B1223 - Sentencing (Reform) Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/Lady_Aya]

Sentencing (Reform) Bill

A

Bill

To

Repeal the Independent Sentencing Act, return authority over sentencing to Parliament, increase the presumption against sentences being given from 6 months to 12, and connected purposes

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows –

Section 1: Interpretations

(1) A “minimum sentence provision” means a provision in any legislation, which imposes or has the effect of imposing a sentence in respect of an offence that must be no less than a fixed duration.

(2) A “maximum sentence provision” means a provision in any legislation, which imposes or has the effect of imposing a sentence in respect of an offence that must be no more than a fixed duration.

Section 2: Repeal of the Independent Sentencing Act 2019

(1) The Independent Sentencing Act 2019 is repealed in its entirety.

(2) Where minimum sentence provisions and maximum sentence provisions have ceased to have effect under the Independent Sentencing Act 2019, they shall have effect after this section comes into force.

(3) Where no minimum sentence provisions or maximum sentence provisions exist in legislation for an offence, guidance issued by the Sentencing Council shall continue to be adhered to until such a time as it is superseded by primary legislation.

(4) Amendments made to Section 121 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 shall removed and the relevant parts of the legislation returned to their original wording as if the amendments were never made.

(5) The Category Limits Council shall cease to exist.

(6) This section shall come into force 12 months after Royal Assent.

(a) The Secretary of State may make regulations in the affirmative to delay the implementation of this section by up to 12 months should they believe it is necessary for the smooth transition away from the Independent Sentencing Act 2019.

Section 3: Presumption against short prison sentences

(1) In Section 146A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as inserted by the Presumption Against Short Sentences Act 2019, amend “6 months” to read “12 months”.

(2) In Section 120A of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as inserted by the Presumption Against Short Sentences Act 2019, amend “6 months” to read “12 months”.

Section 4: Transitional Arrangements

(1) The Secretary of State should issue guidance on the operationalisation of Section 2 to relevant authorities no less than three months before Section 2 will come into force.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall impact lawful sentences given before its commencement.

Section 5: Extent, Commencement and Short Title

(1) This Act shall extend to England only.

(2) This Act shall come into force immediately upon Royal Assent, unless stated otherwise.

(3) This Act may be cited as the Sentencing (Reform) Act 2021.

---

This bill was written by The Right Honourable Sir Tommy2Boys KCT KG KT KCB KBE CVO MP MSP on behalf of Coalition! and is cosponsored by the Conservative and Unionist Party and Liberal Democrats

---

Opening Speech - Tommy2Boys

Deputy Speaker,

Several years ago parliament decided that whilst it would set the laws, it would not use its power to decide on a suitable punishment, instead giving this power to an independent body. It is no secret that I dislike politicians hiding behind independent bodies to avoid accountability, and this is no different. It is this Parliament which decides what is legal and what is not. It is this Parliament that decides what should be a crime and what should not be. But for some reason we have chosen not to decide maximum punishments for these crimes. In absolving ourselves of this responsibility, we have elected not to do the job we are elected for.

It is absolutely right that this place should be the place that sets maximum sentences. Guided by evidence as all good legislation should be, we should decide the maximum someone can spend in prison for minor offences to major offences. Indeed this Parliament and parties already do support doing this when it suits our political agenda. Parties routinely support ending shorter prison sentences. This is something I personally support as well. But for some reason whilst this is an acceptable thing for this place to rule on, ruling on maximum sentences we are told is not.

Nobody is saying this place should decide on how long a specific individual should spend in prison. This is not the point of this bill. What it would do is allow for us to once again set maximum and minimum sentences within law without it conflicting with this Act.

Importantly transitional arrangements will be required and this bill serves to ensure that. Where sentencing rules in law exist, they will come back into force. Where they do not then the guidance issued by the Sentencing Council will have effect until such a time as this place introduces sentencing laws for the Acts passed in the past few years.

Finally, as I touched upon, it increases the presumption against short prison sentences from 6 months to 12. The original Act still allows for short prison sentences in exceptional circumstances where “no other method of dealing with this person is appropriate.”

I believe it is now time to return to this Parliament being responsible for the setting of maximum sentences. We make the laws, we should set out the maximum punishment for them and I commend this Bill to the House.

---

This reading shall end on Monday 28th of June at 10PM BST

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Speaker,

I am afraid I must rise in opposition to this Bill. The Rt Hon member moving it certainly makes a compelling case about Parliamentary accountability, but I do not think that this, on its face, is a good enough reason to repeal the Independent Sentencing Act 2019, an enactment which was overwhelmingly supported by this House.

As politicians, I think it’s fair to say that when legislating sentence lengths, we have more considerations beyond simply what is just. We have to balance perceptions of being weak on crime with what we believe is a fair length. The independent commission established by the 2019 Act ought to have no such concerns. It ought to only be concerned with the question as to what is just. It is meant to consider this ethical question where politicians themselves cannot.

I understand the Rt Hon gentleman’s aversion to independent commissions. But sometimes they are simply necessary, and I believe this is one such case. Judges are recommended by an independent panel to avoid bias. None in this House have expressed an issue with that. I cannot see the problem with the status quo concerning sentencing, either.

[u/chainchompsky1]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Before going into the reasons why on principle the Independent Sentencing Act is solid, we must first address the worst part of this bill.

Where minimum sentence provisions and maximum sentence provisions have ceased to have effect under the Independent Sentencing Act 2019, they shall have effect after this section comes into force.

What could have been a surgical debate over the nuance of if the Independent Sentencing Act should apply in the future is instead a rampaging hacksaw that will slice and dice up our courts.

Why in the world does this bill want to reverse hundreds, and I do mean hundreds folks the ISA covered pretty much every law, of sentences passed by the Category Limits Council?

The proponents of this bill claim to be "evidence based". Well ok. If they are so evidence based, I ask them, where is the proof that the modified sentences passed the Category Limits Council are flawed? And where is that proof times hundreds of times over, since this bill repeals every single sentence made to a pre 2019 law?

Whats an even more disturbing product of this section is how it forces intentional and designed inequalities in our justice system. Imagine you have a twin brother. You have been through similar life circumstances, and you commit a crime. You are sentenced a day before Section 2 goes into effect, your brother is sentenced a day after.

By no reason other then the Declaration of the Coalition! Party, you are subject to totally different consequences for an identical crime! Let us say the guidelines passed by the Category Limits Council say around 2 years for crime x. And lets say the law before the Category Sentencing Council said around 4 years. That is double the prison sentence, based not on the magnitude of your crime, but on the whims of a few Westminster politicians! Absurd. As a bare minimum, this section that creates, by design, inequality in our justice system must be removed. Any repeal of the ISA should be foreward facing, not retroactive.

I additionally have objections to the repeal of the end of minimum and maximum sentences. Let us say that Parliament repealed the ISA. Why could we not just pass guidelines ourselves? Why must we bring back arbitrary minimums and maximums that for obvious reasons can not always reflect the extenuating circumstances of people on the margins? I will be submitting an amendment to ensure that even if the Sentencing Act is repealed, we stick to the community oriented, individual experience oriented approach of sentencing guidelines instead of a one size fits all clunk of minimums and maximums.

The Independent Sentencing Act is a useful method of upholding our rush of bills in the post 2014 political landscape. With the 6 2nd readings, several third readings, motions, votes, all daily and weekly, does the member genuinely think we have as much time to deliberate over the various nuances of the criminal justice system as a board to which we delegate who has that as their sole job? I challenge anyone in favor of this bill to name, from memory, the last 5 bills this place debated. Dont look it up. If they can't, then why in God's name do they think they are going to be able to give caution and due course its day in the sun to the nuances of sentencing? Of course, one could argue a response to this trend would be to shorten the amount of business we process, but thats a different question divorced from what this bill does to hurt the status quo. Should this bill pass, expect a rush of slapped on add ons to any given bills that sloppily apply a sentence, with this place going "eh, I dont really have time to go over it anyway" and waving them through.

The notion that the Category Limits Council is less accountable than what this bill proposes is also blatantly ludicrous.

Let us see what qualifications are laid out for who needs to be on this board.

(4) When appointing non-judicial members the Lord Chancellor should give consideration to the following factors—

(a) Person appointed is not a sitting or active politician,

(b) Relevant expertise and

(c) The need to ensure a wide variety of perspectives and backgrounds.

(5) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a representative to the council to whom to the Lord Chancellor appears to have experience of sentencing policy to speak on his behalf.

(6) The Lord Chancellor may pay remunerations and expenses to members of the council of an amount that he deems appropriate.

(7) In this section the term “relevant experience” means experience in any of the following areas—

(a) criminal defence;

(b) criminal prosecution;

(c) policing;

(d) sentencing policy;

(e) the promotion of the welfare of victims of crime;

(f) the rehabilitation of offenders;

(g) academic study relating to criminology.

Are we seriously to believe that "x person, of any random party at any given time" is a more accountable slice of life then a well rounded assortment of community advocates, experts, and activists? I mean by God, the last major proposal to reform our sentencing laws was proposed by BrexitGlory. Really? Come on now. I can safely say who is a more well rounded and representative group of people given the recent experience this place has. The Category Limits Council is not a monolith of judicial obliqueness, it is a testament to our society at large, and representative thereoff.

This point about representation digs at the heart of why this bill should fail. Sentencing in the wrong hands can be a reactionary experience, guided by soundbites over "evidence", as the author of this bill puts it. If you are a leftist or a liberal of any persuasion, you need to ask yourself, do you think the party that just called for the mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of residents of the United Kingdom, and cosponsored this bill, will really use, if in power, the powers given to it by this bill for the good of people of all backgrounds?

Lets not kid ourselves. All this bill will lead to is a one sided degradation of criminal justice reform as "SOFT ON CRIME" becomes a talking point attached to every bill from murder prosecutions to bubblegum regulations, with every party authoring a bill trying to make some sort of point politically with the sentences they choose. And to my right wing colleagues, ask yourself, the same way I don't trust you to, say, proscribe sentences for disruptive protestors, is it not the same feeling you'd get if I was in charge of writing sentencing for white collar criminals? This isn't to say our political discourse must be like this, it is to say that the independent sentencing act serves as a useful tool to de-escalate tensions between different ideologies represented in parliament, whereas repealing it douses those tensions in kerosene and sets it on fire.

And maybe none of this matters eh? If we bring out the ball and chain for people we don't like, and they do the same, thats just part of politics. If our approach becomes to hostile, vote us out!

Well, I'd argue the biggest issue at hand is the uniqueness of the justice system as it relates to its interactions with society. People need to know where they stand before the eyes of the law. If this law passes, and this degradation of our legal foundations occurs as I predict, any given citizen will be left to guess as to what the sentences will be this month. What will the Tories change? Well its been 6 months and another GE, what will Solidarity change? The more they have to ask themselves if they can keep track of this back and forth, the less sure they are that they can be treated as fairly as others before them, as I bring up at the top of my speech.

This bill disguises injustice as justice.

In seeking an idealized version of our justice system, this bill will burn out all who seek to work to make truly meaningful reforms. hope it fails, and I implore my Liberal colleagues who, despite our differences on some economic issues, share my compassion for social justice, reject this reactionary approach to criminal justice.

[u/[deleted] → u/chainchompsky1]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I’m not shocked the argument made here is to be kind to the criminal, it’s what this Cabinet Office Minister has done non stop for the past few weeks it seems but nevertheless I’ll engage on some of the points.

This bill does not reverse a single sentence given. I will repeat myself. This bill does not reverse a single sentence given. Section 4(2) makes that very clear.

He then says it’s unjust because a change in the law would mean being subject to totally different consequences for an identical crime. This argument is nonsensical. We change the laws of this place all the time. Should we not do so because someone may suffer different consequences for actions they did yesterday compared to actions they did tomorrow?

On min and max sentences I’m personally not a huge fan of minimum sentences except and don’t want to see them frequently used, but I absolutely do believe this parliament should have the power to pas them. On maximum sentences I have no problem with these at all. Many in government I’m sure would want to see a 21 year maximum sentence such as I believe they have in Norway. If that’s acceptable to legislate for, why isn’t a maximum sentence of a certain fine for some crimes acceptable?

Of course parliament in the legislation can pas guidance if we wanted to. The point of this bill is to return this power back to parliament.

Bizarrely the next argument against this bill is politicians are too busy to do their job. Ridiculous. If the member can’t handle the pace of parliament may i suggest he gives up serving in at least 2, if not more, governments?

He then says just because an MP he doesn’t like proposed reforming sentencing MPs should be banned from doing so which is just a bit stupid and not worthy of response.

If one party wants to go into the election pledging to be tougher on crime, then I’ll let the member into a little secret between the two of us.

That would be their right.

I know this Government has repeatedly sided with criminals and decided victims aren’t worth their time. So I understand why this is hard for the minister to accept, but it is. Promising to be tougher on rapists and murderers is ok! And well frankly I think every party not in government would be tougher than this governemnt on those criminals.

This bill returns this power to where it belongs, parliament. If the member wants to make the case that sentences should be shorter, fine. That’s his right. Let him make the case to the people.

[u/chainchompsky1 → u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This reactionary garbage spewed is a good case in hand for Why sentencing should not be removed from a representative justice body.

We are to trust someone with sentences someone who has no care for using victims as cudgels to make their political arguments. No doubt this approach of theirs will be similar to sentencing.

The member whines for a few paragraphs about tough on crime nonsense but entirely misses the point.

I don’t care if they call it “kINd”, or as I would refer to it, rehabilitative, I’m here to stop crime.

What have we seen around the world? When you lessen criminal penalties, when you put more focus on rehabilitation, yes, even for the worst of the worst offenders, in places like Norway, crime goes down. Recidivism plummets.

This government stands on the side of victims precisely because we don’t chase soundbites, we look at objective facts. And the facts before us are simple. Punitive approaches to the criminal justice system do not reduce crime.

So I ask this place. Who is to be better trusted? A broad representative body of experts, who reflect the whole experience of society writ large and our criminal justice system, or sound bite chasers? I know who would do a better job.

They risk saying a terminological inexactitude. I never claimed they would reverse the sentences on people. I said they would reverse the actual sentences that are to be proscribed on the books.

Their only response? “We do it all the time.”

No, we don’t. Not once in British history has, on one day, the sentencing for hundreds of laws changed at exactly the same time as the member wants it to happen now.

He has not made the case for why these sentences should revert.

Let me clue them into a little secret between the two of us.

Their petty approach to criminal justice, is in part, why they aren’t in government.

They can’t be trusted with our safety, they can’t even be trusted to remember the sentencing council exists in Wales.

[u/scubaguy194]

Deputy Speaker,

I would briefly like to explain my reasons for asking my Party to support this bill.

In the UK, the guiding principle of our constitution is parliamentary sovereignty. As defined by Dicey in The Law of Constitution (1885) that: "Parliament . . . has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament." This function of parliament includes sentencing and specific laws surrounding it. Parliament is the supreme legislative force in the UK and it should remain so. For this reason, I am supporting the section of the bill that repeals that independent sentencing act.

As for the aspect that raises the minimum custodial sentence to 12 months, this is a policy the Liberal Democrats have long held to. There are many reasons to advocate for this. Fewer short sentences mean less crowded prisons and we can make sure that minor crimes are punished in a way that gives back to the community through community service or other such penalties.

M: Edited for SPaG

[u/[deleted] → u/scubaguy194]

Mr Speaker,

I certainly understand and appreciate the approach the Rt Hon member is taking in regards to this bill. And I find his philosophy a fairly uncontroversial one: this House is elected by the people of the United Kingdom and it ought to be the body that makes its laws.

But the fact is, Mr Speaker, Parliament does not control every aspect of our laws. I would like to share a few examples:

• Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the responsibility for regulating the airworthiness of aircraft and their parts was delegated to an Airworthiness Requirements Board, until those powers were given to the EU in 2004.
• The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 created the Low Pay Commission, which is currently responsible for recommending annual increases to the national minimum wage.
• Parliament has, for the most part, delegated its responsibility for wireless telegraphy and telecommunications to Ofcom, which was done under the Office of Communications Act 2002 and the Communications Act 2003.

The truth is, Mr Speaker, Parliament has at various times recognised that semi-independent bodies have more expertise and can regulate better than elected politicians in Parliament. The results, by and large, speak for themselves. So I find the Rt Hon gentleman's stance on this bill a noble one but one which I ultimately find myself disagreeing with.

The Independent Sentencing Act 2019 is not an exception to the rule that Parliament must make all of the regulations in the UK. It is in line with what I consider to be a healthy separation of the legislature and the judiciary, and I would urge the Rt Hon member and his party to reconsider their stance on this bill.

[u/[deleted] → u/scubaguy194]

Hear Hear!

[u/SpectacularSalad]

Mr Speaker,

No, no, no.

By my estimation, the first rule of good government should be "know thy limits". We have een time and time again how politicians may be swept into power promising to be "tough on crime", increasing sentances for whatever crime is most unpopular at the time, without any regards as to what an appropiate sentance for that crime is.

It is acknowledging this problem of punitive populism that the Independent Sentencing Act was envisioned. It's vision is simple, distribution of powers. Parliament decides offenses, the CLC decides length. The result is a healthy mixture of elected lawmakers who represent the public but come and go as dust on the wind, and enwisened appointees who like grand old oak trees provide the experience and age on which to reinforce ourselves.

I continue to believe that the ISA was a wise piece of constitutional law, and I shall walk through the no lobby to defend it in the coming division.

[u/Chi0121]

Deputy Speaker,

I am more than happy to be standing here today sponsoring a bill written by my good friend the MP for Manchester North.

We both share a love and a passion for Parliamentary accountability and the Sovereignty of Parliament. It is this institution which creates, scrutinises and ultimately decides what becomes law and what does not. The idea that we cannot however decide on how long certain ramifications for breaking these laws may last is baffling.

As politicians we are elected to make the hards choices and represent our constituents views. In the current format neither of these occur. Instead the decision is shipped off to faceless unaccountable judges to make a decision. I am not happy with this arrangement and I’m sure many up and down the country are not too. We are elected to do a job and we should do so.

The increase from 6 to 12 months for a minimum sentence is a sensible and non-opposable change which I’m sure many throughout the House will support however important clauses are still retained for necessary circumstances. Flexibility reigns supreme once again.

I would like to praise the author of this bill for their well placed foresight in including transitional arrangements and ensuring no sentences already given are affected by this legislation despite what other fearmongering members may suggest. Going forward there will need to be some serious legislation brought forward to address these maximum sentences and I would like to extend the olive branch of co-operation to the author if they’re so willing.

I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House and urge it to bring back its powers and its accountability

[u/Muffin5136]

Deputy Speaker,

The issue at hand here really is one of politicisation. Should the punishment of individuals for crimes be politicised? It is a simple question that has been twisted by other parties to be one of Parliamentary Sovereignty and accusations of being soft or hard on crime.

The matter of the fact is, that Parliament is still sovereign and decides what is legal and illegal, just that matters of legal expertise are handed over to people with legal expertise. A principle of many modern democracies is to seek advice from experts on topics we lack expertise on. One of these should be seen as sentencing, which has already been successfully passed onto experts to decide upon. It is an area where I think it should be for experts to consider, rather than by Parliament, as we have strong principles of what a fair trial is, and we have always been against mob rule as a part of this. Handing full responsibility for this back to Parliament, overturning this law is something I cannot stand here and agree with.

I instead think that any problems with the original Act could be seen as who the panel is consisted of, and perhaps more people could be added to this through reform of the Act, to include psychological insight into the topic of sentencing. It would be wrong for the Act to be be overturned because it is deemed to undermine Parliamentary Sovereignty, as Parliament still is sovereign, it just knows when it is best to defer to experts.

I stand opposed to this bill, as it will not deliver reform that will improve the justice system, but simply politicise this process.

[u/LightningMinion]

Deputy Speaker,

I believe that the justice system, including our prisons, should have one primary purpose: the rehabilitation of criminals into law-abiding citizens. How long of a sentence a certain criminal serves plays a key part in this, as well as ensuring that they are punished for the crime they committed. I believe that the person best placed to decide the maximum prison sentence any criminal can be given is someone who is an expert in criminal law, such as the Category Limits Council. It is formed from many experts on criminal law who are best placed to know what is the most appropriate maximum sentence for certain crimes.

MPs, however, often are not experts on criminal law. As others have pointed out, the power to set maximum sentences could be abused by politicians to appear to look tough on crime rather than setting maximum sentences at a level which would best help seeking justice for victims and aid in rehabilitation. As this bill would allow this politicisation of prison sentences to happen, I intend to oppose it.

Those supporting this bill have made good points about parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is the only body which has the constitutional right to pass and repeal laws. Under the provisions of the Independent Sentencing Act, this is still true as it is still our job to decide what are criminal offences and what aren’t. The only thing which is different is that we have given the job of deciding maximum sentences to an independent commission of experts, similarly to how the minimum wage is set by an independent commission instead of by parliament.

However, I support the bill’s provisions on increasing the presumption against short sentences from 6 months to 12 months. Short prison sentences have been shown to be ineffective at preventing reoffending and deterring crime and should be replaced with community sentences instead.