Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or passed their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room. It is very hot, so people are welcome to remove their jackets if they so wish.

I beg to move Amendment 93, in Clause 35, page 32, line 9, at end insert—

“(aa) manslaughter;”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 92, in Clause 35, page 32, line 22, at end insert—

“(fa) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(fb) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(fc) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;”

Amendment 91, in clause 35, page 32, line 25, at end insert—

“(ha) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);

(hb) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);

(hc) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);”

Amendment 94, in clause 35, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(ja) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(jb) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);”

Amendment 95, in clause 36, page 34, line 40, at end insert—

“(aa) manslaughter;”

Amendment 97, in clause 36, page 35, line 10, at end insert—

“(ea) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;”

Amendment 119, in clause 36, page 35, line 12, at end insert—

“(ga) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;

(gb) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;”

Amendment 98, in clause 36, page 35, line 17, at end insert—

“(ia) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;”

New clause 22—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: life prisoners—

‘After section 32ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 insert—

“Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

327ZAA Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a life sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 32ZAB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Parole Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under section 28(6)(b) or 32(5A), and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section, “public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 28ZA(2).

327ZAB Offences for purposes of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 32ZAA) are—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter;

(c) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime 10 and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(d) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(e) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(g) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(h) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(i) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(j) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;

(k) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(l) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(m) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);

(n) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);

(o) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);

(p) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(q) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(r) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(s) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(t) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (s) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the 35 purposes of section 32ZAA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

327ZAC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 32ZAA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(3) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

New clause 23—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: fixed-term prisoners—

‘(1) After section 256AZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—

“Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

256AZBA Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a fixed-term sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 256AZBB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under a relevant provision of this Chapter, and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section—

“corresponding power of direction” , in relation to a relevant provision, is the power of the Board to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, for the purposes of which the public protection decision is made (see section 237B);

“public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 237A(2);

“relevant provision” has the meaning given by section 237B.

256AZBB Offences for the purpose of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 256AZBA) are—

(a) manslaughter;

(b) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(c) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(d) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A);

(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(f) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(g) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;

(h) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(i) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(j) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;

(k) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;

(l) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(m) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(n) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;

(p) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the purposes of section 256AZBA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

256AZBC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 256AZBA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(4) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

I want to say from the outset that part 3 of the Bill had no pre-legislative scrutiny and there was a lack of consultation with the Parole Board. What that really shows, as I understand it, is that this policy was driven by the previous Justice Secretary. The current Justice Secretary is very reasonable; I hope that, along with his colleagues, he will look at these measures again and be open to our proposals.

The decisions to release John Worboys, Colin Pitchfork and Tracey Connelly rightly caused public outrage and undermined confidence in the Parole Board, but the proposals in clauses 35 and 36 are not the right approach. I will set out why new clauses 22 and 23 are so important. They both seek to give victims more of a voice and provide a mechanism for a check on Parole Board decisions, but they do so in a way that would give victims confidence. They would not undermine the separation of powers or the independence of the Parole Board, nor would they lead to the politicisation of Parole Board decisions.

Clauses 35 and 36 effectively give the Secretary of State a veto over a release decision on top tier prisoners. Our new clauses would give the Secretary of State a power to appeal a Parole Board decision to the criminal Division of the Court of Appeal; give victims the power to refer their case to the Secretary of State to make an application on their behalf to the Court of Appeal; and expand the top tier cases in scope so that more victims could benefit. Likewise, the amendments would also expand the top tier.

The new clauses are far preferable to the current measures in the Bill, for the following reasons. First, the Parole Board acts as a quasi-judicial, independent and impartial body. Giving the Secretary of State the veto on its decisions would undermine that, and fundamentally change the application of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive.

Nobody wants dangerous criminals to be released, but allowing a politician power over a release decision will leave them vulnerable to public or party opinion, which can run counter to the actual risk of reoffending. That could lead to decisions being made because they are politically or publicly expedient, not because they are properly considered or based on a fair assessment of risk. As the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major recently stated in his lecture to the Prison Reform Trust,

“I do not see how (or why) the Justice Secretary would be able to reach a more just decision than the Parole Board. Any single Government Minister—however able or well-meaning—would be far more vulnerable to public campaigns and, under pressure, to make a harsher decision to appease them. This is a very slippery slope. I do not think that any politician should have that power, and I hope the new Justice Secretary will reconsider or—if he does not—that Parliament will deny it.”

He is absolutely right. That is why new clauses 22 and 23 seek to give power not to the Justice Secretary, but to the Court of Appeal, which will not bow to political pressure. That would maintain the separation of powers.

Clauses 35 and 36 are also likely to be incredibly costly. The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment assumes that 20% of top tier Parole Board decisions to release will be vetoed, suggesting that about 150 people a year will not be released. The central estimate outlines that that will require an additional 640 prison places to be built, at a cost of £238.3 million and an annual running cost of £28.7 million. In total, the central estimate puts that policy at just shy of £0.5 billion. It is disappointing that in a Bill that is supposed to be about victims, the only money that can be found is for prisoners.

Furthermore, as the Justice Committee outlined in its letter to the Justice Secretary after its evidence session, the only way it could see the Justice Secretary being able to make release decisions to the same standard as the Parole Board would be, in effect, to create a Shadow Parole Board in the Ministry of Justice. How much resource and focus would that take?

New clauses 22 and 23 are likely to be far more cost-effective. They would not need the creation of a shadow Parole Board to ensure that the Secretary of State could make decisions effectively; the Court of Appeal is already expert in such work. Allowing an appeal mechanism to the criminal division is likely to be much less expensive than creating a complex veto process, which is full of legal risk for the Government.

In addition, clauses 35 and 36 do not give a mechanism for a victim to challenge release decisions; they only give the right to the prisoner and the Secretary of State. New clauses 22 and 23 would give victims, who are supposed to be at the heart of the Bill, more rights by allowing them to ask the Secretary of State to put in an appeal against Parole Board decisions. In effect, that would mirror the unduly lenient sentence scheme and, if a referral were not possible, those victims would be given reasons why. Their rights would also be increased by the new clauses through the expansion of the top tier of cases. The other amendments in this group would do the same.

Under the Government proposals, only murder, rape, causing the death of a child, and serious terror offences are in the top tier for which a referral can be made. New clauses 22 and 23 and our amendments would expand the top tier to include sexual offences against children that fall short of rape. Most people would agree that all sexual offences against children should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and their exclusion from the list of top tier cases risks diminishing that. Under our new clauses and amendments, the top tier would also include manslaughter. That is particularly important, because many men who kill their partners or ex-partners are convicted of manslaughter and not of murder.

I turn to the impact of clauses 35 and 36 on victims. The independent Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, outlined in her written evidence to this Committee that she believed the clauses would compound victims’ trauma and suffering. In oral evidence, she said of victims:

“Putting these measures in gives them a false sense of hope. We are telling them that there is a chance that the Justice Secretary can veto the Parole Board decision and that the prisoners will not be released.

What will actually happen in reality is that, yes, the Justice Secretary might veto, but that prisoner will then have legal aid to appeal the decision. They will appeal every decision, pulling the bereaved families into even more distress and trauma.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 30, Q68.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as giving false hope, the measures would extend the length of time it takes to get the decisions made, therefore extending the agony that people feel while not knowing what a decision will end up being?

That is absolutely right. Not only do the measures give a false hope, but they will cause a huge amount of delay in the system before those primary decisions are ever arrived at. That is incredibly detrimental to victims.

The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment supports the view of the London Victims’ Commissioner. Its estimates suggest that 75 cases a year will, after a lengthy process, result in the Secretary of State’s decision being overturned and the prisoner released. That does not suggest that clauses 35 and 36 will give victims more confidence in the justice system. In fact, the opposite is likely. As the solicitor Andrew Sperling outlined in his evidence to the Justice Committee, that is because the reforms would create a three-tier system of Parole Board, Secretary of State and upper tribunal. He said:

“What you have here is a system being set up that says that there needs to be a three-tier system, and that the Parole Board should not be capable of making decisions in the most serious cases.”

As the Law Society outlined in its written evidence, delays could have the result that

“fewer prisoners serving fixed sentences will be released on licence, instead being released automatically when their sentences end”.

That would create a public safety concern, as prisoners would return to the community without probation supervision, which would be concerning for victims and at odds with what the Bill is supposed to be about, as well as putting the public at risk. New clauses 22 and 23 would prevent those issues from arising, as they would create a more truncated route to a final release decision. Under our proposals, the Court of Appeal would make the final decision, rather than the Secretary of State, with the prisoner then having the right to appeal.

It is worth noting that in 2019 a reconsideration mechanism was introduced that allows parties to a Parole Board case to challenge a release decision. As Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, outlined in an evidence session of the Justice Committee on the Bill, since the mechanism was introduced the Secretary of State has made 50 applications of reconsideration. Mr Jones said that

“in the last four years, the Secretary of State has been concerned about 50 of our decisions, of which, following reconsideration by a judge of the Parole Board, 12 have subsequently been set aside and then reheard.”

He went on to tell the Select Committee that, under the new proposals,

“20% of top-tier decisions may subsequently be set aside by the Secretary of State. That is in stark contrast to the fact that over the last four years, they have sought reconsideration for only 50 decisions. I am not sure how you jump from doing 12 a year to seeking to set aside hundreds of our decisions each year.”

I am aware that the Justice Secretary recently used the mechanism to request a reconsideration of the decision to release Colin Pitchfork, which I welcome, but new clauses 35 and 36 will seemingly make the mechanism irrelevant. New clauses 22 and 23 would complement the mechanism and provide another important check on Parole Board decisions by the Court of Appeal.

Finally, the Prison Reform Trust and a number of other stakeholders outlined in their written evidence that clauses 35 and 36 could lead to poorer, less transparent decision-making. We do not know what criteria the Justice Secretary will follow in exercising the new power. We do not know whether it will be exercised directly by the Secretary of State or under authority delegated to an official. If a prisoner released without the Secretary of State exercising their veto goes on to commit a serious further offence, we do not know whether the Secretary of State or their officials will be subject to the serious further offence review process or held accountable for any errors.

That brings us back to the point made by nearly every stakeholder providing evidence on part 3: why is the Secretary of State better placed to make a release decision than the Parole Board, which has heard the evidence and whose job it is to do this professionally? The reforms will risk poorer decision-making. At the moment the buck stops with the Parole Board, but, if it knew that the final decision rested with the Secretary of State, that could drive down parole decisions, conversely leaving the public less safe. As Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, stated when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee, the clauses

“could have an unintended consequence of making it more difficult for us to recruit judicial members,” as the role could be seen as downgraded. That could risk the board losing such valuable expertise. Our new clauses would ameliorate those issues.

For all those reasons, I strongly urge the Government to look at their proposals again. They have attracted widespread concern and will undermine the separation of powers, risk the politicisation of police decisions and cost vast sums to implement. They could cause victims more harm and leave the public less safe. New clauses 22 and 23 would give the Secretary of State the power to appeal against a Parole Board decision in cases where they think that the decision is wrong, ensuring that another check is in place. Victims would also be empowered to ask the Secretary of State to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The amendments and new clauses would expand the top tier of cases, increasing victims’ rights and ensuring that some of the worst crimes are treated with the seriousness that they deserve. I hope that the Government will consider that carefully, and look again at their proposals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on a Bill Committee once again, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the Shadow Minister for her amendments, which would add sexual offences against a child, sexual offences against those with mental disorders and manslaughter to the list of offences to which the ministerial decision-making power would apply.

To remind the Committee, the ministerial decision power in clauses 35 and 36 imposes a new safeguard—a check and balance—on the release of the most serious offenders in the top tier. It will allow the Secretary of State to intervene on behalf of the public and take a second look at the release decision. I recognise, as I am sure Members on both sides do, that all crimes are serious, especially to their victims, and the top tier in the Bill is not an exhaustive list of serious crimes. Sexual offences committed against children and those with mental disorders cause long-lasting harm to their victims. Those who commit manslaughter have caused immeasurable grief to their victims’ families. The impact of these offences cannot be understated, and the entire parole system needs to be robust in protecting the public from those who commit such grave offences.

The Parole Board does its difficult job well and has a very good track record of assessing risk. Over 99% of offenders directed for release do not go on to commit a serious further offence. It is clear that in the overwhelming Majority of cases the Parole Board gets it right. However, the root and branch review of the parole system, published in March 2022, found that a small number of cases have demonstrated the need for an additional safeguard. Some offenders present a heightened risk to the public due to the nature of their crimes, and their release should be approached with even greater caution. They are murderers, rapists, the most serious terrorists and those who have caused or allowed the death of a child.

The top tier cohort has been carefully chosen to capture these offences, and we do not think it is proportionate to widen the cohort of offenders to which the power applies beyond these four offence types. These are the cases that the root and branch review deemed to carry the greatest risk to the public, and they are the cases that most greatly affect public confidence in the justice system.

New clauses 22 and 23 would seek to replace the ministerial decision-making power with a new power to allow the Secretary of State to instead refer a case directly to the Court of Appeal for review, which would determine whether the prisoner was safe to release. The new Clause introduces a statutory right for victims in the referral process, expands the offences included in the top tier, and removes the power for the Parole Board to be able to refer cases directly without making a decision. I will come on to these changes in turn, but let me first say that the principle behind the new powers in the Bill is that the most serious offenders should be subject to additional scrutiny before they are released, in order to reinforce our focus on public protection and bolster public confidence. While I recognise our differences in approach, I believe there is a degree of agreement across both sides on that underlying principle.

I turn to the principal difference in the new clause. Let me begin by explaining the different approaches. Clauses 35 and 36 would allow the Secretary of State to call in a top tier case to retake a release decision, with an onward route of appeal to the upper tribunal. We will come on to this route of appeal and its destination in later clauses. The new clause would instead provide a new power for the Secretary of State to refer a top tier case directly to the Court of Appeal, instead of making a decision themselves.

On the principle of whether it is right that Ministers themselves should directly take decisions, I believe that the public rightly expect a role for Ministers when it comes to the release of the most serious offenders. Keeping the public safe is the Government’s first duty, and it is not unreasonable for Ministers to act as an additional safeguard—as a check and balance in the system. That is why the approach in the Bill is for Ministers to apply the additional safeguard themselves, with an onward route of appeal.

The new clause would introduce a new statutory role for victims in the referral process, by creating a power for them to apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case is referred to the Court of Appeal. Within 30 days, the Secretary of State would be required to either refer the case to the Court of Appeal or provide a written statement explaining to the victim why they have decided not to exercise that power. I understand the concern that victims often feel about the potential release of an offender, and as we implement the reforms in the Bill we will ensure that they are able to make their voices heard as part of the process.

Let me give an example of how we already do this in our existing processes. Under the pre-existing reconsideration mechanism, victims are able to submit a request to the Secretary of State asking them to apply to the Parole Board for a decision to be reconsidered. HM Prison and Probation Service will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State to each victim to confirm whether an application for reconsideration has or has not been made, with an explanation of why. This is an operational process, rather than one set out in primary legislation. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the need to ensure that we build the right processes and support for victims into whatever new ministerial or other decision-making model is in place, but I do not consider it necessary to set that out in primary legislation.

The new clause also seeks to expand the definition of “top tier” by adding manslaughter and more sexual offences to the list of offences that would be subject to additional scrutiny. We have debated this matter in relation to earlier amendments in previous sittings. I note that the offences included in the new clause are fewer than those tabled in amendments to clauses 35 and 36, but our principal argument is the same. It is right that there is additional scrutiny of the most serious cases, and the top tier has been chosen carefully as a proportionate way of capturing the offences that present the highest risk and cause most public concern. However, in doing that, inevitably a balance must be struck. We believe that the top tier strikes a proportionate balance while in no way diminishing the importance of other offences.

I wonder whether, potentially before Report, the breakdown of the number of killings of women in their homes deemed to be manslaughter, rather than murder, could be provided to the Committee. Is there an impact assessment that we could see on the disproportionate use of manslaughter charges in cases such as domestic homicide?

I am afraid to say there are lots of problems with the way that we tier crimes. For example, if a person murders someone in their own home, the starting tariff is 15 years; if a person murders somebody with a knife they have taken out of the house, the starting tariff in our country is 25 years. At the moment, 70% of women who are killed are killed in their homes. With this Bill, we should not be creating another two-tier system in which the killing of women simply is not as important.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I do not think anyone is suggesting what she suggested in her final sentence. She is right to highlight the tariff difference, which is reflective of something that Parliament decided it wished to do, recognising that it would create a disparity in the tariffs, in the light of the Kinsella murder. Parliament was cognisant of that. Whether that should be looked at is a perfectly reasonable point. In that context, I pay tribute—as I know the hon. Lady would—to the Goulds and Deveys for the campaign they are undertaking on the issue, and to the Killed Women campaign more broadly. Wherever this lands, they are provoking an important public debate on this very important issue and the disparity between whether a knife is taken to the scene of a crime in a public place or is already there.

I will be cautious on the hon. Lady’s specific question about the statistics, because I do not know whether that level of granularity is available, but I will take that away and look. If the data is recorded in a way that answers her question and is publicly available, I will be happy to share it with her.

Finally, the new Clause would remove the discretionary referral power, which would allow the Parole Board to send a case directly to the Secretary of State without taking a first-instance decision or, in this instance, directly to the Court of Appeal. The intention behind this route of referral is to allow the Parole Board to refer a case where, for whatever reason, it is unable adequately to make an assessment of risk and so cannot make a robust decision. I recognise that the Justice Committee, as referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, has also raised concerns about this route of referral, and we are carefully considering the issues raised and the broader point of the Justice Committee in its very swift—for which we are grateful, and I know the Lord Chancellor is grateful—one-off inquiry into part 3 of the Bill.

In subsequent debates, I will outline what we believe is the most appropriate route of referral and why we do not believe that the Court of Appeal is the right route. We believe that that remains the upper tribunal, but that is addressed specifically in subsequent amendments and clauses. I am grateful to the Shadow Minister for her amendments and new clauses, but I am afraid that at this stage we must resist them.

I am particularly disappointed that the Minister does not seem amenable to expanding the top tier, particularly to include those serving sentences for manslaughter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out very clearly why that is so important. As I said in my speech, so many men who kill their partners or ex-partners are in prison for manslaughter rather than murder, and it sends completely the wrong signal.

I am disappointed that the Government are not minded to accept our amendments. I will not push them or the new clauses to a vote, but I hope that the Minister and the Justice Secretary will reflect on the points we have made as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave the withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Clause 36 stand part.

Clause 35 reflects the views of the root-and-branch review by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to create a top tier cohort of indeterminate-sentenced offenders who have committed some of the most serious crimes and whose release from prison will be subject to additional safeguards. In the same way, clause 36 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to create a top tier cohort of fixed-term offenders. As the clause applies to offenders serving determinate sentences, murder is not included in the list of offences for referral, as life sentences are mandatory in all murder cases in any event. The top tier therefore consists of offenders serving sentences for murder, rape, certain terrorism offences, or causing or allowing the death of a child—again, as I have alluded to, this reflects the root-and-branch review’s approach.

The clauses contain a new power for the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene in the release of the most serious offenders, providing for a second check by taking or retaking release decisions. Once a prisoner has been referred to the Parole Board to decide whether they are safe to be released, there are two routes by which such decisions may come before the Secretary of State. First, the clauses contain a provision that will allow the members of the Parole Board to refer a top tier release decision to the Secretary of State, instead of making a decision themselves. They can do so for any reason that they consider appropriate, including if, for whatever reason, they are unable to adequately assess risk in a particular case. The Secretary of State would then make a decision about release for that offender. We expect that this power will be used in very rare cases only.

I welcome the fact that the Minister thinks the power will be used only in very rare cases. When assessing the risk, what will the Secretary of State have that the Parole Board does not have? Is the Secretary of State imbibed with some great risk-assessment power that the Parole Board and all the people on it are not?

The Secretary of State will have information from the Parole Board and the Parole Board’s view but, ultimately, we believe it is right that the Secretary of State is accountable to the public in such cases. We therefore believe that that is the appropriate route by which someone who is accountable, and to whom I suspect the public would look in the most serious cases, can ensure public protection where the Parole Board feels that it is unable to do so.

I will not trouble the Committee too much longer. I am not sure that a public mandate allows me, as somebody elected by the people, to be somebody with expertise in risk management. I am, but that is nothing to do with the mandate that I got from the good people of Birmingham, Yardley. What I am trying to get at is that few people in this place have done more than the Secretary of State for Justice to remind people about the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament. Few people are greater advocates of that than our current Lord Chancellor, and I wonder why we are now leaning on a public mandate to assess risk, rather than on what we have always done before.

The Shadow Minister says “what we have always done before”, but the powers and the approach—the so-called separation of powers—are relatively new, and I believe came in under the last Labour Government. If I recall correctly, the Home Secretary under previous Conservative Governments in the ’80s and ’90s had a number of the relevant powers. I take her point, but it is not how this has always been done; it is a relatively new innovation—that is not to say it is a bad one, but I would exercise a degree of caution about whether it is from time immemorial. We have the principle of a separation of powers, of course, but in this space, historically, there has always been a lack of clear delineation—for want of a better expression—in such matters.

Clauses 35 and 36 also allow the Secretary of State to call in a top tier case if the Parole Board has directed release. Around 1,900 top tier cases come before the Parole Board each year and, on average, the board directs release for about 650 of those offenders. In any top tier cases in which release has been directed, the Secretary of State may decide to call in the case and, by doing so, quash the decision of the Parole Board. The Secretary of State will then retake the decision as to whether that offender should be released. If a case is not called in, the decision of the Parole Board stands and the Secretary of State is required to give effect to that release decision as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

For either of the two routes, the Secretary of State will make a decision about whether the offender is safe to be released by applying the full release test, as set out in clauses 32 and 33, based on all the evidence and advice before them. If the Secretary of State decides that the offender should remain in prison, they must notify the prisoner of the reasoning behind their decision and of the prisoner’s right to appeal. We will turn to that right of appeal in the debates on later clauses.

The new power provides an additional safeguard to the release of the most serious offenders, an issue that particularly affects public confidence in the parole process. Victims are often anxious about whether a prisoner who caused them harm is released, out of concern not only for themselves and their families but for the wider public. Allowing the Secretary of State to apply an additional check and balance to such decisions will help to ensure that those who present the highest risk to the public remain in prison.

The board will continue to risk assess offenders in the same way that it does now, independently of the Government, and will continue to make the final decision about release for most parole-eligible offenders. The board does that difficult job well in the vast Majority of cases. However, in the few cases where it is necessary, clauses 35 and 36 will allow the Secretary of State to intervene to provide additional scrutiny to release decisions and to further bolster public confidence in the system.

When discussing new clauses 22 and 23, I spoke at length about why I do not think that clauses 35 and 36 are the right approach. I will not repeat those concerns; they are on the record already. I will simply add to them by quoting from the speech of the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major to the Prison Reform Trust:

“In the thousands of decisions to be made each year, there is no way that Ministers could possibly match the experience and knowledge of the 350 Parole Board members.”

I listened to what the Minister had to say but I am not reassured. He talked about the Secretary of State providing a check. Under our proposals for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, there would be referrals, so there would still be a role for the Secretary of State, but the referral would be to the Court of Appeal, which we think is a far more sensible and proportionate response. I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns expressed right across the political spectrum and that he will reflect on them as the Bill makes progress.

I am grateful, as ever, to the Shadow Minister for her tone and approach. I do not want her to feel left out as we have already debated parts 1 and 2—I am always happy to work with her, too, over the course of the summer. She is very welcome, along with the hon. Member for Rotherham, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and other shadow Ministers, to meet me over the summer, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend Damian Hinds, who is the policy Minister for this part of the Bill. I commend clauses 35 and 36 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.