamentary time is used effectively, and retain the effective safeguards and limits on the powers provided by the Act.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The vast majority of respondents considered that these powers had been used properly to date, that their safeguards are effective and that their continued use is in the public interest, as the powers provide a single, clear means of implementing PIL agreements, making proportionate use of parliamentary time. The instrument will extend the powers to make regulations under section 2 and schedule 6 of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. Section 2 of the Act allows the “appropriate national authority” to make regulations for the purposes of implementing international agreements and applying them between the UK’s different jurisdictions, and to extend those regulation-making powers for a further five years.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Most domestic provisions implementing PIL agreements concern technical matters and are limited in scope. Therefore, implementation can appropriately be handled via secondary legislation. That is because policy issues are often settled when the PIL agreement is negotiated, so the implementation process largely focuses on the procedural changes needed to give effect to the policy decisions reached during negotiations. The Committee will no doubt be interested to hear about the UK-wide consultation of experts carried out by the UK Government.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The instrument before the Committee will extend the powers to make regulations to implement private international law, or PIL, agreements for a further five years, from 13 December 2025. If the powers are not extended, they will permanently lapse. As hon. Members are doubtless aware, PIL rules are a set of rules applied by courts and parties involved in legal disputes that raise cross-border issues. They generally apply in the context of civil and family law. In short, PIL agreements help govern how we live, work and trade across borders.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. On the two issues he raised, policy agreements on an international framework are obviously for the relevant Department. The Department for Business and Trade will be bringing forward its proposals in relation to what I mentioned in my speech. The Singapore agreement is covered by the Ministry of Justice, and Minister Sackman will be considering the procedure for how we implement it in the coming weeks and months. The vast majority of the consultations were positive. In fact, those that were negative were not particularly proactive in their negativity. I am happy to share all the consultation responses with the hon. Member, if that would be helpful. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One wonders whether he believes in anything other than his campaign to become Leader of the Opposition—simply not serious, Madam Chair.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The inspiration for the changes that the Tories oppose is the earned progression model from Texas, where crime has been slashed by improving rehabilitation and cutting reoffending. Tackling reoffending and boosting efforts to rehabilitate offenders used to be Conservative policies; indeed, the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is not in his normal place, used to believe in rehabilitation and initiatives to cut reoffending. Eight years ago, when I think he was still a one-nation Cameroon, he argued that “the statutory definition of the purpose of a prison” should “include rehabilitation and reform”. —[ Official Report , 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 850.] Now he opposes every single measure in this Bill that furthers that cause. He was a moderate; now, he is a pound-shop populist.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The piece of legislation we are considering is only before the Committee today because of the mess that the Tories left behind. Whereas they turned their backs on the mounting crisis, this Government will not shrink from the challenges we face, however difficult they may be. Amendment 24 would undermine a central purpose of the legislation, which is to solve the Tory prisons capacity crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: what victims of crime and our communities fear the most is the situation the Tories left behind, in which criminals—murderers, rapists and child abusers—might not face prison at all because the Tories left our system teetering on the brink, without the capacity to lock up even the most serious offenders. We will not apologise for the measures in this Bill that clear up their mess.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, while we stabilise the system that was so shamefully vandalised by the previous Tory Government, we can build a better justice system—one that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This Government will prioritise punishment, but punishment that works, not the broken system we have today. That is why we are introducing important measures on short custodial sentences, which robust evidence shows will reduce offending, save the taxpayer money and assist with the prison capacity crisis. Fixing the mess we inherited and building a more robust and effective justice system are at the heart of today’s Bill. I turn to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the shadow Justice team. I am simply aghast at the chutzpah of the Conservative party on justice issues.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I begin by thanking all those who have contributed to this important debate about sentencing policy and the future of our criminal justice system. Before I turn to the specifics of various amendments, there are two overarching principles that inform this piece of legislation and the Government’s position today. The first is the legacy that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, with prisons at breaking point, the risk that the most serious offenders would avoid arrest or custody altogether, and the need for emergency action to release offenders early to avoid the prison system collapsing. That was the conclusion of 14 years of Tory failure. Alongside the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, this Sentencing Bill fixes that mess—under this Government, never again.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government agree that it is important to report on key metrics relating to electronic monitoring, which is why the Ministry of Justice publishes statistical reports on the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales both quarterly and annually. Our next annual report, which we expect to be published next summer, will include details on key performance indicators that the Department uses to hold the electronic monitoring provider to account. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to commercial sensitivities I am unable to specify the fines that have been enforced on those private companies relating to the tagging systems, but we will continue to hold their feet to the fire, which I hope will reassure him.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recognise the Chair’s desire to see the previous Justice Committee’s recommendation on resentencing implemented, but despite its detailed consideration of the issue, the Committee, like various other organisations, was unable to identify an approach to resentencing that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. The Chair of the Committee has put forward other amendments to the IPP scheme relating to the review of licence conditions. The Government will look into that over the coming days and weeks and no doubt have conversations with him. Let me say a little about new clause 18, which deals with tagging, an issue that was also raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as I am sure he will appreciate. I met him earlier this week, and I will no doubt meet him and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead. I am grateful to him and his Committee for their work. New clause 19 addresses the important issue of the imprisonment for public protection sentence. It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished, and the Government are determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. Changes we have implemented through the IPP action plan have contributed to a fall of around 14% in the number of unreleased IPP prisoners between June 2024 and June 2025.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We know that reoffending rates among those serving short-term sentences are scandalously high. Rigorous research shows that equivalent sentences in the community will tackle reoffending, preventing thousands of crimes each year. Indeed, the rigorous research, which the shadow Minister cited, showing that these measures will cut crime was commissioned by the last Conservative Government. They even put this precise provision—copied and pasted—in legislation that they introduced prior to the election, but it never came before Parliament. The Conservatives know it is the right thing to do, but now they oppose it for opposition’s sake. It is a good example of how far they have fallen. They are simply not serious. I will not be able to speak to all the various amendments tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have strengthened that further with Government amendments 2 and 4, which clarify that it includes repeat offenders who commit a further offence while on a suspended sentence. Government amendments 3 and 5 further expand the scope of the exemption so that it applies where an offence has been committed in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in and of itself a criminal offence. Together, those amendments ensure that repeat offenders will not benefit from the presumption when they are already subject to a court order. Where we can do so safely, we should be moving away from short-term sentences. Putting people in prison for a few weeks costs the taxpayer huge amounts and leads to further reoffending.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to be clear about this, because her speech simply did not accept the reality. Clause 1 does not ban short custodial sentences. At the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in jail than there have ever been before. That is not being soft on crime. There is an important exemption in the legislation for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to a particular individual, whether psychological or physical. It will always be up to the courts to decide how to apply the presumption in any given case. The right hon. Lady’s amendments to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of a short sentence would render the provision meaningless. It is not the right direction. The provision also includes an exemption for a breach of a court order.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While the Government understand that the 28-day time limit can be difficult for victims and their families, it is important that there is finality in sentencing and that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals and held a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending the time limit. We will wait for the Law Commission’s response before responding. I have heard the points that Members have made about communication, and over the coming weeks I will look at changes we can make to processes and functions within the Ministry of Justice to improve the system. I shall move on to short sentences and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey).”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Even before the council’s creation, it was not for the Justice Secretary or Lord Chancellor to fulfil the function of creating these guidelines. It is right that the council is held to account by Parliament, but it would be offensive to the principle of the separation of powers to dissolve the council entirely. This is a classic case of the populists going too far and not reaffirming the sovereignty of this place, as clauses 18 and 19 successfully achieve, but trashing constitutional norms for media headlines. I urge the Committee to reject such performative politics. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), tabled new clause 12 on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, on which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made a powerful speech.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Within the Sentencing Bill and primary legislation are specific punishments for offenders who do not play by the rules while they are in prison. That will affect the earned progression model. Further details about exactly how one can gain credit will be delivered in due course. The Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) have tabled amendments to the provisions on the Sentencing Council with the aim of abolishing the council, and the Tory amendment would transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Justice. That would amount to constitutional vandalism—it is an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council holds a pivotal role as a bridge between Parliament and the judiciary. The council is widely acknowledged to have brought greater consistency to the sentencing process.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Today’s debate, which has lasted nearly four hours, shows that the dividing line in British politics is increasingly clear: it is between those who recognise the tough choices facing our country and are willing to make them in order to clean up the mess left behind by the last Tory Government, and the unserious, populist Opposition carping from the sidelines.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Government are absolutely determined to deport foreign offenders for serious offences, the risk assessment in her new clause may inhibit the Government’s efforts in that regard. This is something that I will look at very closely in the coming weeks, and I hope that I can have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss the details and how we can make it work. I want to raise briefly the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on tool theft, which has been such an important part of the reforms to the sentencing and criminal justice policy. Her efforts have been successful.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Regardless of whether a court chooses to impose an immediate custodial sentence or pass a suspended sentence, if the sentence is for a period of at least 12 months, it is sufficiently serious to merit automatic deportation. New clause 25, tabled by Reform, would make a mockery of our efforts more generally, putting scant resource into needless litigation and often unnecessary deportations—another Reform policy that crashes and burns on contact with reality. I will briefly speak about new clause 27 and the powerful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about her constituent Sophie. It is an issue that first came across my desk as part of preparations for Committee.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the state would be forced to seek the deportation of an individual in such circumstances, that individual would clearly have cause for challenge—not just on ECHR grounds but, in particular, on the grounds of judicial review and proportionality, which has been a long-held principle of common law in this country for hundreds of years. Let me be clear: this Government are urgently removing foreign national offenders, with removals up by 14% since we came into office. Through Government new clause 1, we are extending the Home Secretary’s duty to deport under the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals who are given a suspended sentence of at least 12 months. Upholding our values and keeping our nation safe is a priority, and new clause 1 sends a clear message.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why I have already committed to work with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care—indeed, I have been in correspondence with them just this week—to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is involved in the developing work on gambling addiction treatment and use of the statutory levy that is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I will briefly deal with new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton, who did not bother to turn up for any of the debate. His new clause would introduce automatic deportation for foreign nationals who are given sentences of at least six months.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗