PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Early Release of Prisoners - 7 July 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to exempt from automatic early release under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026 any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences; further calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to enact this change immediately; and regrets that the Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Act 2026 that would have secured these exemptions was not agreed to.

We gather for this important debate at a dangerous but very strange moment. It is dangerous because from September, the Government will start releasing serious criminals from prison part-way through their sentences. Among them, as things stand, will be many violent criminals, including killers, rapists and child sex offenders, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against our amendment to exclude them from the early release scheme. Thanks to those Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of those released may be convicted members of the rape gangs.

Our position remains clear: not one of these dangerous, disgusting people should ever have been included in Labour’s early release scheme. It seems that the next leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—disagrees with the Justice Secretary and with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—the sentencing Minister—and agrees with us. His people told the Sunday Times that he wants to prevent child sex offenders from walking free. They say that his advisers are working on primary legislation, but they also say that as the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not taking office before the summer recess, they might not be able to act in time.

That is what is very strange about this dangerous moment. We have a Prime Minister squatting in Downing Street, holding on until the world cup final, recording videos in empty rooms about his achievements and legacy, and pretending that he will intervene to overturn Jarell Quansah’s red card, with no mandate, no purpose and no authority; and we have the next Prime Minister—indeed, the only candidate to become Prime Minister—saying that he disagrees with what the Government whom he is due to lead will do this September, but that he lacks the time or the power to do anything about it. That is pathetic. The House is sitting this week and next before the summer recess; there is plenty of time to act. The Government could amend the Sentencing Act 2026 to exclude rapists and child sex offenders through emergency legislation. They could lay new commencement regulations, delaying the instruction of the early release scheme, and give the new Prime Minister enough time to get his act together.

We have invited the Government to do those things in the motion before the House, and we understand that they will not contest it. After voting for the Sentencing Act and against our amendment to exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme, today they have folded, but they still cannot tell us the plan. Will they bring forward emergency legislation? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations? We know that these Ministers are in office, but not in power, so will the right hon. Member for Makerfield tell us, and the victims of these criminals, what will happen?

We should remember how we got here, for this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. [Interruption.] The sentencing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I understand why he is anxious; I have seen the tweets that he sent about the right hon. Member for Makerfield, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister has, too. He said he was going to be “worse than Jeremy Corbyn” and had the

“political antennae of a dead cat”.

Order. The hon. Gentleman should say “worse than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)”.

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quoting the tweets so exactly that I forgot my responsibilities.

As I was saying, this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister.

The hon. Member calls this an “ideologically anti-prison Government”, but in 14 years of Conservative Governments, there was a net increase of 500 prison places. In the very first Division post the King’s Speech in this Parliament, I remember voting to deal with that problem, and we had to vote to reduce sentencing times to deal with that mess; otherwise the criminal justice system would have collapsed. Does he not agree?

I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to not take the Whips’ questions, when the Whips have just given up, in the face of the wall of opinion in the parliamentary Labour party, and having given ground in this debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those early votes to which the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) referred were actually a Trojan horse to allow sex offenders to be released under such schemes? We have brought this motion to the House to make sure that we protect the British public.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What I was trying to say gently to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) was that, if the argument is still that this Government need to let sex offenders out of prison because of a capacity problem, Labour Members will be embarrassed by the policy that is about to be introduced by the new Prime Minister, who agrees with us, not with the hon. Member.

As my hon. Friend considers the evolution of the Opposition’s justice policy, might he give consideration to taking the expansion of prisons, or the development of new prisons, out of the ordinary planning arena, as it once was? Prisons should be viewed as elements of critical infrastructure, and our sentencing and detention policy should not be dictated by the availability of square footage.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Over a period, the construction of prisons has become needlessly expensive and needlessly time-consuming, as has the development of other critical infrastructure in our country. As we come forward with our plans to increase the capacity of our system, we will definitely look at those barriers.

The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The sentencing Minister says that a pretty big chunk of the prison population should not be there. The Government have legislated to get rid of short-term sentences, effectively decriminalising shoplifting and many knife crimes. They want to reduce sentences for criminals based on their age and, unsurprisingly, their identity. For some, they want to scrap custodial punishment altogether. They want to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 14, so that criminals such as the killers of Jamie Bulger and one of the Fordingbridge gang rapists can avoid criminal trials. They even want to weaken sentences for some murderers.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), the last Conservative Government granted early release, largely in secret, to more than 10,000 prisoners, including domestic abusers and those who posed a risk to children, without putting appropriate safeguards in place, and then they called a general election when the prisons were full. Can the shadow Minister understand why we Labour Members will not take any lectures on criminal justice from the Conservatives?

The hon. Gentleman resembles one of those Japanese soldiers found in 1950 who were still fighting the second world war. The Whips and the Labour party have given up on this debate, and he is still reading out the planted questions given to him earlier today by the Whips, before they bottled it and folded. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to keep on with this argument, but he is chuntering from a sedentary position.

The first action of this Prime Minister—the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), if hon. Members can keep up—was to announce that he would let tens of thousands of hardened criminals out of prison early. Between September 2024 and December 2025, under the standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, more than 50,000 prisoners were let out early. It is no surprise, as prison governors have been lining up to tell the Government, that in the rush to let criminals out, more prisoners were released in error than at any other time on record. It is no surprise that prisons are finding it harder to ensure that released prisoners have a plan for housing and work—but that is not the only mess caused by this reckless policy.

Prisoner recalls are at a record high. In fact, more criminals have been recalled to prison than released under SDS40, but Ministers refuse to tell us how many recalled prisoners were let loose through early release. Now the Government are going further. Under the Sentencing Act 2026 and SDS33, thousands of prisoners will be let out after serving just one third of their time. More than 7,000 victims have received letters telling them that the perpetrators of the crimes against them may be set loose. No wonder the Justice Secretary is hiding in his ministerial office, rather than defending his record, or the policy that has now been abandoned.

In January, as this House considered Lords amendments to the Sentencing Act, the Minister told the House that

“nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes”. —[Official Report, 20 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 199.]

We all knew that was nonsense, because when we tabled amendments to exclude from SDS33 those convicted of the most serious offences—rape, sex offences, child sex offences and more—the Government whipped their MPs to vote against us. That would be bad enough on its own terms, but the Government have completely lost control of the process for early release. They do not even know who is scheduled to be released, or when. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) asked Ministers to break down which offenders would be released when, and to disclose what crimes they had committed. The Minister told the House that it was

“not possible to know future release data precisely so far in advance”.

There is a perpetual uncertainty about this issue, as my hon. Friend describes, but at the heart of it is the distance between the popular expectation of what criminal justice should deliver, and what the Government are putting in place. I am not saying that this began with this Government—there is a more fundamental and existential problem—but, in the end, every time Governments do this kind of thing, people lose faith in the justice of the criminal justice system.

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The statistics show that between 1993 and 2012, our prison population grew very significantly, and through that period, crime fell. It plateaued after 2012, as the population grew, and that was a mistake. The Opposition are willing to accept that that was one of the errors of the coalition Government and the Conservatives’ time in power. We need to move on from that, and we will develop policies so that a future Conservative Government can build the prison capacity that the country needs.

Left liberals may not like this, but it remains the case that the public expect the criminal justice system to exact retribution on those who have offended against society. If we do not do that, then individuals may wish to take the law into their own hands. We do not do that in a civilised country; we expect the state to do that on behalf of society. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we constantly diminish the sentences we hand down to serious and dangerous offenders, society may begin to lose faith in the Government it expects to do that work on its behalf?

I agree; prison works. It works because it punishes the guilty, gives justice to the innocent and takes dangerous people out of circulation, away from the rest of society, and, in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but it is a deeply controversial thing to say among many criminologists and policy wonks. I am very clear in my belief that prison works and that we need to use prison far more than we do.

Only last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Timpson, speaking for the Government on Channel 4, went even further:

“It is impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when”.

The first 700 released prisoners are due to walk free on 2 September, and more will follow every month thereafter.

In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, the constituents of Members across the House just want a clear undertaking that dangerous criminals—rapists and others—will not be set free. The Government have obviously dug themselves into a hole and have thrown in the towel this afternoon. We have a limited amount of time left before the summer recess. Is my hon. Friend in a position to say very clearly, for the benefit of those in this Chamber and outside, that the Opposition are willing to throw our weight in behind the Government if they will make the necessary amendments to win the time that they need to get this right?

I completely agree. I am happy to say that if the Government want to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation or, if they want to buy themselves a little more time to consider things more fully, to introduce new commencement regulations delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, the Opposition will completely support them in doing that.

For now, however, we do not know. The Government are not in a position to tell us who will be released, what crimes they have committed and when exactly they will be released. When will Ministers know the identity of, and the crimes that have been committed by, those who are due to be released? Are we to wait until they have re-offended, and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again? Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined? A Government who cannot tell the public who they are releasing from prison have no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals.

Today, the Government have caved under Conservative pressure, but we still do not know what the policy will be. We have a Minister unable to answer: a political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the Justice Secretary, and his next boss—if he gets a job—with nothing to say but “Wait for Andy”.

The approach of Ministers to all these concerns—legitimate concerns, shared by people up and down the country—has been to say, “Nothing to see here.” They still tell us that it will all be fine, but they have not had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it. The Government say that the criminals they release early will be managed “under strict licence conditions” and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they are released under licence, but the Government refuse to say what those conditions will entail, whether they are new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place and what resources will be deployed to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend or disappear from the radar. If they will not even tell us how many prisoners released under SDS40 have been recalled to prison, how can we trust them with what they say about SDS33?

I am a little puzzled by this excuse that offenders can always be recalled if they breach the terms. Presumably, a breach means that there has been a fresh victim of a crime, so it is rather pointless to give that as a reassurance. Does my hon. Friend know what proportion of the prison population is made up of serious sexual or other serious offenders? I cannot believe that it is such a high proportion that even if the prison system were utterly full, they could not release other inmates rather than such serious criminals.

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. This is what we have been saying, and the Government have been saying in response: “No, this is absolutely necessary. We must release these serious sex offenders otherwise there will be a crisis in the prison system.” It is clear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the next Prime Minister—agrees with us, not with them. That is why they have folded in this afternoon’s debate. I feel very sorry for the Minister. It is one man, two guvnors, and he is in a very difficult position. Of course it is possible, even if we accept that we need an early release scheme of the kind the Government are introducing, to exclude the sorts of offenders that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East has described.

As I was saying, if the Government are releasing record numbers of prisoners in error, how can we trust them to get these processes right?

It is easy for debates like this to be lost in statistics, technocratic jargon and legal language, so I will end on this important note. Fiona Goddard was just 14 when she was abused by a rape gang. Seven of her abusers were convicted. In June last year, Fiona received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her abusers were likely to be eligible soon for early release, having served just half their sentences. Last month she received another letter saying that under the Government’s Sentencing Act, her abusers may now be released after serving just one third of the time she was told they would serve in prison originally.

Fiona and several other victims—Sarah Wilson from Rotherham, Carly and Jessica from Huddersfield, Erin from Dewsbury, and the mother of a victim from Rochdale, who has since died—have written to all Members of the House. Several of those brave women and some others are in the Gallery today. They have asked us, in their words

“to hear the pain behind this letter…support an amendment to the Sentencing Act”

and exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme.

We can only imagine the suffering and torment that these women have experienced. To be told that those who abused them over many years may now be back on the streets long before they were supposed to be is not just disgusting but terrifying to them. It is shameful that the Justice Secretary has refused to come to the House today, and it is ridiculous that the Government have bowed to our argument and accepted our motion without telling us or the victims what they plan to do instead. Victims are left in limbo. Are we going to get emergency legislation? Are we going to get new commencement regulations? Which offences will be excluded from the early release scheme? How is this possible when Ministers previously said that it was not?

The Minister is about to get to his feet, but I am afraid that he has no authority and no idea what will happen next. This dying Government need to be put out of their misery, and we need answers, not evasion, from the only person who can answer—the right hon. Member for Makerfield.

The hon. Gentleman is right: prisons were closed that, in my view, might have been kept open. Has he looked at those prisons to see if any of them could be brought back quickly into use? Clearly that would be much faster than building new prisons. Has he looked to other secure facilities that might be used as prisons? During covid, the Government acted quickly, passed laws and put Nightingale hospitals in place. Why can we not have emergency prison places rather than letting these dangerous people on to our streets to do more harm?

There are people in the Gallery and in the public out there who want to know that dangerous criminals will not be released at the start of September. That is what they want to hear; we do not want to hear the history. We want an answer from the Minister. He heard the offer from the shadow Secretary of State in reply to my question. We are prepared to back the necessary legislation before the recess to put a stop to this. Is he prepared to take that offer—yes or no?

Will the Minister give way?

A great man!

Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.

I took part in Rupert Lowe’s independent rape gang inquiry—

Order. I think the right hon. Lady means the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).

I took part in the independent rape gang inquiry, meeting victims who had waited such a long time for justice and to see their abusers put behind bars. What does the Minister have to say to those victims who received a letter to say that their perpetrators are back on the streets? Is that a mistake and it will not happen? Ministers had said that those who have committed the most serious and heinous of crimes would not be on the streets. Can he take this opportunity to say that those letters were a mistake?

Everybody would appreciate some clarity that when we are talking about the letters, those are specifically the letters informing victims that the Sentencing Act 2026 will affect when their perpetrators will be released. The issue that has been raised by many victims is that these are blanket letters; they are not personalised. They do not say which perpetrator. In the letter, it says that “some” will be managed in the community. These victims have been so failed by our justice system at every step that when they receive such a letter, they assume that it means their perpetrator will not be managed in the community. Can the Minister please reflect on the impersonal letter that is sent, sometimes by email, to inform victims that what they thought was true is no longer true, and that their perpetrator may be out sooner than they had expected?

We have brought this motion to the House. The Labour party has accepted that motion—it will not contest it and the House will not divide. Having accepted what we have put in the motion, will the Minister tell us what the plan is to ensure that rapists and sex offenders will not be released, starting from September? Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations—yes or no? The Minister has our commitment of support if he does that. If he is not in a position to say so, because it is up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and he does not yet know, the Minister can just say that.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time—he is very generous—and for his kind remarks about my consistency. He also mentioned our differences, and I will explore those in greater detail in due course, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I can be helpful to the Minister. This matter seems to go well beyond party politics, because we have a crisis in prison numbers and this is an occasion on which we might find common cause and seek a way forward. Indeed, that offer has generously been made by those on the Opposition Front Bench, so perhaps the Minister, who I suspect is a rather decent man at heart, should take up that offer in the spirit in which it has been made, and see whether we can sort this out in a way that protects all our constituents from harm.

Will the Minister give way?

I understand what the Minister is saying about the looming prison crisis, but I just wonder whether he can explain to us how releasing dangerous sexual predators and grooming gang members fits with our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls?

I have a fairly simple question. Does the Minister have a clear idea of what categories he regards as constituting dangerous offenders, and if he does, what percentage of the prison population is made up of these people? If it is something like 10%, 15% or 25%, that still means that there are 75% or more of other categories of prisoners who could and should be released before those in that dangerous category are even considered.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

May I first pay tribute to every victim and survivor of some of the most horrific and vile crimes imaginable, including those who join us in the Gallery today? They have waived their right to anonymity and raised their voices so that others do not have to. They are calling for greater protections for victims, who feel consistently failed by the justice system as it stands, and they represent a much larger and often voiceless part of our society, including those who never came forward, and those who did come forward but did not receive justice at the end of it. These are the people who spend their lives scanning crowds and looking around street corners, fearful that they will bump into their perpetrator, or perpetrators, again, and I commend them for their bravery and determination to ensure that nobody else suffers in the way that they have done. The abuse that they have experienced at the hands of cruel, calculating monsters never leaves them, and I share their anger and frustration that after countless reviews, reports and inquiries, spanning many years and many Governments, the system continues to fail them and recommendations remain unimplemented.

I think we all agree that, in a properly functioning justice system, as a matter of principle, no victim should have to endure being told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than expected for any offence. When a sentence is handed down, victims deserve the certainty of knowing where they stand and how long their perpetrator will remain behind bars. We have heard just today from victims who were reassured by the judges in their cases that their perpetrators would serve a certain length of time—only to then receive this vague letter, which we have been talking about, telling them that that may no longer be the case.

That does not happen in any other element of our justice system. When a Government introduce a new sentence—a new crime—it is not retrospective. The Government have come forward with a positive change by upping the sentence in relation to women who are killed in the home, which currently carries a lower sentence than offences relating to those who are killed outside of the home. That is not retrospective, but the campaigners for the change said that they understand that the justice system is not retrospective. The same should apply to sentencing after the fact.

Victims are understandably angry about the format of the letters they received, which were not personalised and provided no specific information about their cases. The letters did not provide information about when their perpetrators would be released, and also said, as I mentioned to the Minister, that some of those released would be managed in the community. That will naturally lead many to fear the worst—that their perpetrators will be free to roam without restriction. Why would they not think that, when they have been failed so many times by the system? The vagueness and ambiguity need looking at. I hope that the Minister will take that away, so that the MOJ’s mass communications are worded in a way that does not feel so impersonal.

It is worth saying, and has been said many times before, that the justice system inherited by this Government left victims and society more broadly in grave peril. It risked the state convicting criminals of serious offences but having no space in which to imprison them. A capacity crisis in our prisons would also have left victims and survivors fearful, and it clearly needed to be addressed.

Throughout the passage of the Sentencing Act, we were concerned about the implications for other parts of the justice system, which were already at breaking point, and their ability to absorb the additional strain. The probation system, where staff are already facing ever-increasing caseloads without being appropriately resourced, has now been tasked with managing those released earlier than before, as well as those serving community sentences. Meanwhile, the prison system itself was failing to keep hold of dangerous offenders—in some cases accidentally releasing them and losing track of them altogether.

We were also concerned about the implications of the Government’s proposals for the early release of offenders convicted of extremely serious crimes, including those discussed today. Ministers in both Houses reassured us that the most serious offenders would be exempt from these measures, which is clearly not the case. That is why the Liberal Democrats have written to the Justice Secretary calling for child sexual offenders, including those convicted of offences connected to grooming gangs, to be exempt from the new early release provisions in the Sentencing Act.

The Government have promised the biggest expansion in prison places since the Victorian era, and have delivered on part of that promise by increasing capacity. That new provision should now be used to ensure that child sex offenders serve the same proportion of their sentence as they did previously, giving victims the reassurance that their perpetrators will remain in prison for the period that they were led to expect at sentencing.

We spend the equivalent of just two weeks’ welfare spending on the entire justice budget. That covers our courts, our prisons and the Probation Service. That lack of seriousness is why the justice system often lurches from crisis to crisis—that is a plague on all our houses—but for the victims and those in the Gallery today, a functioning justice system is everything. It is the difference between being able to move on with their lives and being forever traumatised by a system that fails them.

Will the Minister therefore set out how many prisoners currently in the prison estate have been convicted of child sexual offences, including offences connected to child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs? If there is sufficient capacity in the prison estate to exempt those offenders from the early release scheme, will he do so? Finally, what measures will this Government bring forward to restore confidence among all victims, including those who never came forward to report abuse or who were afraid to do so because they feared that they would not be believed? As a whole House, we have to do better.

It is right first to acknowledge the condition of our prison estate, the issues with capacity and the impact it all has overall on our criminal justice system. I associate myself with the Justice Minister’s comments on all of that from earlier.

I want to say early on in my contribution that I will not get involved in a political tit-for-tat on who did what or who did not do something when they were in power. This is far too serious an issue for people, and to sink to political point scoring leaves a bad taste in my mouth and does no one any good whatsoever. People convicted of sexual abuse against an adult or child, of rape, of grooming or of the attempt, conspiracy or incitement of offences should not be allowed early release from prison. That is not a left-wing or right-wing political debate; it is what is just and right for survivors.

Looking closer to home in my constituency, the statistics in Clackmannanshire show that it is the most dangerous place in Scotland for women and young girls to grow up in. I have been fortunate enough to visit support groups and mental health organisations and to meet volunteers in my constituency. I have heard from women and also from men who have survived rape, sexual abuse and other indescribable things. They may be at home watching this debate, and they and the people in the Gallery will be looking at the discourse in this debate. What should be at the front of all our contributions is the welfare of survivors, because I have heard from survivors, and many tell me that they feel like an afterthought when it comes to receiving justice. It is not right that they should live in fear and terror that the person who committed the offence could be released early. Survivors must matter above all else. Convicted sex offenders should serve the entirety of their sentence, and I urge the Government to adopt that and reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said in her earlier intervention.

Disraeli, the great Conservative Prime Minister, said:

“Justice is truth in action.”—[Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 11 February 1851; Vol. 114, c. 412.]

When criminal justice deviates from what the public see as the truth, the faith in its delivery is undermined. People want to see that justice is done and seen to be done, and that punishments for wickedness are dealt with appropriately. I take a different view from the Minister about the character of a retributive approach to criminal justice, as I do think that retribution is an important part of satisfying a legitimate public thirst for appropriateness—that is to say, when something awful is done, people expect the person responsible for that horror to be treated accordingly. They do not take the view, which has prevailed for successive decades affecting all kinds of Governments, that we should, in the first place, treat the criminal as though suffering from an illness. The treatmentist approach has dominated thinking on criminal justice for most of my lifetime is out of tune with popular sentiment.

The truth is that crime is not an illness to be treated; it is a perverse choice by those seeking to gain from it. That might be financial or, in the case of sexual crime, about lust. When we speak of wickedness, let us be straightforward: these kinds of instincts have been endemic in humankind since we fell from the state of grace, so we should not assume that people are not capable of the worst horrors—all of human history shows that they are. When that occurs, people expect those who exercise power to deal with it emphatically, without fear or favour.

We need a criminal justice system that defends the innocent and punishes the guilty, and I make no apologies in making a case for punishment. People should be punished when they do awful, wicked things, so I want to see more people locked up for much longer. I do not think I am out of tune with my constituents, because I think they would say exactly the same.

What we actually have is public policy that is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. We are seeing people sentenced and, as though that sentence is meaningless, then serving half of it. What is the purpose of a judge agreeing a sentence when the victims of the crime know that the person responsible for it will only serve half the time that the judge insists is necessary for punishment to be done?

Early release will not just affect minor criminals; we have heard from Members across the Chamber that it will be applied to people of all types. When my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked for clarification about numbers, answer was there none. We do not know how many of those who will be released remarkably early are likely to pose a considerable danger to my constituents, the Minister’s and my right hon. Friend’s. I was not generous but accurate in describing the Minister as a decent man, and I think the least he owes us is, before the debate concludes—he can get a message sent to him from on high, by which I mean the Box over there, not from God—to be precise about the number of people in each of the categories that have been described today who will be released early. How many people convicted of manslaughter, how many child sexual offenders and how many rapists will now be on the streets as a result of this policy?

The Minister has come to the House and said, “This is a matter of practicality because there are insufficient prison places to hold all those there.” We know that there are two reasons for that beyond the desire to lock people up. One is the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, so let us have some clarity about the number of those who are being deported. Is the number increasing dramatically, and if not, what are the impediments to those offenders returning to their country of origin?

Secondly, there are large numbers of prisoners on remand because the throughput of the courts is insufficient. How many people are on remand? How long have they been in prison? What steps will the Government take to improve the throughput in our court system that allows fewer of those people to be clogging up our prisons? We have to assume that some of them are innocent; not everyone who is on remand will later be found guilty, so there may be innocent people in prison, but we are going to let guilty people—we know they are guilty, because they have already been sentenced—free. That seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I am always happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; he is speaking very eloquently. The British people believe in a simple principle: if you do the crime, you should do the time. We in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, have witnessed the early release of prisoners under the Good Friday agreement, the impact that it has on victims and the retraumatisation of victims. I agree with his point totally. When we speak about prison capacity, would we not all agree that the airport is where foreign nationals should be, not the high street, which will retraumatise victims?

Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has brought both insight and character to our considerations. She has been consistent in raising this issue in the House. From the experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, we know the effects of early release: many of the people released early will go on to commit other crimes. The figures are really quite shocking. Official data shows that there were 870 notifications of serious further offences committed by released prisoners in 2024-25, including 56 murders and 107 rapes.

When, from time to time, I make the case for capital punishment as a sentence available for the worst possible crimes, I am told that we could not possibly have that because we might make mistakes. However, we know that many people who have committed murder and subsequently been released have murdered again. Some of the people we are about to release will commit awful, horrible crimes. Not only will their victims be traumatised by fear, but crimes are almost bound to be committed by those people, in reality, notwithstanding the efforts of the Probation Service and the police, and that will be on the Minister’s head—I do not think he wants that, for he could not possibly defend it to his constituents. I do not think that that any Member of the House would be comfortable with the idea that a decision taken here might have that effect.

I implore the Minister, as I did earlier, to speak to the shadow Minister to see if the House can come together to find a solution to the problem. I know it is not straightforward, and that other Governments have wrestled with it. None the less, this issue surely stretches beyond the party divide, and is one that we can all use our endeavours and our imagination to try to solve.

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that this House is at its best when we put party politics aside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said? We owe it to all our constituents and to the country as a whole to come together and find a solution to this problem; that is not beyond the wit of man, and is within the scope of this House.

The hon. Lady is right. If you will allow me to digress for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am often asked by constituents—I imagine other hon. Members are asked the same question—“How on earth do you get on with people on the other side of the House?” I respond by saying that I get on with them just as well as I do with the people on my side when we come together to fight a battle, take up a campaign, or defend a cause that we believe is right and good. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No Government get everything right. Governments make mistakes, as indeed do parties, and when we are big enough to acknowledge that publicly, we grow in respect; we are not diminished by it. The hon. Lady has grown today by her suggestion, and I hope that the Minister, too, will grow when he accepts it.

We will be in a bizarre situation: the House will come together and express an unopposed view on what we should do about this issue, but before we have even done that, the Minister has indicated at the Dispatch Box that that view is immaterial and will not make a difference.

Before I deal with that directly, may I say that in championing the interests of victims, my hon. Friend has done the Conservatives and the whole House proud? He has a remarkable record of standing up for victims, having met victims’ groups and formed a connection with them that has rightly encouraged their trust. I always take his interventions on this subject seriously. He is right that there is space and an opportunity to have a mature discussion, not about where we have come from—that is pointless, as was said earlier—but about where we go from here. There are ways in which we could address the matter that would avoid our letting the most dangerous criminals on to the streets.

If this is an issue of practicalities, as we have heard, can we not assume that there might be common ground on the idea of withdrawing visas from those countries that will not take back their offenders? That would lessen the pressure to release as many prisoners as are projected to be released.

My right hon. Friend is right. The figures are stark: one in eight prisoners is a foreign national taking up valuable prison space. There are 10,376 foreign national criminals in our prisons today, which represents around 12% of the total prison population, and they cost almost £650 million a year. Absolutely, we should address the issue that my right hon. Friend raises; we should look at those countries that will not take back offenders, and at how obstacles might be overcome. That would relieve pressure on prison space and perhaps provide a way for the Government to confirm that they will not let violent offenders, child groomers and sexual offenders on to our streets.

I am sorry to labour this point, but given the consensus that I think there is in the House this afternoon, and in the light of what the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said, let me say this. By my reckoning, we have five working days, or a maximum of six, before the summer recess, and some potentially dangerous people are likely to be released in September. We can use the time that we have, and can work with the Government to get whatever is necessary on the statute book to address this issue in the short term, while we deal with the longer-term issue. Am I right?

My right hon. Friend is right. We are perfectly entitled to make that request of Government, as he has done in eloquent terms. It seems to me that the plan to release up to 6,000 criminals in September needs to be stalled, so that we can think again. There is a good argument for removing sex offenders, rapists, those guilty of manslaughter and those involved in grooming children from the list of those to be released. That is the least that could be done, and the opportunity is there to do it. If I may say so, the fact that a Member as senior as my right hon. Friend has made that suggestion should in itself carry significant weight.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Government put forward their proposals, they said that the most serious and heinous crimes would not be affected by the scheme? The reason we are in this position is that statements made at the Dispatch Box were, to put it mildly, inaccurate. In fact, very serious and heinous criminals will be released in September unless, as he suggests, the scheme is paused, and paused it should be.

As my hon. Friend will know, the Sentencing Act facilitated early release. Did we not ask then for clarity about what that meant, in the terms that he describes? What kind of criminals would be released? What damage might they do? What assessment had been made of the risk of this policy? It is not as if the Government were not pressed on all those things, but there has been a remarkable lack of clarity—for example, the Prime Minister said, “It is impossible to say who will be released, where and when.” Frankly, you cannot get less clarity than that, can you, Madam Deputy Speaker?

We need to know that more innocent people will not be put at risk. The very least we should do is deal with the issue of serious sexual offenders and, in particular, those responsible for abusing children. I make no apology for quoting particular cases. Shabir Ahmed, the Pakistani ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, was freed despite warnings that he was “unsafe” to be released into the community. He was jailed for 22 years for 30 child rape offences. The parole documents that reveal that he was deemed unsafe for release into the community include his belief that it was

“acceptable to sexually abuse children”.

That is a chilling thought, and I know that decent people across this House, and across this country, will be shocked by it.

A woman groomed and raped as a child by a friend of her family has appealed to the Government to abandon their plans to free him nearly two years early. Jade Belgrove waived her anonymity to describe the Government’s early release scheme as an “absolute disgrace”. Her case highlights that women and children are at risk from rapists and sex offenders who are freed early. She was raped aged 14. She deserves justice, if justice is indeed “truth in action”, as Disraeli said.

I differ from the Minister on the purpose of criminal justice. I believe that the treatmentist perspective that has dominated for a very long time needs to be challenged; I believe that just retribution should be at the core of how we deal with the wickedness that I have outlined. However, let us put all of that to one side. Those are issues of principle, and although there may be differences of principle between us, the Minister did not come to the Chamber to advocate for a principle. He did not say, “We are doing this because of some high-minded view about how we should deal with crime”; he said, “We are doing this because we can do nothing else—because of practicalities.” Therefore, as we are dealing with practicalities, let us look at what can be done to fix the problem, and let us do so early, so as to find a solution to it before September.

In doing so, let us broadcast a message from this House today that people need not walk in fear because dangerous people are going to be released on to the streets of their village, town or city; Parliament has said that that cannot be so. If we were to do that, public faith in Parliament would be a little stronger, a little restored. That is the request that I make of the Minister, because I stand by and for the people, having been chosen by the people to do so.

As we all contribute to this debate, we must remember who is at the heart of it: those victims and survivors who, let us be honest, have seen politicians come in and out of their life ever since those heinous crimes were first reported—since they first experienced the darkest of moments. Politicians have been trying to get to solutions, but it was only two weeks ago that we heard that the Bradford district and Keighley would finally form part of the national grooming gangs inquiry, and we are still debating the issue at the heart of this, which is the trust between victims and survivors and a state that continues to let them down. That includes national Government, of course, but also local government, and all those organisations that have safeguarding responsibilities.

For decades, many of those victims and survivors have fought hard for accountability and justice, and to be heard by the state. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—produced 22 solid recommendations, but neither the previous Government nor, to date, this Labour Government have implemented all those recommendations. I simply ask the Minister: why not? That feeds into the issue of trust.

A constituent of mine is an official, a civil servant who works in support of the IICSA. Having had emotional interviews with so many victims of the crimes that we are discussing today, he cannot fathom why Governments have not yet fully implemented those recommendations. Does the hon. Gentleman share that frustration?

I absolutely do share that frustration. If we are serious about addressing one of the biggest national scandals that the country has ever faced, we surely cannot have a scenario in which Professor Alexis Jay produces a detailed report—having done a huge amount of outreach in dealing with those who have experienced child sexual abuse—only for the state to fail in its responsibility to enact its recommendations. I have long called for all those recommendations to be implemented in full. There was a gap during which gang rapes of victims and survivors who had experienced child sexual abuse were not looked at properly. Baroness Casey then produced a detailed report, which came before Parliament in June 2025, recommending a national inquiry, but more than 18 months later, we are still in the same position.

We have had the announcement that Bradford district and Keighley will be investigated in that inquiry, alongside London, but where else are those victims and survivors across the country being let down? This is an important point, because if we are not delivering accountability and justice through an inquiry that now has three years before reporting back to the Government, we are not dealing with the crux of the issue of re-establishing trust between those who have been let down by the state and those in whom that trust needs to be re-established.

That brings me to the very heart of the issue. The Government are now considering releasing prisoners early—perpetrators who have carried out some of the most horrendous crimes that anyone in the country could have imagined. Dual nationals, for instance, have been released early. Last year in Keighley, eight men were convicted of carrying out gang rape, two of whom had dual nationality, and two of whom were sentenced in their absence from court and are now living a life of freedom in Pakistan. Where they are living is common knowledge, but they have escaped justice because the courts did not have the ability, or rather the common sense, to remove their passports during the trial and the sentencing. That is a disgrace, and it only builds on the scenario that the state is not delivering for those victims and survivors.

My hon. Friend has done a heroic job in highlighting the perennial problem in his area and beyond it. The reluctance to acknowledge that these grooming gangs were run largely by men of Pakistani origin is exacerbated when those very people, once caught and convicted, are released early. The lack of faith that was bound to come from that reluctance will now be exaggerated—doubled—when these people are let out of prison, where they ought to stay, probably forever.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In a moment or two, I will read out some descriptions of the feelings, and the frustrations, of the many victims and survivors who are hugely anxious and fearful that their perpetrators will be released early, because the sentences that are being given to those perpetrators are nowhere near long enough. Many of those victims and survivors are having to see sentences served concurrently, which is exactly what happened in the case of perpetrators of gang rape in my constituency decades ago. I had to challenge the Attorney General to call in those cases under the undue leniency scheme so that the sentences could be longer.

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that the sentence should be life. Those who carry out these heinous crimes should not face weak sentences of up to six or eight years—sometimes much less than that.

The fact that victims and survivors receive a standardised letter—it is not personalised at all—that makes them fearful that their perpetrators may be released on to the streets early brings shame on this Government. I have read those letters. The first paragraph says:

“These changes have been introduced with the aim of improving the effectiveness of sentencing and better managing offenders in the community.”

What absolute cold-heartedness! It is an outrage that the Government are releasing that narrative to victims and survivors. Who on earth signed off the letters that have gone out to survivors who are deeply worried about those perpetrators?

I will take some time to read out to the House how some of those victims and survivors are feeling. I was lucky enough to meet those who are up in the Gallery earlier today. I put on the record my admiration for both Amy Clowrey and David Greenwood from Switalskis, who have worked for decades with victims and survivors from Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and across the wider Bradford district, to ensure justice is delivered.

Sarah Wilson was just 11 years old when her exploitation began in Rotherham. She was a little girl forced to undergo a virginity test, and her innocence was stolen from her on the same day. For years she was raped and trafficked up and down the country by countless men. For 11 years she fought long and hard for the little girl she once was, and over two years she endured three criminal trials under Operation Stovewood. Those trials have now resulted in 125 years of justice against seven men. But how does that make Sarah feel? She says:

“I feel that all my hard work fighting for that little girl I used to be has been thrown back in my face like it was all for nothing. It seems like they have had a huge slap on the wrist and are allowed back out to reoffend. I’m scared that in a couple of years I could potentially see some of my perpetrators back on the same streets they abused me on. I’m scared of the repercussions. These are some of the most dangerous to walk our streets.”

Those are Sarah’s words after receiving one of these letters. I will continue to read this out, because it is important that the Minister, the Government and the Justice Secretary understand the anxiety that this has caused.

Erin—not her real name—was exposed to child exploitation in the Kirklees area between the ages of 12 and 21. She was subjected to abuse by older Asian—Pakistani—men, many of whom were notorious criminals involved in drugs. A number of the perpetrators are now serving lengthy sentences after Erin assisted the police in recent operations. How does receiving one of these letters from the Government make her feel? She says:

“I am writing in devastation and fear regarding the Government’s plan for the early release of prisoners. I am a survivor of severe, long-term abuse. I spent years of my life bravely fighting through the legal system to bring the men who harmed me to trial. The justice system had already failed me by giving them prison sentences that were shorter than the time I spent fighting them in court. Before that, the systems that were meant to protect me, including social services and the police, failed me too.

Now I feel as though I am being punished and terrified all over again. Hearing that the men who abused me may be released early has completely broken my sense of safety. My family and I still receive threats from these men and their families to this day.”

Early release would be a disaster for her, and I hope the Minister will respond to each and every one of the points I read out.

The name Fiona Goddard is very familiar to this House. She first contacted me when I was elected back in December 2019, in the hope she might find someone willing to fight her corner. I have huge admiration for Fiona. At the age of 13, she was taken into care by Bradford council. She was initially placed at Edgefield children’s home, where she was first exposed to child sexual exploitation. She continued to go missing on a regular basis. Fiona fell victim to a campaign—a campaign—of rape and sexual assault over five years. She believes that up to 100 men were involved. Following a criminal trial in 2019, under Operation Dalesway, nine men were convicted of crimes relating to sexual exploitation.

How does Fiona feel as a result of receiving this letter about how, under this Government, the perpetrators could be released early? She says:

“Since finding out that some of my abusers may be released from prison, my mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly. I no longer feel able to keep myself and my family safe. I have been trying to raise money so that I can move out of the area, because the thought of them being back on the streets… is terrifying.

I always knew that these men would be released one day, but I believed I had more time to rebuild my life and prepare myself for that reality”,

after those convictions. She went on:

“Finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I have barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep, and when I do, I do not feel rested. This news has affected me so deeply that my physical health has also suffered, resulting in hospital admissions.”

That is the result of this letter from the Government. Who, I ask the Minister, signed off these letters?

Jessica was exposed to child sexual abuse from the age of 12 in Batley, Dewsbury. She was sexually abused by over 50 men in this period. Between the ages of 12 and 16, Jessica was introduced to other men by a girl known to the police, who was older than her. In 2022, as part of Operation Tourway, her perpetrators were finally convicted. How did it make Jessica feel to receive one of these letters from the Government? She said:

“It’s made me feel worthless all over again and like my safety does not matter at all. These people are going to be released back into the town and community where I live. For my safety I think I will have to move.”

She had always known that one day they would be released, but she did not think it would come this soon. She went on:

“It’s just so unfair that they’re not even going to serve the sentence that was handed to them”.

She knew that the sentences given were far too short in the first place. She says:

“When I received the letter, I just started crying. I am now only two years out of court and my case took eight years to get to court. They might not even serve eight years”,

as a result of the reassessment by the Government. She just cannot believe that two years after going to court, she now has to go through the trauma of the perpetrators being released early, which she says is “soul-crushing”.

Carly was 12 when she became involved with a group of Asian men who sexually abused and exploited her. Her abuse continued throughout 2004 to 2011. As part of Operation Tendersea, Carly gave evidence at the trial in late 2018 that secured convictions against three of the men. As a result of receiving one of these letters, she says:

“I am extremely disappointed…that my perpetrators and abusers will only be serving 33% of their sentences, so they are going to be released as early as September. It is just another kick in the teeth.”

She feels incredibly disappointed that what little justice they had been given has been taken away. She says:

“We cannot let people who have abused children for years and decades onto the streets. How is it safe? It is not safe for our children, and it’s not safe for the next generation of children. You are just releasing them back onto the streets for them to commit further offences, with a probation system that is fully broken.”

There are three more quotes that I will read out, and I will not apologise for doing so, because these girls have faced the most horrendous crimes. Jade was the victim of rape aged 14, and waived anonymity to describe the Government’s early release scheme as “an absolute disgrace” that put women and children at risk from scores of rapists and sex offenders freed prematurely. She said that the two rapes left her with a “life sentence”, while the rapist who groomed her will just get a slap on the wrist. Recalling the moment that she read and digested the content of the letter, she said:

“I felt sick, to be honest. I felt like my rapist was being protected again”—

protected by the state—

“It’s an absolute disgrace they can make victims feel back to being unheard and vulnerable. The fear all comes back because you know they’re going to be out so much sooner than you had in your head originally.”

Other than murder, Jade thinks that these are some of the worst crimes that should get the most severe sentences. She continues:

“It’s put such a fire in my belly because it scares me so much that so many predators and paedophiles are getting out, which scares me for my children’s future because they’re just back on the street again.”

That is as a result of this Government.

Angela was first raped by her stepfather when she was just eight years old. She tried to tell people but was ignored by school support staff and social services. The abuse continued until she was 15, when she refused to go home from school until the police got involved. She suffers from long-term post-traumatic stress disorder and hearing loss in both ears from repeated head trauma. This was her response on receiving the letter:

“It took three years for me to get justice and I was let down repeatedly by adults who should have been protecting me. My abuser was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison of which he has only served six. The email received”—

it was an email, not even a letter, that came from the Ministry of Justice—

“was for all intents and purposes the government saying they do not care about the safety of women and children. I feel completely let down and made to feel like my safety and that of other victims isn’t valued. This decision is an insult to women and the children we were who had to endure such violence. We deserve justice, I deserve to have time to put my life together without fear. I should be enjoying my degree and being in my twenties, having the normal stresses of a young woman. Instead I am having to fight for myself all over again. This decision is so obviously wrong that it amazes me it was even a discussion in the first place. It undermines everything we as victims went through.”

Finally, I will read a quote from Charlotte:

“From the age of eight years old until I was 13, I was raped and beaten by my older brother. In February 2025, he was arrested and charged with 20 sexual offences. In June of 2025, he pleaded guilty to nine out of the 20 charges and received a sentence of five years”—

just five years.

“In an email breakdown of his sentence from the judge, it shows all the reductions he got to his sentence for different factors, such as his age and admitting part of what he did. At no point was there an increase for my age or my pain”—

with Charlotte being so young.

“His sentence went from 21 years down to 5, of which he was supposed to serve two thirds…

My children are just starting to get their happy mum back after spending so long scared and broken. My life was ruined at just age 8. I spent 21 years living in fear and embarrassment and questioning why me.”

She said that

“5 years was not long enough and him being able to walk free after a year and a half”

will be hugely detrimental to the rest of her life. Unfortunately, Charlotte now needs medication just to be able to function.

These are the exact words of many of the victims and survivors who have received these letters, and there will be many, many more across the country. Why on earth will the Government not use the time remaining in this place before recess to bring forward emergency legislation to counteract the recommendations included in the Sentencing Act 2026, put a stop to this issue and reassure the many victims and survivors who are sat up in the Gallery right now and across the country that those perpetrators will not be released early?

I thank my hon. Friend for yet another powerful contribution on this issue. He is an incredibly powerful advocate for the victims of these heinous crimes. I pay tribute to the victims and survivors and thank him for his work. As he is rightly saying, and as our right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has also said, there is time now to do something. There is consensus across the House today for something to be done to stop these people being released early and to save the survivors and victims from the impacts on their physical and mental health, and on their safety, that my hon. Friend has articulated. Does he agree that the Government should listen to the voice of the House and to the voices of survivors and act now?

I absolutely agree. The reality is that this should not be political—this is about the difference between right and wrong. I have never understood why those in positions of responsibility, be it at a national or local level, would stand in the way and actually try to stop justice and accountability. We have unfortunately all seen that in our own local areas. I have seen it in my own area in West Yorkshire, where, as a matter of fact, the previous leader of Bradford council blocked the attempt to get an inquiry into the Bradford district, and the Mayor of West Yorkshire did not want an inquiry to focus on West Yorkshire. They all changed their minds following the release of the Casey review in 2025 and are now advocating for complete justice and accountability to follow—quite rightly. However, the point is that people in positions of responsibility should not have to be dragged to the position of advocating the difference between right and wrong.

That is why I plead with the Government and the Minister to do the right thing, which I am sure she could do right now, in summing up today’s debate: reassure the victims and survivors that the letter that was sent out was wrong, that it should not have been signed off, and that it should not have created the huge levels of anxiety, fear and concern that the victims and survivors have faced. I simply ask the Minister to do the right thing when she sums up at the Dispatch Box.

That brings me back to my initial point: this is about trust. The reality is that many of us fought hard to get that national inquiry and to get the attention on to our local areas. However, if victims and survivors do not trust the state to be on their side and feel that their perpetrators are going to be released early, why on earth would they come forward and contribute to the national grooming gangs inquiry? With the statutory inquiry into group child sexual exploitation beginning imminently, it is vital that it is not undermined by victims being afraid to speak out against their abusers for fear of unduly lenient or reduced sentences or, indeed, their perpetrators being released early.

The reality is that cases such as Fiona’s are a direct consequence of the decisions taken by this Government and this Justice Secretary. They cannot seriously think that the best way to manage resources is to allow dangerous rapists and abusers back on to the streets before justice is served.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What is she doing to provide reassurance to those victims and survivors who have rightly raised their concerns? How is she categorising “dangerous offenders”? That question has been raised by many Members, but so far the Government have been unable to answer it. How many of these rapists, paedophiles and those who have carried out some of the most heinous crimes are going to be realised? Will the Minister confirm to Sarah, Erin, Fiona, Jessica, Carly, Jade, Angela and Charlotte, and the many other victims and survivors who have received these letters, that their perpetrators will not be released as a result of the Government sending out these ridiculous, cold-hearted letters?

It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), whose incredibly powerful speech gave voice to the victims and the impact that the horrific abuse has had on them. He has led on this issue consistently in this House, and his words should carry incredible weight.

Today we are debating what should be an uncontroversial motion: to exclude from the Government’s automatic early release scheme anyone convicted of a serious offence against a child or an adult, including rape, and anyone convicted of attempted conspiracy or incitement to commit such offences. By any definition, those are some of the most serious crimes. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone would oppose the common-sense position that sex offenders should not benefit from the Government’s early release scheme.

Sadly, it has been necessary to bring forward this motion, because Labour Members and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords voted down our amendments to the Sentencing Act that would have done precisely that: prevent the early release of such offenders. Now it seems that there will not be a vote and our motion will simply be accepted. That is very welcome if it reflects a shift in policy, but the Minister who opened the debate was not clear whether he accepted that shift in policy or was simply making a tactical retreat on a vote that the Government knew they would lose. He repeatedly set out the rationale for the changes, as he had done earlier today to the media.

The urgency is clear. Thousands of victims have received letters—my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley spoke about the offensive nature of those letters and their dreadful impact on victims—telling them that in September the first wave of criminals will be released. Others will not yet have been informed. The Minister once again failed to give the basic figure for the number of sex offenders who will be released under the provisions. Surely he must know—it is his job to know—and he should be honest and up front with the House.

We can already picture the unedifying scenes of bottles of champagne being opened at the prison gates when these offenders are released. Meanwhile, the survivors of their crimes will—as they told every Member of this House in the letter to which the shadow Justice Secretary has referred—be feeling scared, heartbroken and angry that their perpetrators are not facing justice.

The Minister once again rolled out the Aunt Sally argument that without these measures the justice system would have fallen over, but it is now two years since the general election; two years in which the Government have chosen to let people out early rather than take action on prison places. There are 16,000 people on remand in our prisons, yet the Government are failing to ensure that our courts are used to the maximum capacity.Today, for example, 14% of the Crown courts are not sitting. Where is the commissioning of emergency prison capacity? Where is the greater use of the rapid deployment cells that the previous Government rolled out, including at HMP Norwich in my county? Where is the urgency? That should be a national priority.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in tackling the Crown court backlog, the Government were far too slow in uncapping the maximum number of sitting days for Crown court judges and that they are also wasting a great deal of time and effort in trying to curtail the right to jury trials, which will have no appreciable effect on the Crown court backlog? That is in fact wasting parliamentary time and civil service time on a reform that we know the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will most probably junk.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Lady Chief Justice appeared before parliamentary Committees to tell MPs that she could have more sitting days if only the Government would produce, I think, about £20 million of funding—a fairly minimal amount in the scheme of the £1.3 trillion that the Government spend every year—rather than go down the route of removing people’s right to jury trials in certain cases.

The prison places coming online are those commissioned by the last Government. Yes, I accept that we should have commissioned more, but the Minister has confirmed in parliamentary answers that no new prisons have been planned or approved by this Government since the general election. Politics is about choices, and Ministers have chosen early release and softer sentencing rather than ensuring public protection and punishment. That is despite Ministers saying that the most serious and violent offenders would be excluded from this change. Anyone who has listened to the testimonies shared with the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley could not consider that they do not represent the most serious and violent offenders.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It would be straightforward for the Government to issue a statement—a written statement would do, actually—on the back of this debate simply excluding the kinds of offenders that have been highlighted by a variety of hon. Members, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). When the Minister winds up, she might confirm that the Government intend to issue such a statement, and we could then move on.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It looked like Labour MPs were set to be whipped against this motion to stop the early release of sex offenders who had committed crimes against children. When I was first elected to this House, I had to explain to my Whip and the Minister in post that I would not support a measure to bring forward an early release scheme for offenders—I expect that many of my newly elected colleagues did the same—and that measure was withdrawn.

While MPs may not be whipped to vote against the motion, and there seems to be common cause from Government Members in the Chamber, we heard nothing in opening from the Minister, who spoke but failed to address the next steps. There might be some grounds for optimism as apparently the right hon. Member for Makerfield is looking at how to tighten the scheme to exclude such offenders, but if that change is to happen, the legislation needs to come forward now.

We know that the new Prime Minister will not be in post until we have risen for the summer recess. Tomorrow and Thursday, we will have general debates in the House. The motion—it looks like it will pass without a Division—calls on the Government to bring forward legislation immediately, so if the Government are accept the motion, what is their plan? Will they bring forward commencement regulations to delay implementation, as set out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy)? Will they table emergency legislation tomorrow, Thursday or next week? We had no response on that from the Minister, which I found deeply disappointing.

Those who were in the Gallery earlier and those victims across the country deserve answers today on what the Government will do. By passing the motion, we can begin the process to prevent those guilty of rape or grooming from being released early, we can provide reassurance to victims that we put their interests first, and we can show that public protection is our priority.

The Scottish Government famously take no lessons from anyone, but perhaps in sentencing we might learn something from them, because they are in the grip of soft-touch-justice fever. There is a warning from Scotland about rapists and sex offenders, because rapists there will be set free more than two years early under the latest expansion of that soft-touch-justice approach, as the Scottish Government fail to grip the prison places crisis. The average jail time served by people who are guilty of rape will be reduced by more than two years and four months as a result of Scottish National party proposals to automatically release long-term prisoners after only two thirds of their sentence.

Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Alev Taylor said:

“Organisations like ours have fought hard to maintain the exemption of rape and sexual offenders from early release schemes, both to ensure the safety of survivors and to maintain overall confidence in the justice system.”

What a searing indictment, from someone who has seen the aftermath of one of the most awful crimes that can be committed: the violation of a person’s body, which leaves physical scars and lifelong mental scars.

I have visited HMP Dumfries, where the SNP’s former chief executive Peter Murrell, estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is beginning a five-year-and-three-month sentence for embezzling £400,000 from his party and, it is suspected, from the public purse. I do not envy him, despite headlines about the jail being “cushy”. The staff there struggle with a lack of resources in a Victorian-era prison ill-suited to the modern world. Governor Andrew Hunstone made it clear to me that the loss of liberty is a genuine and serious punishment in itself, and that is the core point of justice. Loss of liberty is what serious criminals rightly face. The public know that simple truth, and legislators should not be lily-livered about it.

Politicians salami-slicing sentences is a betrayal. It is a betrayal first and foremost of victims. It is a signal of, “Yes, you have suffered, but we politicians are awfully fixated on prison numbers.” It is a betrayal of the police who work so diligently and so hard to bring criminals to justice. It is a betrayal of the courts themselves, as it ties the hands of those who pass sentences, effectively neutering them. It is also a betrayal of the public, because justice delayed is justice denied, but so too is justice watered down.

Today we televise sentencing hearings while simultaneously pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, because what may sound like a hefty sentence is automatically subject to a craven rolling back or to early release. I am all for rehabilitation, and I am all for helping people who have served prison time getting back into society, but we must all be about the victims. Our constituents want custodial sentences to be real, not illusions. The public know that custodial sentences are about punishment, not revenge. They also know the deterrent effect. Legislators who are too queasy to accept that should get out of the way. A well-regulated and just society must have prisons, no matter how many so-called progressive politicians would will them away. Prison works. We should use it, and sentences should be served in full.

As Members of Parliament, we often go around our constituencies and talk to many of our constituents across the political spectrum, and the thing I always say is that the people who come to this House—not that we do not get things wrong, and not that we do not disagree—are doing so because they want to make a real difference to people’s lives. They want to make an impact. While we may sometimes disagree about how that is to be achieved, there are good intentions right across the political spectrum.

When we face a situation such as the one we face today, it becomes so much more important that we do not act in a party political manner, but in a way that is in the best interests of those who have been hurt the most. We have all witnessed it. Every single one of us has seen constituents who have been impacted by the 7,000 letters that went out, informing them that the people who have done them harm will be released early. I cannot imagine how crushing that must be.

This is not something that we have to sit idly by and just accept; it is something that we can genuinely change. The statistics have already been covered by so many others, but I must say that there is something fundamentally wrong when 62% of rapists and 83% of child groomers will be let off early. This is not about party politics; this is just about good judgment and doing the right thing.

I understand that the Minister has been sent out by her absentee boss to make the argument. I know, because we have all been in that situation when we have been in ministerial office, where we are sometimes sent out to make arguments we do not feel comfortable with or are not necessarily happy making. I urge the Minister not to ignore the victims and the people who have been impacted by this legislation, but to take action. She can utter mild and inconsequential words at the Dispatch Box, but this means that victims are going to spend not just another day and not just another week, but multiple weeks, not knowing what is going to happen. As we go into summer recess, it will be week upon week without clarity, and that will erode their confidence and make them worry about the person who has done them so much harm. I urge the Minister to do what is right by the victims, against what is right by her absentee boss.

There are times in this place when a combination of popular sentiment and the power of argument become overwhelming. I have seen it happen whoever has been in government. At that point, it is important for Governments to change tack and, as I said earlier, Governments grow when they do so. It seems to me that those two things have been evident beyond doubt in this short debate. Will my right hon. Friend echo those calls made earlier to implore the Government to take a step back, think again and act quickly?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have a moment of what I believe is cross-party unity, because behind the Minister, I believe that those on the Back Benches of the Labour party do not want the Government to go down this course. On the Opposition Benches, we do not want the Government to go down this course. We want to make sure that there is a solution that supports and protects victims—the people who Ministers said would be protected but who have not been as a result of the measures in the Sentencing Act.

It is important to act. As has already been pointed out, there are acres of legislative time and opportunities. It is not as if the general debates that are pencilled in, as worthy, important and valuable as they are, could not be moved to facilitate the legislation and the votes in this House to get this corrected. I would say to the Ministers that they must not sit there passively acting as a shield for their absentee Secretary of State, who does not seem to care or be interested in the victims who are being impacted by his legislation—not our legislation, but his.

Action is required, and if Ministers sit there and do not take the action that is required, they will be as guilty as the Secretary of State is for bringing such flawed legislation to the Floor of this House in the first place. Do not sit by as victims suffer. Do not sit by as people worry, stress and fear about what will happen to them in the weeks ahead, while the Labour party is going through internal trauma and is not providing a clear and direct way to help these victims. I implore the Minister to be bold, to act and to show some leadership, which has been completely absent from the Secretary of State.

In the wind-ups, I call the shadow Minister.

It is a pleasure to close this crucial Opposition day debate, and I thank all Members who have taken part for their thoughtful contributions. Before I say anything else, I want to acknowledge the people I met earlier today, along with other MPs on a cross-party basis, and who were in the Public Gallery: Jade, Charlotte, Jessica, Sarah, Erin, Carly and Angela. I also want to mention someone who has not been mentioned today: Isabelle, whose daughter took her own life when she saw the perpetrator of her crimes released early under the ordinary early release schemes. I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for reading out all the victims’ words, and letting everybody hear exactly what they have said. That was really powerful. I also thank him for acknowledging the many people watching at home, who are not here. They include Fiona Goddard, who was one of the first people to speak out after receiving her letter.

Those people are often referred to as victims, and they are victims, but they are not just victims. Being a victim does not define them. They are people with voices that they want us to hear. They came to this debate because, at the very least, they want answers from the Government, and they want MPs to support them by taking different decisions that will put them, their experiences and their welfare first. I want to say to them directly: we hear you, and I hope that by the end of this debate, the Government will have followed suit and heard you too.

When the Minister responds, I hope we will finally get answers to some of our basic questions. This Government have had eight months to answer these questions. When are people being let out, and what offences have they committed? Those are basic things that we still do not know. Instead, the Government have had to write to thousands of victims, not with answers and information, but with just enough to make each of them worry deeply about what might happen, and about whether their perpetrator will be released early; they did not know whether, or when, that would happen. That has made things much, much worse.

Victim Support, which supports thousands of victims every year, has a number of questions that it thinks it is important for the Minister to respond to, and I would like to ask them now. It wants to know how people who are not eligible for the victim contact scheme, or who have chosen not to sign up to it, will be able to access information. Those people will hear these stories and read these things in the press, and will see them discussed in the Commons. Who can they approach to find out the answers to their questions? Do the Government know what proportion of victims have been reached and informed about possible changes to their case? Are the victim contact schemes set up to be contacted? How many people are raising this issue with them? What questions are the schemes being asked? What themes are emerging? What extra support are the Government offering victims, to help them back into support services to which they lost entitlement because of the length of time that has elapsed since the offences?

The Government have not been honest with the public about this policy from the very beginning, or with MPs—not just once, on a minor point of detail, but on the three promises that mattered most to every victim who received one of these letters. The first promise was on what the Government described, and still describe, as an “earned progression model”. That framing was designed to reassure. If release must be earned through demonstrated rehabilitation, surely the truly dangerous cannot simply walk out. That is what the public were told, but that is not what the Sentencing Act ensures. Members do not need to take my word for it; the Library briefing note on the Bill said in black and white that release under these provisions is automatic, unless the prisoner actively disqualifies themselves through serious misbehaviour in custody. That is not earned release in any way, shape or form. It is automatic release, which is a fundamentally different proposition. Ministers knew that, and they knew the difference when they chose that language. I said that in Committee on the Floor of the House and on consideration of Lords amendments in January. The Government had every opportunity to correct that, and they have chosen not to.

The second promise was that the most serious offenders would not be included in the scheme. The Lord Chancellor said that, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), repeated it throughout the passage of the Act. I asked him directly, in Committee, whether Labour MPs voting against our amendment to exclude certain offenders would be able to say to the survivors of child sex abuse that they had supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as being not among the most serious offences. There was no satisfactory answer from the Minister. The Minister has failed repeatedly, during the urgent question and during the debate today, to explain how it is possible for a Government to say that their release scheme excludes the most serious offenders, while including in it people guilty of offences such as rape, the rape of children and child grooming. That is for them to justify.

To make matters worse, the Government have now changed the wording they use, months after passing the Act. They now say that only “the most dangerous offenders” are out of the scheme. That is hardly any more of a justification. Do we really think that these offenders are not also dangerous? It is another example of this Government’s manipulation on this issue. That wording relates to the true exclusions—of those on extended determinate sentences, which are for perpetrators whom the judge feels are particularly dangerous. I told the Government during the Act’s passage that that did not exclude serious offenders, and they did not listen. Now they are using the right wording, so they are technically closer to being correct, but they are still deeply wrong in every way that matters.

The third promise, or the third way in which the Government rammed these changes through the House, was to pretend that the measures were a short-term fix to a short-term prison capacity crisis. They are not. There is no sunset clause in the Sentencing Act. This is not emergency legislation; it is a permanent change to the law. When the Act was passed, it did not set an end date. It does not state, “Once 14,000 new prison places are built, these provisions will lapse.” It is a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws that will be in place regardless of how many prison places are available. Victims, MPs and the public deserve to know that.

The Government made three promises—three fundamental misrepresentations of what they were doing and the implications of the Act. Those are three questions that the Government did not have an answer for when the Act passed, and still do not have answers for now. We are just weeks away from the start of the releases in September, and we still do not know how many criminals are being released and what offences they have committed.

I have been asking the Government about this for months. My freedom of information requests in March and April 2026 were refused, and my oral questions in March and May were deflected. I tabled a named-day question after the commencement order was laid in June. The deadline was missed; it was only with the intervention of Mr Speaker that we got a response, but it was not an answer. It did not give us the figures.

My hon. Friend had a very important UQ here in the Chamber, and Mr Speaker himself asked that Ministers respond to Members of Parliament when they make requests for information about their constituencies. I followed Mr Speaker’s guidance and tabled those questions to the Minister as named-day questions. None of those has been answered, and it has been quite a number of days since the named day passed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should address these points and answer these questions as quickly as possible?

Mr Speaker could not have been clearer about the reasonable expectations of Members of this House in relation to the early release of serious sexual offenders and others into their constituencies.

What did the Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley, say during the UQ? He said that the numbers were in the impact assessment. He repeated that twice, and he was absolutely wrong. I have read the impact assessment. Every Member who has read it will confirm that it does not contain the breakdown of offenders and their crimes that we asked for. What it contains is a description of a qualitative process of internal discussion between departmental officials to arrive at a broad estimate of the effect on the overall prison population. There is no table showing how many rapists or child groomers are going to be released. We know that is not just an omission because the Prisons Minister himself, Lord Timpson, said on “Channel 4 News” last week:

“It is impossible for us to say who will be released, where and when.”

“Impossible”—his word, not ours. He was asked again and again, but could not answer. The Minister at the Dispatch Box told Parliament that the numbers were available to us all. The Prisons Minister told Channel 4 that it was not possible to provide the numbers. Only one of them is right. What is the truth? I think that they actually do not know. I think the Ministry of Justice did not model the eligible cohort by offence type before passing the legislation. It pulled a lever of this magnitude, affecting potentially thousands of the most serious offenders in our prisons and their victims, and it did not even know what sort of vile criminals it would be letting out of prison early. That is a disgrace.

We are in this ridiculous scenario where after a huge, long fight, we now have an independent inquiry focusing on Bradford and Keighley for the national grooming gangs inquiry, yet as that process starts, perpetrators who undertook some of those most heinous crimes are being released early. There is therefore a risk that those victims and survivors across the Bradford district will be less willing to come forward and give evidence and contribute to the inquiry. Does that not concern my hon. Friend?

I can tell my hon. Friend that it is not just a risk; it is a reality. A number of the victims we met earlier said that they were speaking to people who wanted to come forward, and to speak and contribute to the inquiry, but they saw what was happening to those who had spoken up and who had an offender sent to prison, and who now see that the offender will be released even earlier. They ask, “Why would I risk these people being let out even earlier than they otherwise would have been?”

By coincidence, last night, BBC Three rebroadcast the three-part series about the online predator Alexander McCartney, who was caught when a victim reported him. It turned out that he had groomed 3,500 victims online around the world. In one case in America, he caused a 12-year-old girl to shoot herself dead; he knew that she was threatening to do that. The programme ended with the chilling statistic that out of 3,500 victims, only four had actually reported him to the authorities. It was one of those reports that led to the end of this terrible campaign. Back in 2024, the programme revealed that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 20 years. What do the people who saw that series think about the fact that it now appears that he might be out in a fraction of that time?

The only comfort I can give is that there are some exclusions to the early release scheme. If someone is on a life sentence as a minimum term, or on an extended determinate sentence, release does not happen earlier; but we know that more than 90% of the offenders sent to prison every year for child grooming are on a standard determinate sentence and will be eligible for early release.

The Government have quite rightly highlighted the challenges around conviction rates, and I accept the criticisms that the Government have made about the reduction in conviction rates—it is an incredibly important issue—but people do not go to court for the sake of it. It is not done just for the hell of it. They go to court and want a conviction so that a sentence is passed that is an appropriate punishment. The Government take away people’s motivation to speak up when they undermine the outcome.

Let me be specific about what an assurance that serious offenders would be excluded from the scheme would actually mean in practice to a victim. We talked earlier about Fiona Goddard, a survivor of rape, sexual assault and child grooming, whose abusers were sentenced to between 16 and 20 years in 2019. I again pay tribute to her courage. Fiona received a letter from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, telling her that people who abused her may be released early. She talked to the press and went to the media, and a journalist raised her case with the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice said officially, in a quote that was read out on “Good Morning Britain” when Fiona appeared on it, that the most serious offenders would be excluded. It said that to a journalist, in writing, and it was broadcast to the nation, with this victim listening in. It was saying that Fiona’s abusers had not committed offences serious enough to allow her to be protected, and would not be excluded from the scheme.

Survivors were in the Gallery today because letters landed through their doors telling them exactly the same thing. When the Minister says that serious offenders are excluded, they are saying, to every single victim who receives one of those letters, “Those are not serious offences. They are not heinous crimes. They are included in the scheme.” That is absolutely appalling, and thousands of people have received those letters.

I say to every Labour Member that this is not a partisan observation. During the urgent question, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said there should be more exemptions and that Members should work together on this, and the hon. Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) have contributed to this debate. Let us be clear: there are hundreds of Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has come to the Chamber today to defend the Government’s policy and position. That is absolutely extraordinary and tells us what we need to know. It seems that the Government just want to keep their fingers in their ears and pretend this is not happening.

I want to be clear about what has actually happened under this Government. At the same time as this Labour Government have released over 60,000 criminals early, prison capacity has fallen on their watch, so we have roughly 500 fewer prison places under a Government who seek continually to attack our record on prison building. I accept the criticism—we should have built more prison places—but in their time in office, the figure has gone down. As with so many issues, from police numbers to teacher numbers, things have got worse under this Government.

We have more than 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons right now, representing around 12% of the prison population and costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year. The Government could have moved faster on deportation and freed up those places. As I said, I am clear about our failings in government, and I am happy to say it again: we did build more than 14,000 prison places, but we closed too many prisons that were not fit for purpose, and that has created challenges in the system. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and I have said, and as Members on both sides of the House have said for a long time, the failings in the prioritisation of our justice system go back many decades, over many political parties.

I say this not to make a political point but to demonstrate that these are long-term issues. When Labour was last in office, it introduced the existing automatic halfway release for all offenders. Despite that, prison capacity was so tight that Labour released 80,000 prisoners early. When Labour was last in office, it made use of early release schemes because it failed to build enough prison places to keep people in prison.

The concept of parole is age-old, but parole was based on merit; people were considered for parole if they were felt to be worthy of it. This is entirely different—this is about an automatic process, regardless of merit, and it flies in the face of both popular sentiment and natural justice.

As I said, we inherited the existing system of automatic release. During our time in office, we sought to raise the time served before automatic release to two thirds for some of the more serious offences.

I recognise that there are challenges in the prison population, and I am raising Labour’s record to make it clear that these have been challenges for multiple decades over multiple parties, including the Lib Dems when we were in coalition. That is why we have gone as far as we can with our motion to enable the Government to achieve the absolute minimum that we could ask. I do not want any serious offenders let out of prison before they have served their time. Again and again in the meeting with victims earlier, they told us how appalling it is to hear a sentence in the court, knowing that in the vast majority of cases, prisoners will never, ever serve it. I wish that people could serve even longer sentences than the ones we currently give out, but we all know we are not in a position to make those promises.

Our amendment to the Sentencing Bill was broad and sought to ensure that any serious or violent criminals—for example, people who kill by dangerous driving, people who commit manslaughter or people who commit child neglect and cruelty—were excluded from these early release schemes. The Government insisted that that is not possible, and Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs defeated us on that amendment. We are not even asking for that today. Our motion purely calls on the Government to exempt those convicted of sexual offences against an adult or a child—that is all we are asking for today.

The challenge for the Government is this. They say it is absolutely necessary to keep particular people in prison, but they do not even know how many of these people they will be letting out. For example, if they do not know that 500 rapists are going to be released, they cannot tell us, “Sorry, but we really need those 500 extra places—we don’t have the capacity” because they did not know that when they passed the legislation.

The incoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), is reportedly exploring how to tighten the scheme for child sex offenders, and we welcome that, but I want the House to understand the timeline, because it is closing. The commencement order was laid on 8 June without a ministerial statement, a “Dear Colleague” letter or a response to any of the questions raised by the shadow Justice team. We do not know the details, but we understand from reporting that the first 700 offenders will be released on 2 September, and then a similar number will be released each month for the following nine months. We understand that the total number could be between 5,000 and 7,000 offenders, but we do not know because the Government will not tell us.

The House rises for the summer recess at the end of next week and any new Prime Minister will be in Downing Street shortly after that. When Parliament reassembles in September, the first criminals will be about to be released. In fact, the first Prime Minister’s questions that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will take will be on the day those offenders start getting out of prison. The Government, the Lord Chancellor and Ministers have had every opportunity to act differently. They could have excluded serious offenders, made a statement when the commencement order was laid and answered our questions and our freedom of information requests, but at every turn they chose not to do so.

I say with all sincerity that we know that Members on all sides of the House agree that a single sex offender released earlier than their sentence demands is one too many. There are Labour Members in the Chamber who we know agree with that. Indeed, 40 of them abstained when we originally divided on the legislation—they did not go into the Lobby and say that they believed that it was right to let rapists and child sex offenders out early. They all had doubts and some of them have spoken in today’s debate because of those doubts.

We have now descended into farce. We have been told that the Government will not oppose today’s motion and we expect it to go through, but the Minister made it clear that as far as he is concerned, that does not matter one jot and things will carry on as normal. Parliament is expressing its will today and there is an expectation that the Government should respond to Parliament’s will, but the Minister has already made clear his intention not to give a monkey’s. A vote in favour of today’s motion is to say that Parliament believes that rapists and child sex offenders should not be released early, and that victims deserve better after eight months of evasion and a commencement order laid without a word of notice to Parliament. A vote in favour of the motion would send a clear message that this House has come together to support victims.

To finish, I return to the victims I met earlier. It was a privilege to meet them. They asked us, MPs from different parties, whether what they are doing—coming here today, giving up their privacy, reliving their trauma and fighting for a conviction in the first place—was worth it? I told them that it was worth it and that it made a difference because the Government will not oppose the motion, so they have won and they have got the motion over the line. We are going to ensure that that is the case, whatever the failings of my party or the Labour party on the issues of justice, going back over many decades.

When I was frustrated earlier by the Minister’s failure and inability to answer basic questions yet again, the Minister told me to calm down. Well, I will not calm down. Whatever our failings and the Labour party’s failings during its previous time in office, victims of rape and child sexual abuse do not deserve to pay the price of political failure over many decades. We will carry on ensuring that this Government are held to account and MPs do not let down and betray the victims of some of the worst possible offences in our justice system because of misleading efforts by the Government to pull the wool over their eyes. The wool has not been pulled over the eyes of MPs from all sides of the House. It is time that the Government came clean about what they are doing and listened to the House, because this House says, “No, we do not want those people released”. The House will vote and tell the Government that, and it is incumbent on the Government and the incoming Prime Minister to listen.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors of the grooming gangs scandal who have so bravely spoken about their ordeal, some of whom were in the Public Gallery today. Women and girls were systematically raped, exploited and abused, often over many months, and in some cases over years.

We have heard Members raise some horrific cases and we have heard some powerful testimony. The authorities that should have protected them and pursued justice on their behalf failed in those duties. Through Baroness Anne Longfield’s independent inquiry into grooming gangs, we must now get to the truth of what happened, because for far, far too long we saw a failure to act. I welcome the call of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the implementation of recommendations that we have seen over many inquiries and investigations, including in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which conducted a two-year investigation into child sexual exploitation by organised networks. That report was nearly 200 pages long, and I read it. I pay tribute to the victims who gave evidence to that inquiry and to so many other investigations.

As Baroness Longfield has made clear, there have already been more than 800 recommendations by previous inquiries, investigations and reviews. I spent seven years doing public inquiry work. It is absolutely essential that we listen when recommendations are made, and that is what this Government are doing. We have already been taking action to implement recommendations, and we accepted all the recommendations of Baroness Casey.

Under this Government, prosecutions and convictions for child sexual abuse are at their highest levels. The Government have made grooming an aggravating factor so that the impact of these crimes is recognised in sentencing, but we must ensure that there is always enough space in prisons. It does not keep a single victim safe if we have nowhere to lock up offenders.

I have a really easy question. The Minister is talking about grooming gang perpetrators and the like. How many of them will be released as a result of this policy? How many spaces are they taking up that you need to free up?

Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, but we do not use “you” and “yours”.

There is no specific offence on grooming gangs. This Government have been absolutely clear that we will ensure there will always be prison cells for people when they are convicted and sentenced to custody. The Conservative Governments committed to delivering 20,000 additional prison places by the mid-2020s.

The Minister has stated from the Dispatch Box that victims have been failed, and I absolutely concur with that statement. She has also mentioned that there are record numbers of convictions. Does she agree that if we release these abhorrent individuals, who have committed the most heinous crimes against women and girls in our society, we will see those numbers fall again, because victims will not come forward? Are the victims not being failed again if we release these perpetrators? I implore her to listen to the debate and come forward with emergency legislation or, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has said, with a written statement tomorrow.

I have listened very carefully to this debate. I will always listen to victims, but I want to ensure that I can look them in the eyes and know that when offenders are convicted and sentenced to custody, there are prison cells for them. That is where we were left by the last Government in real difficulty.

I seek clarification. The Minister said that the Government have added grooming as an aggravating factor. Will every person sentenced to an offence related to grooming gang scandals now get an extended determinate sentence because the aggravating factor will be added, or will they still be eligible for standard determinate sentences?

It adds to the seriousness of the offence—it is considered an aggravating feature when it comes to sentencing. Obviously, sentences are determined by judges, as is absolutely right, to ensure that we maintain the rule of law. However, grooming is an aggravating aspect, as opposed to binding the final sentence that a judge gives. There will always be mitigating and aggravating considerations for the judge, and grooming has been made a clear aggravating feature. However, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this point if she would find that useful.

The Conservatives added just 482 prison places during their time in office, or 34 per year. If they had not closed 23 prisons, such as HMP Holloway, we would not be where we are now—if that prison had not been sold off to build flats, we would have more capacity. In comparison, the previous Labour Government added 27,830 places to prison capacity, and this Labour Government are embarking on the largest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We have already delivered over 3,000 places.

I do not expect the Minister to know the answer to this question, but I would appreciate it if after the debate she could update the House on what progress has been made on HMP Dartmoor. It was closed in 2024, and it has been suggested that it will be closed for three years. That could open up capacity of an additional 400 spaces without needing to build a new prison.

I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), writes to the hon. Lady.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make some progress. Conservative Members have talked many times in this debate about how we got here, but they have not been honest about how we got here.

I am going to make some progress. I did work experience with the police as a teenager, back when this country had a Labour Government who were recruiting thousands of additional police officers.

Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way just now; she may choose to do so in a moment.

I trained to be a barrister and spent my first years in practice at a time when victims waited months for their court trials, rather than years. At that time, the previous Labour Government were delivering the prison places we needed, but I then watched from inside the profession as 14 years of Conservative-led Governments dismantled it, bit by bit and piece by piece. Cases were delayed for years, courts were shuttered, and offenders were released with nowhere safe for probation to send them. That is not a coincidence; it is a choice, repeated by successive Governments for 14 years.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to continue to make some progress, but I will give way shortly.

Will she give way on that point?

I want to finish the point, because it is essential that we know where we started, which was with the cutting of 20,000 police officers from our streets. It took a decade to claw back what austerity destroyed in a few years. Conservative-led Governments closed 295 courts and tribunals, including 162 magistrates courts—half the entire magistrates estate—and part-privatised probation in a reckless experiment that every serious review called “irredeemably flawed”. It cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to unwind that and bring probation back into public hands. That is on top of the 23 prisons they closed. That is the record, and it is the Conservatives’ record, not ours.

When Conservative Members ask why we have had to act, I ask them to reflect on what 14 years of neglect actually built: a prison system running at 99% capacity. At one point, it was fewer than 100 places from total collapse. Let us be honest about what that would have meant. If prisons run out of space, courts cannot sentence anyone to custody. If courts cannot sentence anyone to custody, they cannot function. If the system cannot function, police officers have nowhere to take the people they arrest. It is not hyperbole; it means the total breakdown of law and order, which is not in any victim’s interest, however serious their case.

I have tried to have a fair hand with the victims who attended Parliament today. I invited every Member to meet them, and I facilitated meetings with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. So what I say now is universal. One of the aspects of last week’s urgent question that infuriated those victims was the Minister talking about our record. They said to us at the meeting that they had voted Labour in the past—that, indeed, they had voted for various different parties in the past—and they recognised that a lot of issues were involved, but they did not want to see again and again, having come to Parliament to ask about what would happen to them, a Minister getting up and attacking us. So I say to this Minister, “Do not fall into the same trap.”

No one in the Government takes decisions about release from custody lightly. These decisions affect public confidence, victims, communities, and those responsible for managing offenders in the community. That is why, at every stage, our overriding priority has been clear: protecting the public, while ensuring that the criminal justice system remains able to function effectively.

However, I also want to make it absolutely clear that release does not mean freedom. We are delivering tougher punishment outside prison. We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community to record levels, with thousands more subject to 24/7 tracking, curfews, strict licence conditions and exclusion zones, and with offenders sent straight back to prison if they break the rules. These offenders do not walk out of prison gates and disappear; where they can go, who they can see and what they can do is tightly controlled, and many remain under intensive supervision and monitoring right up until the end of their sentences. We are increasing probation and community punishment funding by up to £700 million, and we have recruited 1,300 additional probation officers this year. Let me contrast that with what was done by the Conservatives—not only their part-privatisation of probation, but the way in which they treated it.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on whether the Minister, in summing up the debate, is meant to touch on the motion at hand? It seems to be being largely ignored at present.

The right hon. Member, who has been here longer than I have, fully understands that I am not responsible for the content of the Minister’s speech. The Minister may comment, if she so wishes.

What I wish to do is pay tribute to the work of our prison and probation officers, many of whom do some of the hardest jobs in public life.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke about the need to speed up criminal justice, about the number of people on remand and about the need to reduce reoffending, which is what this Government are doing. He also spoke about foreign national offenders, and this Government are deporting such offenders in greater numbers than ever before.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) criticised the time taken to lift the cap on sitting days, although it was the Conservatives who capped sitting days in the first place. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) repeated the famous quote that justice delayed is justice denied. That is absolutely true, and this Government are taking action on it.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way.

A number of hon. Members have spoken passionately about victims, and rightly so. We understand that these issues will be difficult and upsetting for many victims and their families, and victims must remain at the heart of our justice system. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), talked about wanting never to see releases earlier than would be expected, but we have seen emergency release after emergency release for years, and we are taking action to stop that happening going forward. We saw 10,000 early releases under the Conservatives, and it is right that we communicate openly with victims who have opted into the victim contact scheme. That is why victims who are engaged in the scheme continue to receive information about an offender’s release and have the opportunity, quite rightly, to make representations about licence conditions.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not.

Licence conditions include exclusion zones and a non-contact requirement where appropriate. All victims will also have a clear route to request the information that they need to plan for an offender’s release through the new dedicated helpline. We need to contrast that with the chaotic approach that we saw under the Conservative party. Victims were told only days before their offenders were let out, and in some cases they were not told at all. No Government want to make these choices, but we are transparent, supporting victims and ensuring that they are properly informed throughout the process.

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. I listened very carefully to the Ministers who opened and closed the debate, and the position appears to be that while the Government Whips feel that this is a proposition that cannot be defended, the Ministers at the Ministry of Justice think that it must be defended. In fact, the Ministers in effect said that, regardless of the result of this vote and regardless of the will of the House being expressed, the policy will continue. Could you advise me on whether this contempt for the will of the House is in keeping with the business and the rules of this place, as well as the ministerial code?

The hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The Table Office can advise him further. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will also have taken note.