-
Costa interjected early on, confirming that the proposals would ensure those who commit grave crimes such as Colin Pitchfork’s will likely serve life sentences.
-
Wild inquired if the power to require offenders to attend sentencing hearings would be extended to cover other serious crimes, such as sexual assault on children under 13.
-
Welcomed the presumption against short sentences aimed at cutting reoffending and crime but raised concerns about increased pressure on probation services for rehabilitation outside prison.
-
Davies questioned whether a sunset clause should be introduced to assess the impact of new measures and inquired if knife crime would not be covered under proposed legislation.
-
Discussed literacy rates among prisoners, highlighting the importance of addressing underlying issues to rehabilitate offenders effectively.
-
Clarified that 6% of sentences are for possession of knives and a further 9% for common assault, emphasising the seriousness of these crimes.
-
Asked for examples of exceptional circumstances under which courts would not suspend short sentences.
-
He questioned whether the statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice were comparing like with like. He argued that the analysis should take into account the effect on crime of the prison sentence itself, not just the community sentences.
-
Ordered the House to stay for interventions and gave context about Neil O'Brien's intervention. Did not contribute arguments directly related to the amendment.
-
Supported the move but expressed concerns about diminishing the retribution element of sentencing. Suggested looking at ways to make alternative disposals tougher, such as extending curfew periods and sobriety tag durations.
-
Asked for clarity regarding the exceptional circumstances test. He was concerned that drug-addicted shoplifters would receive a clean slate with no risk of custodial terms, which he believed could lead to continued offending.
-
Ms. Mahmood criticises the Government for not addressing the prison capacity crisis and instead focusing on reducing prison numbers. She points out that fewer than half of the 20,000 promised prison places will be delivered by 2030, despite warnings from various bodies about overcapacity. She also highlights the failure to deliver on promises for new prison places made since 2016 and the botched privatisation of the probation service under this Government. Additionally, she raises concerns regarding the lack of adequate funding and resources for the probation service to handle the additional workload imposed by the Bill's measures.
-
Neill supports the Bill's provisions on suspended sentences of less than 12 months. He cites evidence showing lower reoffending rates for suspended sentences compared to short prison terms and argues that community ties are better preserved, reducing recidivism risks.
-
O'Brien disagrees with Neill's interpretation of reoffending statistics. He clarifies that for those given short prison sentences, the reoffending rate is 75.6%, compared to 71.5% for suspended sentences, but argues that during incarceration, the reoffending rate is zero. O'Brien suggests including the effect of the prison sentence in calculations shows a significant reduction in overall reoffending rates.
-
Supports a new crime of desecration or concealment of a murdered body to reflect extra suffering for bereaved families. Argues that such acts are becoming more prevalent and should be discouraged by law. Cites an example from his constituency where tissue matter was found with DNA matching the victim’s, leading to a guilty verdict after a year-long search.
-
Ms Patel expresses concern about certain provisions in clause 6 regarding suspended sentences for those convicted of serious crimes. She argues that victims see their offenders avoiding custody and reoffending, which is unjust and fails to protect public safety. She cites statistics showing high percentages of sexual offenders not receiving immediate custodial sentences (e.g., 43% in one year). Patel calls for stronger sentences and better integration of rehabilitation efforts across government departments.
-
The speaker argues against suspending sentences for crimes attracting less than a year, believing it does not align with public sentiment for harsher punishments. He raises concerns about the effectiveness of tagging as punishment compared to incarceration.
-
The speaker interjected, suggesting that with technological advancements, there are multiple ways to deprive people of their liberty. He argues for methods that not only serve as punishment but also reduce future reoffending.
-
The speaker interjected, clarifying his previous statement about the balancing exercise sentencers undertake. He emphasises considering both the nature of the offence and circumstances of the offender.
-
Mr. O'Brien strongly welcomes aspects of the Bill such as whole-life orders but is concerned about the presumption against sentences of a year or less. He argues that this measure does not make the public safer, citing flawed statistical analysis by the Ministry of Justice. Mr. O'Brien also notes that short prison sentences are necessary for serious crimes and that other factors like delays in courts and foreign national offenders contribute more to upward pressure on prison places.
-
Expresses concerns about repeat offenders exploiting home detention, leading to coerced criminal activity and evasion of community service. Advocates for longer-term and more substantial community service sentences, as well as visible community engagement from offenders.
-
Intervened to support the idea of stigma for criminals among their contemporaries, suggesting it is necessary to stop reoffending.
-
Highlights concerns about pressure on probation services and suggests national service as an alternative for young offenders. Advocates for leadership, discipline, and structure to prevent reoffending among troubled youth.
-
Supports the Bill's shift to a presumption of suspending custodial sentences up to 12 months, arguing it still provides punishment and allows for rehabilitation. Emphasises that suspended sentences can be activated if conditions are breached or new offences committed. Welcomes extension of home detention curfew eligibility and suggests better use of GPS tags for certain offenders.
-
Critiques the current and proposed wording of clause regarding suspended sentences. Argues that magistrates will still impose custodial sentences due to offender characteristics. Suggests criminal justice focuses on individual circumstances rather than uniform sentencing policies.
-
Welcomes clause 1 for delivering tough sentences for serious crimes. Supports clause 6 due to evidence suggesting short custodial sentences increase reoffending rates compared to other disposals.
-
Mr. Carter supports the Bill, arguing that it strengthens principles by ensuring serious offenders receive tougher sentences and reduces reoffending rates for lower-risk criminals. He emphasises the importance of breaking the cycle of reoffending through a combination of criminal justice measures and social policies from other government departments such as Work and Pensions and Education. He notes that magistrates already consider suspended sentences or community orders before imposing immediate custody, but it is crucial to retain discretion for cases where neither option is suitable.
-
He criticises the government’s failure to deliver promised prison places and highlights concerns over suspended sentences, probation service capacity, and lack of clarity in releasing offenders early on compassionate grounds. He raises examples such as violent offenders receiving lenient sentences under current proposals.
-
He is against politicising sentencing but agrees to scrutinise the bill, focusing on early release of offenders involved in domestic abuse and sexual offences. He raises concerns about prison rehabilitation becoming impossible due to deterioration.
-
She made a thoughtful contribution, agreeing with some points raised by the opposition and expressing interest in exploring further issues such as which offenders are listed for early release.
-
He described the Bill as 'lamentable' and expressed concerns about rehabilitation. He cited poetry to emphasise his view that prisoners should be in prison for punishment, not rehabilitation.
-
He questioned the language of the bill as being 'a bit Edwardian'. He mentioned 20,000 new prison places but challenged this number.
-
He criticised the government's methodology for justifying suspended sentences and highlighted issues with remand in prison due to court backlogs.
-
She called for visible community service and expressed concern over taxpayers' money being wasted on poorly operationalised schemes.
-
He raised concerns about the pressure on the probation service due to early release provisions. He advocated for the return of national service and borstals, noting their anecdotal effectiveness.
-
He made an extremely thoughtful contribution based on his experience as a magistrate and Justice Minister. He emphasised the importance of sentencing being an art, not a science.
-
He expressed sympathy with some points raised by the opposition regarding short sentences and focused on early years intervention as a way to break the offending cycle.
-
The Minister acknowledges that this is a strong and thoughtful debate. He supports the Bill as it builds on their record of cutting crime, protects the public, and prevents further criminal activity by those who have committed low-level offences.
-
The Member calls for order in the Chamber to allow the Minister to conclude his winding-up speech, highlighting the need for Members who have not participated or heard the debate to listen.