House of Lords

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 26 November 2025

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leeds.

Domestic Abuse: Emergency Accommodation

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Donaghy]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their strategy to support local authorities and charities in providing emergency accommodation for those experiencing domestic abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, local authorities in England have a statutory duty to ensure support in safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse and their children, and they work in partnership with charities and specialist providers to do so. In 2025-26 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided £160 million, a £30 million uplift, for councils to commission this support for victims. This funding supports the Government’s wider mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

As my noble friend the Minister knows, yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. A woman is killed every three to five days by a current or former partner. Although government policy is great, specialist services, including emergency refuge accommodation, need a further £62 million to meet existing demand. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that everything is being done to increase the momentum to deal with this epidemic.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spent much of my professional life in the fight against violence against women and girls, and I am proud to be part of a Government who have this as a key priority. I pay tribute to the work done by refuges up and down the country. This year we have increased funding for domestic abuse safe accommodation services, such as refuges, by £30 million, and last week we announced that we would maintain funding at least at that level for the next three years, so that is a commitment of at least £480 million over three years.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the Minister that refuges have provided literally life-saving services. Does she agree with me that in 2025, it is not okay any more to expect women to put their lives into a black plastic bag and flee with their children to the other end of the country? That is not the solution. Can she talk about the real solution, which is to work with perpetrators of abuse and prevent this terrible crime once and for all?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, I broadly agree with pretty much everything she says. That is why the Government are working on the three strands of dealing with domestic abuse: the first is prevention, the second is robust enforcement against those who perpetrate it, and the third is support for victims.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, victims of domestic abuse can fail to qualify to bid for a permanent home because of debt issues often not of their own making. Families and children across the country can be trapped in temporary accommodation because of debt accumulated by the abuser. Should there not be a national rule whereby coerced debt should be excused to help abused families out of the debt trap and into a permanent home?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. On Monday I addressed a reception held in one of the rooms in this Palace hosted by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse. Listening to what was said there reminded me—I hope I did not need reminding, but it made it starkly clear—that for the survivors, economic abuse is every bit as pernicious and damaging as actual violence, or controlling or coercive behaviour. We are acutely aware of this and are doing everything we can to ensure that it is recognised and dealt with.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, abusers are increasingly turning everyday objects, such as phone chargers, extension leads and even pens, into hidden cameras and listening devices, making women feel deeply unsafe in their own home. Can the Minister share with us what measures are being taken to protect women against this worrying new trend, particularly in emergency accommodation settings?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

What the noble Baroness describes is part of a trend of observation and control, which is part of the controlling and coercive behaviour that is now recognised as an integral part of domestic abuse and every bit as violating as actual physical violence. I do not know what is being doing about the actual methods of that kind of coercion that she described, but it sounds to me as though it is already covered by the criminal law.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to some of the cases that I have dealt with over many years of women who are victims of domestic abuse. I have been involved in trying to help a family for the past year. The problem is the sheer lack of suitable accommodation for these women and their children. The impact on the children is enormous because they have to keep moving from place to place, with insecurity at school and at home. Unfortunately, in the family I am dealing with, the children who have just started secondary school are having symptoms of mental health problems as a result and are unable to sit exams. I want to go back to the Question about what support local authorities are getting from central government to provide enough accommodation and support for these families. Charities have been very restricted in funding recently.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The short answer is that the £30 million uplift is bringing funding to £160 million per year. In 2024-25, 76,850 individuals, including children, were supported in safe accommodation, but we recognise that that left just under 30,000 who were in effect turned away because the provision was not there. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Part 4 evaluation is showing progress in this, but it highlights the needs for further improvements. The department funds No Woman Turned Away, which offers caseworker support to access refuges and other forms of accommodation provided by local authorities.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Labour pledged fairness and protection for domestic abuse victims, yet refuges are shutting, councils are financially stretched and housing delivery plans are years away from delivery. How do the Government justify these gaps while reorganising local government? Will the Minister admit that without a national ring-fenced strategy for domestic abuse housing, Labour’s promises will fail victims?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do not accept that at all, hence the increase in funding and the fact that we have given a guarantee that for at least the next three years, the funding will remain stable at least, allowing local authorities to plan with consistency and security, knowing what the level of funding is going to be.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is just over 50 years since Erin Pizzey opened the first women’s refuge in Chiswick. I went there myself. At the time, about 1.5 women a week were being killed. That number has stayed remarkably consistent, despite government efforts of every stripe. If all those women in a year were killed on the same day in Trafalgar Square, there would be a national outcry. But there is a drip feed of women consistently suffering from domestic abuse, which is not taken seriously enough by the police or the authorities, and they are dying. It is truly shocking that 50 years later we have the same statistics. Are the Government building enough houses, is there enough police support and is there enough public awareness that it is not the woman’s fault?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The fact that it does not all happen on one day in Trafalgar Square does not make it any less of an outrage. I think every noble Lord in this House will hear the anger in the noble Baroness’s voice and, I hope, in my own voice. There is a profound commitment from across this Government to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. There are various departments engaged in this, all pulling together to try to deal with the three strands I mentioned earlier: prevention, support for victims and robust interventions against the perpetrators. We are determined to do this, and we are going to.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very proud of what my Government are doing and their ambition to reduce violence against women and girls, and I am very proud of the record of my noble friend. However, as we know, tech-facilitated abuse is growing and growing. What initiatives are there to train police officers, including first-line responders, on identifying, investigating and gathering evidence for tech-facilitated abuse?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I think there is a broad acceptance, even by the police forces, that the police response to domestic abuse in the past left something to be desired. The Home Office is investing £13.1 million in the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection to strengthen police training. Working with the College of Policing, new research-based programmes will equip officers at all levels to investigate all forms of offences and to support victims.

Charities: Advancement of Religion

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure charities cannot use ‘the advancement of religion’ charitable purpose to advance ideologies which promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

Anyone who advocates for violence against women has absolutely no place in a charity. The Charity Commission, as the independent regulator, will not hesitate to act where charities promote harmful or unlawful actions. The Government will consult in due course on new powers for the Charity Commission to automatically ban individuals convicted of hate crimes from serving as charity trustees or senior managers. We will also make it easier for the commission to take regulatory action against people promoting violence, terrorism or hatred.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. All charities have certain responsibilities to fulfil to qualify as charities and receive the generous tax allowances and kudos of the status of being a charity. However, some charities register under the charitable purpose of advancement of religion to promote misogynistic ideology in the name of religion, which threatens the rights and well-being of some of the most vulnerable members of their flock. In recent research, the National Secular Society found examples of charity sermons saying that a woman must serve her husband by cooking and cleaning, blaming rape on how women dress and saying that it is okay to hit your wife if she refuses to have sex. No charity worth its salt should ever promote misogyny or any other ideology that harms people and society. Should we not therefore review the role of the charitable purpose of the advancement of religion, with a view to its removal if it is a barrier to tackling misogyny or other forms of extremism?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Charity Commission is currently reviewing the National Secular Society’s recent report to determine whether it raises any new regulatory concerns. I read the report over the weekend, and some of the examples provided are shocking. However, I am pleased to say that the commission has already investigated a number of the charities cited. I have also spoken to the Minister for Civil Society and Youth, and I reassure the noble Baroness that she is looking at ways to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle abuse of charities by extremists, whatever type of extremist they are .

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, the founders of different religions put forward straightforward ethical teachings of responsibility in our short journey through the world. Unfortunately, those ethical teachings have been overlaid by cultures, with culture even creeping into religious texts. Does the Minister agree that it is time to do a little spring cleaning of what we call religion and discard all the negative teachings about other people and about women, and to bring those ethical teachings to the fore? Sikhism stresses the complete equality of women. Does the Minister agree that that should be carried forward and be obligatory in the 21st century?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be a brave Minister who decided which religious teaching we should prioritise above another. I will say that we have a proud tradition of religious freedom in this country, but those rights extend to everyone, and we condemn acts of violence against women and girls. Noble Lords will have heard from my noble friend’s answers on the previous Question that we are clear that we want the Charity Commission to have the power it needs, and we will consult in due course on new powers that will enable it to deal with this issue.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, having spent the whole of my professional life combating those who, in the name of religion, promote misogyny, sexism or violence against women, I hope the questioner will agree that the highest values, both of religion and of humanism, are conjoined in the effort to suppress, marginalise and deal with all these aberrations. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All charities should be safe spaces for everyone: employees, volunteers and members of the public. I agree that, at their best, our values, across all religions and those who have no religion, would uphold the freedom of individuals as well as our collective responsibility to one another.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government consider the advancement of education to be a valid charitable purpose? If so, why are charities delivering this treated differently from the rest of the sector?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I think the noble Baroness is aware, the Government have removed the VAT exemption for education and boarding services provided by private schools and removed the eligibility of private schools that are charities for business rates and charitable relief. The Government are taking these steps to raise revenue to support the public finances and help deliver their commitments relating to education and young people, including the 94% of school children in the UK that attend state schools.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, just two weeks ago, Sheffield City Council launched its faith and belief charter—a sort of service-level agreement between local faith communities and the local authority setting out what each might expect of the other for the wider benefit of our city. The charter assumes a shared commitment to the essential dignity of every human being, as created in the image and likeness of God. Will the Minister encourage the use of such covenants and charters between faith communities and local authorities, not least on account of their capacity to challenge precisely the behaviours identified in the Question put by the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises a really good and positive example of how communities can come together in a particular area. I would welcome the opportunity to hear more about it from him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the charities about which my noble friend is talking often get a great deal of funding from the United States, from extreme, allegedly Christian evangelical foundations. Do the Government intend to use the extended powers they are giving to the Charity Commission to insist on greater transparency about funding of charities? Will that require new legislation, or can it be done through the Charity Commission?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that a number of the measures being considered would not require primary legislation, but others might at some point in the future. I am happy to write to the noble Lord relating to the specific point that he raises.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the vast majority of charities work for the benefit of everybody, whatever their religion or their sex, so why did the Chancellor not take the opportunity earlier today to reverse the punitive rise in employer national insurance contributions that she imposed on charities in her last Budget, which many charities have warned will lead to hiring freezes or job losses?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that we doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 at the previous Budget so that more than half of businesses, including charities, with NICs liabilities would either gain or see no change. Employers will also continue to benefit from NICs reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. We provided charitable tax reliefs and exemptions worth £6 billion in the year 2023-24. The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. With the civil society covenant being a key priority for this Government, we are supporting charities to deliver for the country.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher. It is the wrong department, I know, but does the Minister agree that a lot of this can be combated in schools but that we need the time to teach it. One day a term—when parents who hold some of these abhorrent views can take their child out for the day—is not enough.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will feed the noble Lord’s point back to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern and will be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.

Visas: Highly Skilled People

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact on economic growth of trends in the number of visas granted to highly skilled people.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

The Government have published assessments estimating the impact of high-skilled migrants on the UK economy when changes to the Immigration Rules have been made. Skilled workers are estimated to be net contributors to the economy, particularly those in higher-skilled occupations.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Since I tabled this Question, there have been changes to the planned settlement arrangements for the UK. It is encouraging to see that there are no changes for the global talent visa and high earners, but there are changes for their spouses. It is now clear that they will be decided separately, potentially meaning that a high-earning applicant could receive settlement within three years, yet a stay-at-home spouse might never be eligible. Such a move would obviously have a detrimental impact on talent attraction and growth. Will the Minister look again at the eligibility of spouses for settlement in the forthcoming consultation?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. She is asking about the partners of highly skilled people being required to earn settlement in their own right, as part of plans announced by the Home Secretary last week. As my noble friend referred to, those plans are currently subject to a public consultation. She asks for a commitment to look again. We will, of course, consider the responses to the consultation carefully and in the round before announcing the Government’s next steps, and we will be particularly concerned to avoid some of the unintended consequences that have beset immigration policy in the past.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government looked at the counterfactual of people leaving these shores, specifically in medical, economic and finance areas, and what that means for our economy? If not, why not?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government look at all this in the round. As I think everyone in your Lordship’s House knows, the overall intention is to reduce net migration, but we are committed to the high skills routes and I am very happy to provide more detail on that later. We will continue to measure not only the incomers but the net effect.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, nearly six months ago, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Business and Trade jointly launched a taskforce and a £54 million fund to, in their words,

“attract world-class researchers and their teams to the UK”.

As the Minister knows, teams of researchers contain all sorts of different people, but some of the key people are not necessarily the best paid people in that team, and those salary restrictions may well not meet the Home Office’s criteria. What is the Home Office doing to work with the taskforce to make sure that a whole team can come to the United Kingdom, which would probably affect whether it came or not? How many visas have been applied for so far under this taskforce and how many have been granted?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

As I just said in response to my noble friend, this is all currently under consultation. We will, of course, look at all the routes in the way the noble Lord asks me to. To be clear, salary levels are not the only things that will influence our approach to global talent, high-potential individuals and the various schemes that we have. As I have already said, we will be careful to avoid the unintended consequences. On the specific question about numbers, I do not have them now but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, following up on my noble friend Lord Hintze’s question, can the Minister—who has already addressed the economic impact of high skilled visas—say what the economic impact of the Government’s policies is? We know that nearly 1,800 high net worth individuals have left the country, and on Monday the Business Secretary acknowledged that Labour’s tax rises have made wealthy people feel the need to leave. Does the Minister agree that we would not need to have such a focus on more immigration if we did not have so many wealthy tax- payers leaving?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, I do not agree, as it happens. I feel strongly that we have done the right things from our side on the tax changes—although it is way above my pay grade. I am sure everyone knows that the highly talented, the innovators and the entrepreneurs are internationally mobile, and we should make arrangements to attract the brightest and the best to Britain. These two matters are not connected.

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, a few weeks ago, your Lordships’ House’s Science and Technology Committee published a major report on the financing and scaling of UK science and technology. It set out the factors behind the science and technology growth emergency, which is so damaging to the economy. It also highlighted that a Government who are serious about growth and wealth creation must not keep in place costly and bureaucratic visa barriers to the scientists and entrepreneurs they hope to attract to the UK. Does the Minister agree that when talented scientists and technologists want to move here, the UK should be rolling out the red carpet rather than red tape?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

How could I disagree? Let me make the situation absolutely clear. The Government, as everybody knows, are moving to an earned settlement approach but we are committed to increasing the numbers of exactly the kind of people the noble Lord refers to. They do not have a big impact on the overall total. On 14 October, the Government announced that they aim to double the number of highly skilled people coming to the UK on our high skills route, including the best researchers, designers, and creatives working in film and TV, to ensure continued competitiveness in those sectors. On the high-potential individuals, on 4 November, eligibility was expanded from the top 50 to the top 100 international universities, up to a cap of 8,000 applications. I hope that demonstrates to your Lordships’ House our commitment to attracting this talent. Perhaps I could take the opportunity to say that I am an immigrant myself and I pay testament to this country’s culture of fairness and opportunity—and I can tell you that I am neither global talent nor high potential.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the unintended consequences to which the Minister referred is that hard-pressed and hard-working prison officers, who happen to earn less than £41,700 per year, will, as a result of this Government’s policies, find themselves deported when their visas expire. Given the impact that will have on the already strained criminal justice system, will the Minister undertake to ask his colleagues to think again about that policy?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to his experience and commitment in this area. I too have history in the prison system, as it were: I was lead non-executive director of the Prison Service for many years, so I know first-hand some of the recruitment and retention problems that it faces. I totally understand the problem but, as I have said, these are all matters under consultation and we will make sure to try to avoid unintended consequences where we can. We take very seriously the problem that my noble friend has highlighted.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches next.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the problems with the immigration system for attracting exceptional emerging talent in the creative industries from abroad—it is the emerging talent we should be concentrating on—is that its inflexibility does not allow for the realities of this sector, where short-term contracts and portfolio careers, for example, are the norm? Are the Government looking at this?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an issue that he has raised before, and one about which I am concerned. Indeed, I addressed it in my maiden speech. As I have already said, we announced on 14 October that we will aim to double the number of highly skilled people coming to the UK on the high skilled routes, precisely to address the issues he raises relating to the creative sectors.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the non-affiliated Benches.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

With 1 million young people not in education, training or work, and with the number of apprenticeships having collapsed in this country, how can it possibly make sense for us to waive the visa rules to bring in roofers, bricklayers, carpenters and care workers, let alone nurses and other NHS workers? These are all highly skilled roles, but we can train young people up to do them quite quickly. Would it not make much more sense to massively increase the number of apprenticeships available for young people who are in this country already?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, it absolutely would, and that is what the Government are seeking. My noble friend will have noted some of the announcements on apprenticeships in the Budget. The skilled workers route is by far the largest route for these high skills; it is more than 250,000 people. We need to upskill the resident community, but we have raised the skills levels required for the skilled worker route and the salary levels. The occupational lists have been restricted, and we have created a temporary shortage list. I believe we are addressing exactly some of the points that my noble friend made.

West Midlands Police: Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:40

Asked by

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of alleged inaccuracies in a report produced by the West Midlands police force on the alleged activities of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans ahead of Maccabi’s recent match against Aston Villa.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I am sorry, it is me again. The Government are limited in what they can say at this time about the intelligence used by West Midlands Police following alleged inaccuracies reported in the media, but I can tell my noble friend that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable of West Midlands Police requesting an urgent response on the intelligence his force relied on and his confidence in it. Obviously, we have noted the press reports. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government remain committed to ensuring that all fans can attend football matches safely, regardless of their background.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a situation where the police force stands accused of fabricating evidence while under pressure from a bunch of bigots and racists—as well as, it pains me to say, a number of Labour councillors—all with one aim: turning Britain’s second-biggest city into a no-go area for Jewish people; and they actually succeeded in that. I am glad to hear about the review; how soon will it deliver its findings? Also, will the Government undertake to hold an inquiry to find out what the hell is going on in Birmingham city hall and, if necessary, suspend the council and kick out any Labour councillors engaged in this evil plot?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I will deal first with the issues surrounding the football match. Obviously, the police are operationally independent of government, and officials routinely engage with operational partners to support public safety and effective policing. The Home Office does not publish operational intelligence or risk assessments. To address my noble friend’s question, on 31 October the Home Secretary commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice—of course, that is what is being contested here—to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. I know that the Policing Minister hopes for earlier feedback from HMI on the situation in the West Midlands and what happened in relation to the intelligence that was available from the Netherlands. But we hope the report from HMI will be ready by March, and I am sure the problems at Birmingham City Council will continue to receive much attention.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, further to the excellent Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, the chief constable of Greater Manchester does not need to wait for this report because he said that, as a matter of course, Israeli fans would be welcome to come and support their team in Greater Manchester, at Manchester United or Manchester City. Why is it that the chief constable of Greater Manchester can say that, yet the West Midlands Police has acted in this terrible situation? Given that the Prime Minister said it was the wrong decision, when did the Home Office know about this and what did it know?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I will deal first with the question about the timeline and then perhaps respond on the other matters, because it is important that the facts are in the public domain. The United Kingdom Football Policing Unit informed Home Office officials on 2 October that there was a significant risk of disorder involving Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and that one of the options under consideration was to ban Maccabi fans from attending the match. On 16 October, two weeks later, Birmingham City Council, on advice from the safety advisory group, announced its decision, and this was when the Government found out. On 17 October, the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner asked the safety advisory group and West Midlands Police to convene a special safety advisory group meeting at the earliest opportunity. However, as I think everybody knows, on 20 October, Maccabi Tel Aviv announced its formal decision to reject any allocation for the Aston Villa fixture. The Government have expressed our disappointment. On the noble Lord’s initial question, of course we would have preferred it to go ahead, and the Prime Minister has made that clear.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a long and unpleasant experience of football violence in this country, going back a long way. We also have set drills for keeping fans safe and getting them to and from grounds. For a midweek game, there cannot have been any shortage of available forces to support them. Can it be made quite clear that what happened here is totally unacceptable and that anybody who takes information from a foreign police force that has not been verified will not have that position tolerated in the future?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already made it clear that the Policing Minister has written to West Midlands Police to find out precisely what intelligence it received about what happened in Amsterdam and how that is reflected in the various press reports. On a wider scale, we are looking at how intelligence is provided to safety advisory groups, through a review by HMI. On the noble Lord’s other point, of course, we deplore all kinds of public disorder at football matches.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a disgraceful decision. First, can the Minister tell me why it is going to take HMI five months to come back with a review? It cannot take that long. Secondly, he will know that the inspectorate looked last year at the powers of intervention of the Home Secretary and said that legislation and guidance do not

“clearly define the boundary between police operational independence and appropriate external influence or accountability”.

Will he look again at a government response to that report?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. On his first point, I have already said, but I am happy to stress, that we do not intend that feedback on the intelligence received from the Amsterdam match and HMI’s assessment of it waits until the overall report, which is due in March; the Policing Minister should have some information before that. We think it is very important that we review the safety advisory groups overall and how they are handled. On his second point, the Government do not interfere in operational police matters, except in very particular circumstances, but frankly, on this occasion, we were prevented from intervening because Maccabi Tel Aviv decided not to take its ticket allocation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable for an explanation. Like all noble Lords, I am sure, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Andrew Gilbert, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said:

“This decision has sowed distrust, particularly for Birmingham’s Jewish community, and undermined community cohesion”.


Does the Minister agree that for the concept of policing by consent to work, people must have the confidence to know that police use accurate information and are held to account when they do not?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Unlike on the previous Question, I do agree with the noble Lord. I want particularly to emphasise that this is not just about who attends football matches, this is about community cohesion and tolerance in our society, and it is absolutely right that people should use reliable evidence and should be held to account if they do not.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister constantly stresses the operational independence of the police, yet a Jew-free zone was created in the West Midlands—with, it appears, official sanction. Does the Minister understand that while the Government say they will not tolerate antisemitism, it seems that antisemitism was not only tolerated but officially endorsed, although not necessarily by the Government? Unless the Government act very strongly on this, it implies that officialdom thinks that Jews are not welcome in a major city in this country, and it is shameful.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s characterisation of any part of the United Kingdom as being “Jew-free”; that is a highly emotive way to describe it. However, I share the concerns of those who want to ensure that people of all religions—but, particularly in the current climate, Jewish people—can go about their lives without fear of intimidation. I am not sure that emotive rhetoric about Jew-free areas is helpful in this conversation.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:51

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we move on to the next business, I wish to update the House on the forward plan for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I have reflected on the first two days of Committee and discussed this with the usual channels and the Bill’s sponsor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

Noble Lords will be aware that over 1,000 amendments have been tabled and only three groups of amendments have been debated so far. It is therefore clear that the House needs additional time to scrutinise the Bill. I have always been clear that, as this Government are neutral on the Bill, any additional time will not come from government time. I also believe, given the importance of the subject and the number of colleagues who wish to participate, that this scrutiny could not take place in the Grand Committee, as some noble Lords have suggested to me. I have therefore arranged for the House to sit on eight additional Fridays in the new year, in addition to the three Fridays already announced. The Fridays will be listed in today’s Forthcoming Business.

As noble Lords are keen to be made aware of these dates, I can tell the House that those Fridays when the Bill will be considered will be: 9 January; 16 January, alongside some other PMB business; 23 January; 30 January; 6 February; 27 February, 13 March; 20 March; 27 March; and 24 April. The House will also sit on 6 March for the debate on International Women’s Day. A notice with the full list of sitting Fridays will be made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Royal Gallery. I will also email all dates to all noble Lords’ parliamentary email addresses.

As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reiterated last week, the Government are neutral and how we proceed with this Bill is ultimately in the hands of this House. The Government are not seeking to prescribe how it will progress, but I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will be discussing with other noble Lords how to make good use of this time.

I am conscious that colleagues may also be thinking about the time available on each sitting Friday. For the past two Fridays, I have come to the House at the start of proceedings, to set out how I hope the House will conduct itself and made clear that, in line with the Companion, I will seek to bring proceedings to a close at a convenient point around 3 pm. It is my intention to continue with this approach, but ultimately it is a decision for the House as whole, not me as Government Chief Whip.

I hope this is helpful and my door remains open to all noble Lords on this or any other matter.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, may I, as the sponsor of the Bill, express my profound gratitude to the usual channels for making what amounts to 10 additional days available for the Bill? That means that, up to 24 April, there will be 16 days for consideration of the Bill through all its stages. May I also specifically agree with the Chief Whip that the right course now for all of us who are interested in the Bill—opponents or supporters—is to get together and agree the best way to use the remaining 12 days that we have on it?

Ministerial Code

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 24 November.

“Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.

The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the Ministerial Code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.

The Ministerial Code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.

The Prime Minister further strengthened the Ministerial Code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.

I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the Question which aspect of the Ministerial Code the honourable Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country”.

15:55

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in the foreword to the latest version of the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister says:

“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era”,


but despite agreeing with his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards that he would play no role in football matters, he was sent, and responded to, a submission appointing as chairman of the new football regulator David Kogan, a man who had made political donations not just to his Labour leadership campaign but to his general election campaign last summer. In the interests of restoring trust in politics, can the Minister tell us: how much did these donations amount to?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Given the fact that this was discussed previously both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, he will be very aware that all donations were declared in line with the threshold, and the thresholds are publicly available. Let us be very clear that Mr Kogan was approached by the previous Government about this position, because they recognised the skills that he had—and we recognised the skills that he had. He has cross-party support and industry support, and we wish him well in his work.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, while I do not wish in any way to criticise proper criticisms of breaches of the code, may I suggest that the intemperate language used on occasion, and references to what are trivial breaches of the code, are often very damaging to the reputation of Parliament itself? Politicians and the media need to be very careful about how they express themselves in this context.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Viscount. Everybody in your Lordships’ House, whether they hold ministerial office or not, has a responsibility to help us rebuild trust in politics. It is incredibly important in a world of misinformation, in a world where we have seen the Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, and where we are trying to fix some things that were genuinely broken, that the general public have faith and trust in us, both as the Government and as the establishment, and that we collectively work together to make sure that people can trust their Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches see a very large pot attacking a rather smaller kettle. The Conservatives, as a responsible Opposition, must own and admit their own past record on this; on public appointments, including to the BBC board, the Conservatives have a number of answers to give. I am constantly amazed at the Conservatives’ denial that they were in office for the last 10 years.

The Minister will not have seen this morning’s publication by UCL’s Constitution Unit—one of the best sources of comment on constitutional matters—which has the headline, “Starmer’s constitutional timidity”. I encourage her to look back at what the Labour manifesto said on this, because much of what that manifesto promised on public appointments, a stronger role for Parliament and modernisation simply has not been pushed through yet. On public appointments, it seems clear, particularly after the current BBC arguments, that Parliament should be given a fuller role in checking public appointments—Select Committees, for example, which have been strongly supported to vet public appointments as they are made. Do the Government not intend to push through some of the commitments they made in their manifesto, such as proper modernisation of the Commons and thorough reform of the Lords?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report; I look forward to reading it. He will not be surprised that, on Budget Day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will do so. We are 18 months into a Labour Government that have delivered on strengthening the Ministerial Code by setting out new financial penalties and new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers’ interests, and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was in our manifesto. Having sat through every moment of our debates, I know that we have been in your Lordships’ House for over 50 hours discussing the future of the House as well as other areas of modernisation. We are acting. This is a hugely ambitious Government with a great deal to do, and we will continue to move forward.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister or the department received any representations from the Opposition—including from their spokesman who just spoke—that Mr David Kogan, with all his experience in sports management, is not an excellent choice? If he is, in fact, eminently well qualified and probably the best person for the position, is it not absurd that, in a parliamentary democracy where political parties contest, someone could be disqualified because they support a political party?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I seem to remember that, when the previous Government were in government and since, they have accepted donations from supporters. It seems to be normal that people would want to support a political party; it is a normal part of our politics. My noble friend is absolutely right: to my knowledge, there has been no such representations from the Conservative Front Bench criticising Mr Kogan’s appointment based on his ability to do the role.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, is there not in place an automatic system within government that, when a public appointment is being made by a Minister, checks whether a donation has been made to that Minister or to their political party in general?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a system in place. The Commissioner for Public Appointments undertook a report to find out what has happened in this case and found that the Secretary of State acted in good faith. However, the processes have since been strengthened.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was indeed a manifesto commitment. Can she tell the House when she expects it, having been set up, to operate fully?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Obviously, we are in the process of ensuring that it is fully staffed and set up. I will write to him with the timescale.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that detailed codes of conduct can never ensure good behaviour, and constant allegations across the Dispatch Box of breaches of the code undermine public confidence in the integrity of public life rather than enhance it?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why we have given more power and authority to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, who can now undertake their own investigations without being instructed to by the Prime Minister. It is also why we have asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to adopt a risk-based approach, so that it can focus on those cases that present a genuine risk to the integrity of government. There is collective responsibility to make sure that people trust us—politicians and the Government. We have a huge amount to deliver collectively, and people need to know that we are on their side, regardless of which party we represent.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, criticism of the Government’s breaches of the Ministerial Code do not just come from His Majesty’s Opposition. Paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code sets out that

“the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”.

This morning, the Speaker of the House of Commons criticised the Government for their increasing habit of making these announcements outside Parliament. He said to his local BBC radio station that, in the past,

“if you leaked a Budget you would be asked to resign”.

Does the Minister agree with the Speaker of another place?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I have known the Speaker of another place since I was born. While I always appreciate the words of Mr Speaker, in this instance I remind noble Lords, from across all political parties, that there is always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget. Mr Speaker has asked the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a review of the Ministerial Code in terms of when business should and should not be addressed first in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord is absolutely right about paragraph 9.1, and the Prime Minister too has been clear that significant announcements should always be made in Parliament.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, did the Minister note that, in his second intervention, the Opposition spokesman in no way made any criticism of David Kogan in relation to whether he was a fit and proper person to undertake the post? Does that not speak volumes?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right; I sat through many hours of discussion on the appointment of the football regulator and the legislation which passed through your Lordships’ House, which has been in both the Labour Party manifesto and the Conservative Party manifesto as a commitment. Not only did we sit through many hours of that, but now we have an effort to not support Mr Kogan going forward. He is a positive force for good; he was originally approached by the Opposition Benches when they were in government to hold this role, and nobody in the sector has any complaints about his appointment.

Sentencing Bill

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

Scottish legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 15th Report from the Constitution Committee.

16:06

Clause 1: Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”
Member's explanatory statement
The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the set of amendments in my name. I am sure that, throughout the course of this Committee, many noble Lords will debate and question precisely which offenders they think should be excluded from the numerous provisions for suspended sentences included in the Bill. The Government have made the underlying principle behind their approach quite clear: that only those who pose a serious risk of harm to a particular individual should be denied the privilege of a suspended sentence. On these Benches, we believe that the exemptions to Clause 1 should be much wider. We have tabled many amendments to that effect, and I will speak to them at several points throughout this Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will disagree with some of our suggestions, and I welcome the debate that will ensure that we scrutinise the Bill with care. The Bill received just one day of Committee in the other place. It is therefore imperative to carry out our duty to provide the Bill with the scrutiny that it requires.

These amendments do not directly relate to the specific offender types who we believe should spend their sentences in custody. Rather, this group of amendments seeks to clarify important practical and operational points of the Bill, which either the Government did not account for or appear to be in favour of. I have tabled these amendments to highlight the harmful effects that the Bill will have on communities and individuals, if it becomes law in its present form.

Amendments 1 and 12 may seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of the Bill, but, without their inclusion, a significant number of dangerous criminals will be free to roam the streets. There are many crimes for which a 12-month sentence is imposed, and these amendments seek to ensure that such offenders are past the cut-off point for suspended sentences to apply.

Just last month, a sex offender, Hadush Kebatu, was released from prison by accident. The Foreign Secretary said repeatedly that he was “livid” that such a man had been let loose and was free to roam the streets. Further, the Home Secretary called the same man a “vile sex offender”. Countless Government Ministers expressed their thoughts and sympathies for the victim and her family, and we on these Benches could not agree more with that assessment of Mr Kebatu.

Mr Kebatu was serving a 12-month sentence. He was convicted for trying to sexually assault a 14 year-old girl. A 41 year-old man convicted of a child sexual offence was allowed to roam the streets and the Government purported outrage, yet under the provisions of their own Sentencing Bill offenders such as Mr Kebatu would be at large not simply for a handful of days but for the entirety of their sentence. When questioned about this, the Minister simply explained that there were separate provisions for foreign-national offenders, but this misses the point. It does not detract from the fact that there are thousands of offenders convicted of charges similar to those of Mr Kebatu, all of whom would be let out on to the streets after their conviction for child sexual assault. Will the Minister finally accept this as being the Government’s stance with respect to these proposals?

In an ideal world, I would rather see all such offenders behind bars for the entire duration of their sentence, and I have tabled further amendments to that effect. However, Amendments 1 and 12 seek at least to close this obvious gap in justice to some degree by ensuring that only offences with sentences of less than 12 months are eligible for suspension. That way the one-year sentences imposed on men such as Mr Kebatu and other sexual offenders would be served in custody and not on our streets.

Amendments 2 and 13 similarly seek to plug apparent drafting oversights in the Bill. At present, it is not yet clear whether the presumption of a suspended sentence would apply to that sentence before or after a guilty plea is submitted. Given that in all published materials of the Government they have indicated that only short- term sentences of up to one year should be suspended, I can only guess that they intended for Clause 1 to take effect before guilty pleas were submitted. I have therefore tabled Amendments 2 and 13 to ensure that the presumption of suspended sentences should apply before any credit is given for a guilty plea.

If this is an amendment which the Government wish to oppose then I suggest they must make clear to all noble Lords, and indeed to the public, that they in fact wish to suspend sentences for all crimes up to 18 months, rather than 12 months. That is because any offender charged with a crime of 18 months has the ability to reduce it by a third by submission of an early guilty plea, which will subsequently make them eligible, apparently, for an automatic suspended sentence. I suggest that this will simply open a Pandora’s box for a whole new subset of crimes that will fall into the eligibility criteria of Clause 1.

The exclusion of an express clause negating credit for a guilty plea in this context will have unintended and dangerous implications for our justice system. It risks fundamentally undermining public confidence in justice if offenders come to recognise that by pleading guilty they can simply avoid prison altogether and serve their sentence in the community. That distorts incentives in a manner that no responsible Government should welcome. It may even encourage individuals charged with serious crimes, regardless of whether or not they committed them, to plead guilty, purely to escape a custodial sentence. That cannot be a principle on which our system of justice is based. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously, and I look forward to hearing his response.

Amendments 3 and 14 address a further operational incoherence in Clause 1: the length of time for which a suspended sentence would be imposed. Under the Bill as drafted, there is no clarity as to whether suspended sentences imposed automatically under this presumption would be suspended for the maximum period. In many cases, an offender could therefore benefit from a dramatically reduced suspension period, serving little to no meaningful time under supervision. My amendments seek to ensure in statute that this is simply not the case. If the intention is truly to uphold the integrity of sentencing, any suspended sentence imposed as a substitute for immediate custody must be suspended for the maximum allowable period. Anything less would undermine the very concept of accountability that the public rightly expect from our justice system.

16:15

Amendments 4, 16, 5 and 17 in my name all concern exemptions in Clause 1 relating to risk of harm. As currently drafted, the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence may be disapplied only where failing to impose immediate custody would put a particular individual at significant risk of harm. This sets far too narrow and dangerous a threshold.

First, the provision does not allow the court to consider the risk to the wider public. It is entirely possible for an offender to present a clear danger to communities generally, even if no single victim can be identified. Convicted sex offenders are a clear example of this. Judges must be able to take that broader threat into account. These amendments ensure that risk to the public is recognised as a valid basis for imposing custody rather than suspension.

Secondly, the requirement that the risk must be significant before the presumption can be disapplied imposes an unreasonably high bar for the exemption to take effect. We should not wait until harm escalates to a severe level before the court is permitted to act. Any harm committed by someone who should otherwise be in prison is a level of harm that we on these Benches find unacceptable. We owe to the British public more protection than that, and Amendments 5 and 17 therefore remove this threshold, so that any credible risk of harm may justify an immediate custodial sentence.

I sincerely hope that the Government will engage meaningfully with these amendments and recognise the vital issues of public protection and judicial integrity that they seek to address. The consequences of getting this wrong are not theoretical; they will be felt by victims and by communities. So, while it is no secret that we may oppose much of the Bill, these amendments are constructive and are tabled in the spirit of helping the Government ensure that the Bill achieves its stated purpose, rather than undermining it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is unavoidably unable to be here. I apologise for taking his place from the second Bench; I am sure noble Lords will understand that I need propping up.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Conservative amendments in such clear detail. They read to me as if he and his party are going along with the Bill with such reluctance that they would really like to oppose it completely, and have proposed so many amendments so as to come just short of wrecking it. I know that the noble and learned Lord will say that he is giving shape to the presumption, and I accept that some of the amendments will help to clarify the position. He calls them “practical and operational”; I do not necessarily read them that way. But I do think is a pity. He quotes a very few cases, and few cases make bad law; and using language such as “roaming our streets” does not help a sensible and calm debate on a Bill which is thoughtful and addresses not only the matter of prison capacity but what will be best for particular offenders to assist them, as I read it, not to reoffend. From these Benches, we wholeheartedly support that.

I have to say, too, that, if we were to accept these amendments, we would be in danger of constraining magistrates so much that they would read what they are given as prescription instead of leaving them scope to produce the best sentence in the particular circumstances of the offender.

On the first amendment in this group, can the Minister say how often a sentence of just short of 12 months is given? I hear 12 months as being quite a usual order, so that, if one changed the terminology, one would be nullifying or at any rate reducing the effect of the central part of this Bill. On Amendment 4, concerning danger not just to an individual but to the public, when I read it, I thought, “If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, there is a curious diffidence over so important a part of the Bill as Clause 1. I shall not say much about it, except that, although the amendments are worth studying to see whether they do improve how Clause 1 can operate, they seem to stem from a general hostility to the Bill disguised as a sort of benevolence. It is a strange position that the Conservative Front Bench has taken.

We would be in a happier situation if we were discussing this Bill because we had worked out a coherent alternative criminal justice policy and the sole reason for carrying it forward would be that it would be better at protecting the public, recognising, as it should, that many people who are in prison are not being improved in their propensity not to reoffend by being in prison, and some of the people in the community are not getting the support and structure they need to make their lives responsible—or reduce the danger to the public in general.

However, we are considering this Bill because our prisons are full and will remain full and get fuller unless we do something about it. That does not preclude having a sensible criminal justice policy in support of provisions such as Clause 1, but it does necessitate it. The good thing about this Bill is that significant parts of it are addressed to better provision in and out of prison and in the transition from prison to being out of prison—a matter on which the Minister has plenty of specialised knowledge from his own experience. It may be that we can tidy up Clauses 1 and 2 a little, but we should be quite clear in our minds that they are necessary clauses to deal with a crisis. We will rely on other parts of the Bill to ensure that we are dealing with that from the point of view of criminal justice reform, and not merely trying to empty prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. As noble Lords know, I have devoted much of my life and career to criminal justice reform, in particular the question of how to reduce reoffending. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments on short sentences, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. While I am grateful to noble Lords for their constructive and thoughtful input on this Bill, inside and outside the Chamber, I remain convinced that the position of the Bill is the right one. I appreciate the words from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, along those lines.

Let me be clear at the outset: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will still have discretion to send offenders to prison where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual, where they have breached a court order or in exceptional circumstances. However, the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. That is a key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences and why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less.

We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities, and we are also following the lead of the previous Conservative Government who originally introduced this measure during the last Parliament, without the additional amendments we are debating today.

Given the clear evidence on short sentences, the Government do not agree with introducing further exemptions. To do so could increase reoffending and so create more victims. I came into this job to build a criminal justice system that leads to fewer victims, not more.

I will now turn to the specific points that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have both raised important points on early guilty pleas through Amendments 2 and 13. I can assure noble Lords that I have reflected on these amendments and considered them at length and with great care, but it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence where a defendant pleads guilty. This avoids the need for a trial, enables cases to be dealt with quickly, and shortens the gap between charge and sentence. Moreover, it can save victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence. This is particularly important in traumatic cases.

Furthermore, the amendments proposed would create inconsistencies. The presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea mitigation brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, whereas it could still apply where the court applied any other mitigation that had the same effect. For these reasons, the Government do not support these amendments.

Through Amendments 3 and 14, noble Lords have also proposed requiring courts to impose suspended sentence orders with a maximum operational period of two years. This would not be appropriate for every suspended sentence order without consideration of the particular facts of the case, and would place additional burden on the Probation Service. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.

It is absolutely clear that the last Government left our Probation Service under immense pressure. Fourteen years of austerity came alongside a botched privatisation. The scars are still there, and we are fixing it. Sentencing must always be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision. This amendment would remove that discretion.

I thank the noble Lords again for their amendments and the opportunity to debate them. I hope I have sufficiently explained why our approach of following the evidence is the right one to take. With that in mind, I ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the Committee debate, and I thank the Minister for explaining the position of the Government with regard to these proposed amendments.

On early guilty pleas, it appears to me, respectfully, that if the Government are going to maintain the position that has been set out, they should be explicit in the Bill that they are not dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of 12 months; they are dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of up to and including 18 months. That is far from clear in the Bill. Whether or not the Government accept our amendment, it is a point that has to be made clear so that public confidence can be maintained in the nature of the sentencing system that is going to be introduced.

With regard to the matter of suspension and the maximum suspension period of two years, we maintain that if these moves are going to be taken, it is only appropriate that the suspension should be for a period long enough to enable some form of rehabilitation to take place, because otherwise it is simply pointless. Again, I ask the Government to reconsider their position, but at this stage I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 to 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

6: Clause 1, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the “current offence”);(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions; (d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;(h) at the time of the current offence, was—(i) subject to a supervision order, or(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall);(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments touch on similar issues to those we have already addressed. They highlight what we say is a fundamental flaw in Clause 1—the blanket presumption of suspended short custodial sentences even for offenders who pose a serious and ongoing risk to the public.

Under the Bill as it is framed, there is the real possibility that individuals convicted of crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, burglary and offences involving knives or other bladed weapons could serve the entirety of their sentences in the community. As we have just noted, that may be far less than a suspension of two years if the Government proceed as they intend. From the point of view of public safety and public confidence in the justice system, that appears to be unacceptable.

16:30

Many of our concerns with this part of the Bill arise from the conflation of two separate issues: the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and the need to ensure proportionate and fair sentencing. We recognise—indeed, it is undeniable—that our prisons are under immense strain. The Government are clear that one purpose of the Bill is to alleviate that pressure, but the correct response to overcrowding is not to release serious offenders into the community without meaningful consequences for their actions.

We are not talking about petty criminals committing minor thefts. These are individuals whose crimes can leave lasting physical and psychological scars on their victims. They are criminals who have committed serious offences and very often repeated those serious offences. We are not attempting to express some idealistic notion about the purpose or proportionality of sentencing, and we do not pretend that it is possible to approach these issues in a total vacuum, ignoring the very real issues that our prisons face. But equally, we cannot turn a blind eye to the hard truths that will fast become reality if the Bill passes in its unamended form. This debate should not focus on the abstract flaws of short-term custodial sentences. We must confront the tangible and real-world consequences of passing Clause 1 with only the narrow exceptions it contains.

Amendments 6 and 18 are designed to ensure that the presumption of a suspended sentence does not apply where it would be wholly inappropriate. They focus on repeat offenders and those who commit offences of serious violence and therefore should not avoid meaningful custodial sentences. Without such safeguards, the deterrent effect inherent in sentencing disappears and the public are left exposed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson for his Amendments 7 to 11, which complement this approach. His amendments, sensibly, would remove the presumption of suspended sentences for those convicted of assaulting emergency workers or public service providers, burglary, offences involving knives or other bladed weapons, terrorism and the failure to surrender to custody. These are all important issues to raise and concern offenders whom the public would wish, and indeed expect, to serve their sentences in custody. I trust that the Government will give these amendments serious consideration, as they provide practical targeted safeguards for public protection.

My group of amendments also addresses offenders with a history of non-compliance. While noble Lords may be happy to hear that I will not list every single exemption in Amendments 19 to 29, I will highlight a few categories that I believe demand consideration. They include offenders who have previously received suspended or custodial sentences for the same offence, offenders who have breached previous suspension orders multiple times, and offenders who have a history of committing crimes while under licence or supervision. Each of those scenarios represents a clear risk to public safety—they are obvious candidates for custodial sentences—yet under the Bill, all such offenders would benefit from the presumption of suspension. I respectfully suggest that this is not appropriate.

The Bill reflects not a shift away from short custodial sentences but a large step towards their complete abolition. Suspended sentences are now presumed for offences of up to 12 months, and their eligibility is extended to offences of up to three years. Under this Bill, around 43,000 offenders, some of whom are violent criminals, will avoid prison entirely. Police estimates suggest that the Bill will produce an immediate 6% rise in crime. That amounts to nearly 400,000 additional offences per year. That is the immediate rise; clearly, that will have an effect on the public and the community at large.

I hope this series of amendments will help illustrate how the Bill could properly operate in practice, so that a repeat offender with a history of failing to comply with court orders could commit an assault or drug-related offence and not simply assume that he will, under these provisions, receive a suspended sentence but expect a custodial sentence. If such an offender were to be given a suspended sentence, he would have to be managed by an already overstretched Probation Service. Having remained in the community, he may even be eligible for early release if the probation officer exercises his apparent newfound powers of early termination. That is not a justice system that will engage the public’s support. It is a systemic failure. These amendments are designed to prevent just such an eventuality.

As I indicated a moment ago, much of the Bill will simply shift the burdens facing prison staff on to a Probation Service that is already under severe strain. It will be the Probation Service that is required to manage a much-expanded cohort of offenders in the community. The impact assessment itself conservatively anticipates that 580 additional probation staff would be needed each year, at a cost of over £30 million. Clause 11 compounds that problem by removing the requirement for courts to specify the maximum number of rehabilitation activity days, transferring yet more duties on to probation officers. Overworked, understaffed, and faced with unmanageable case loads, probation officers will inevitably struggle to enforce any meaningful rehabilitation. Under these conditions, offenders could undertake little or no substantive activity before returning to society.

Some may disagree and argue that the dangerous and repeat offenders I have highlighted in these amendments should serve their sentences safely in the community. I raise this point to show that, even for noble Lords who hold such views, this reasoning fails on two separate counts. If the justification for an offender’s suspended sentence is that prisons are overcrowded and they should therefore remain in the community then that does not stand to scrutiny, as probation services are already so overstretched that they cannot manage the new influx safely outside of prison. If the justification for their suspended sentence is rehabilitation then that argument also fails, because meaningful rehabilitation simply cannot take place under these strained conditions. All that would be achieved is the public’s exposure to unrehabilitated criminals for whom there are no bars to reoffending. Whatever one’s reasoning for suspended sentences may be, it will inevitably collapse when faced with the twin issues of dangerous repeat offenders and a struggling Probation Service.

Amendments 6, 18 and 19 to 29 are there not purely on punitive grounds but as common-sense safeguards to ensure that offenders who pose a genuine risk cannot bypass custody simply because of the pressures on our prison system. They would guarantee that sentences remain proportionate and enforceable, and therefore pay respect to the victims of crime. The public, after all, must have confidence that serious crimes are met with serious consequences. That was the only mention this Government made of sentencing in their manifesto, and we on these Benches agree with it, yet Clause 1 seems to severely jeopardise that simple principle.

These amendments are therefore vital as a message not only to the public but to potential offenders. They would make it clear that those sentenced for serious offences, repeat offending or breaches of court orders must serve time in custody. They would preserve the integrity of our justice system, respect the rights of victims and protect the wider public. I hope the Government will give serious and careful consideration not only to these amendments but to those tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 7 to 11. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, particularly Amendments 6 and 18 to 29.

I fully understand the need to address the issue of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are now in a position where we have 97.3% capacity and 86,800 prisoners, as at 3 November this year. I think we are all committed to tackling recidivism and to improving prisoner education and rehabilitation; I know the Minister has a personal commitment and an enviable record in that respect. I support the wider aim of delivering 14,000 additional prison places by 2031, given that, at present, we will be 9,500 places short by 2028. I am one of the few people who has actually read the Independent Sentencing Review by my erstwhile friend and former colleague David Gauke, which is an excellent piece of work.

I notice that the Government are no longer propagating the disingenuous statistic and canard that the previous Government, who struggled with Covid, Ukraine and other contingent financial problems, created only 500 places. For the record, they created 8,500 places and opened three new prisons: HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike. Unfortunately, due to the decrepit physical condition of the prison estate, presided over by both parties, the previous Government, cheered on by His Majesty’s Opposition at the time and prisoner advocacy charities, were compelled to take many prison places out of use. Some 4,151 cells have been closed due to dilapidation since 2010, according to the PAC report on prison capacity published in March this year.

I have two major concerns regarding the proposals in Clause 1 that give rise to my amendments, which in practice would de facto abolish prison terms under 12 months. They send out a regrettable message to criminals and the wider public that, because of government incompetence, a failure to plan and a failure of imagination, committing crime is cost free. Shoplifters, burglars, thieves, fences, thugs and drug dealers will be spared jail and instead will receive a community sentence. Even someone given an 18-month sentence for a serious crime, with a credit of a guilty plea taken into account and a reduction to 12 months, will receive no custodial jail time at all.

I shall focus on Amendment 7, concerning these rather wrongheaded proposals. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was introduced by a Labour MP and supported by the Labour Front Bench and the GMB union, whose national officer said at the time:

“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place but we also want to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults”.


The Bill was supported by many senior Labour MPs, including, for instance, Louise Haigh, then a Front-Bencher, who said that the attitude

“sadly exists across the criminal justice system, that being punched and kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted … we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/17; col. 1150.]

Under these proposals we have a situation where around 3,000 thugs—who assaulted police officers, NHS workers, firefighters and ambulance staff, among others—will receive a golden ticket: a free pass. What message does that send to the public and to those public servants who do these very tough jobs? The criminal justice system is distrusted by many taxpayers already. Will that improve as a result of this legislation?

16:45

Amendment 8 focuses on burglary. Some 76% of burglaries in England and Wales were left unsolved in the year to June 2023. For residential burglaries in the year to March 2025, the charge rate was 4.7%: fewer than one in 20 home burglaries resulted in someone being charged. It is no wonder that burglary is a persistent scourge committed by repeat offenders. Are we now going to reduce the small deterrent effect—by abolishing custodial sentences and a somewhat punitive approach—to a nasty offence that traumatises victims? They see their homes despoiled and such violation causes great distress and anxiety. I know that the Minister would not want that to be the case. These proposals put career criminals out on the street to assault, thieve and commit other criminal activities, including burglary, for the sake of, as a sanction, unpaid work and a stiff talk with a probation officer.

Amendments 9 to 11 are self-explanatory. They are about keeping habitual criminals off the streets and keeping the public safe. I am afraid that Labour in government has previous for this. The answer always seems to be: “Release prisoners early, or do not imprison them at all”. The Minister will know that between June 2007 and April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released up to 18 days early, some of them serving up to four years in prison. This was conveniently in time for the 2010 general election.

Ministers pray in aid the Texas earned release progression model; the Minister has spoken about this before. As my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick said in the other place, Texas’s incarceration rate is three times that of the UK. It is the largest state prison system in the United States, with 130,000 people in prison, 70,000 in local county jails. It has an incarceration rate of 751 for every 100,000 people: this is significantly above the United Kingdom’s, according to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Numbers are increasing in Texas: recidivism rates in the state are still very high. It could be argued that to get better recidivism and rehabilitation results, we should perhaps look elsewhere: to Norway and other Scandinavian countries, and other states in America, such as Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The Minister will know about these examples. In any event, Texas will be over its capacity by 7,000 places within the next year, according to the recent report by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

My point is that the Government should not aim for perfection in, say, dealing with women prisoners: compassionate release, rehabilitation, education and drug treatment programmes. Have they considered the balance of risk regarding capacity issues? This is the second point I turn to; namely, the pressures on the Probation Service alluded to earlier by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen. The service is now at 104% capacity, and struggles with huge case loads and staff shortages—up to 10,000 as at August 2025. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates that this policy will give rise to a requirement for at least another 630 new full-time equivalent probation officers every year. To deal with the 241,540 individuals currently being supervised in England and Wales, however, we have a service with a full-time equivalent probation officer shortfall of 2,300, despite 1,153 new officers being appointed in the past year.

I will leave the Committee with the words of my late colleague, the much missed and respected Baroness Newlove, who, as Victims’ Commissioner, raised concerns in May this year about these legislative changes. She said:

“The pace of change feels urgent, as if we are racing against the clock. I appreciate the reasons for urgency, but this speed exacerbates my reservations. The reforms set out in the Review place great emphasis on community and licence supervision, as more offenders are diverted from custodial sentences. My overriding concern is whether the already stretched probation service can withstand this additional pressure. … The review also recommends early release for prisoners who behave in prison. Compliance with prison regimes is important, but other important factors must also be taken into account, such as remorse, and evidence of a reduction in risk”.

In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I commend my Amendments 7 to 11 to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I made some remarks in the previous group about my concern that magistrates in particular would be constrained by being proscribed as to the detail of what they can do. In listing the offences of the offender, if some offences are not on the list, is that list conclusive? I am not sure that this is as helpful as the Opposition would suggest.

I wonder how many of these amendments are appropriate for primary legislation, and how many would or could go into sentencing guidelines. There are noble Lords here who know far more about the workings of both the courts and the guidelines than I do or could.

I am a bit confused about the suggestion that 12-month sentences are being abolished. I do not read them as being abolished. Would some of what is listed attract sentences of less than 12 months? I also wonder what is meant by “associated offences”, which crops up in a number of these amendments. Additionally, what are offences with “a connection to terrorism”? If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?

Many of the people who are listed in Amendment 6 and its companion amendment strike me as people who would benefit not from being in custody but rather from receiving support and rehabilitative services. I do not, of course, take issue with the comments made about the capacity of the Probation Service. We are all concerned about that, and we would all be with Baroness Newlove on that comment.

We were also told that there is no bar to reoffending. Is the suspension of a sentence not itself a bar to reoffending, given that, if the suspension is lifted, the custody applies? That strikes me as something of a bar.

I will try not to say this again today but I will repeat the point I made about the language that we use. I commented on the use of language such as offenders being free to “roam the streets”; “career criminals” seems to be a similarly unhelpful phrase.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, if I might, I will make a brief comment. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has just said. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I wonder whether trying to identify a whole range of offences that fall outside the suspended sentence regime is helpful. It raises the question of what has not been included. My own feeling is that if we could get some generic language which encapsulates the thinking expressed by my noble and learned friend, we would be doing well, rather than to have a list of offences, which runs the risk of omitting others and perhaps including some that we should not.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I understand why we have all got a problem with the size of the prison population. Generally, we could be safer if there were fewer people in prison. Many of them have probably been there too long and not had an awful lot done to help them. But as I have tried to understand the Government’s proposals and public spending generally, I have a growing concern about how they might be improved.

The proposals rely on the fact that, as people are released early or do not go to prison, they are tagged. I generally agree with tagging and think that we could do far more with it. At the moment, we do not do much with geofencing, with which we can stop a person going where a victim of domestic violence might be. There is sobriety tagging—where alcohol is the cause of somebody’s offending, you can check whether they are abiding by a court order not to drink or not to take drugs. These are positive developments. I am told that about 30% of the people leaving prison who should be tagged are not getting tagged because of administrative issues. That is a significant number of those who are leaving prison who should have some form of restraint or monitoring. If that is not happening, it needs to be sorted before we start allowing people out at a quicker rate.

The other opportunity with tagging which we are not currently taking—Ministers have been kind enough to find some time to talk with me about this—is how we might proactively use it better in the future. The data that comes from the tags goes to the commercial operators of the tagging system. I am not sure whether it is G4S, but it is a commercial operator. I have no problem with that. The problem is that the data goes into its control room and the police do not see it. It tells us where the offenders are; we might be able to check, for example, whether there is a rapist nearby to a rape or a burglar nearby to a burglary—real-time data sharing. At the moment, that is not happening, but it is an opportunity that could be taken with this new experiment. It would not take an awful lot of investment or time to get this running.

Further, as one or two people have said already, we could probably have fewer short sentences on the whole but I am not sure that they should be removed, as it appears the assumption is here, from the armoury of the judge. The particular group I would consider are those repeat offenders who commit low-level offending, but if you live next door to them it is not very good. Such cases are perceived as minor cases, but they often impact on their neighbours and the community where they live—they do not impact on people who live 20 miles away. The opportunity for a judge to intervene in those cases ought to remain. I worry that, with the assumption based on the Government’s proposal, that group, for example, would not get caught.

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the list offered by the Opposition is entirely the right one. It would force the Government to address what should be on the list, or, if not a list, what should be the principle to guide such action by a judge. I worry that, at the moment, judges may feel constrained not to give short sentences in circumstances where they are the only method. It is no good giving a fine to somebody who has repeatedly been given fines and does not pay them, as an example. I think we need to retain that in the armoury.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Is not the corollary of the noble Lord’s argument that, as it stands, if the Government were to reject these amendments, in cases of serious and egregious crime the judge may be fully cognisant of the fact that they cannot give a custodial sentence to someone who is deserving of one, and therefore will give a higher sentence than 12 months, with the result that prison overcrowding will be made worse? That is a risk if these amendments are not supported.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is quite right. In fact, that is one thing I would mention to the Minister about the risk, because judges will try to do what is best. They are not trying to subvert the law, but they will try to do what is best in the case before them.

17:00

A lot has been said, quite properly, about whether the Probation Service has the right resources now to cope with the surge of people as they leave. I am interested in the police service. One thing that the Government said in response to some of the burdens that have been placed on the police is that there are 13,000 extra officers coming into the neighbourhoods. It is time to shoot that fox. That is 13,000 people, of whom some will be special constables and some will be police community support officers. They all have their value but they are not cops who can be deployed in the way that officers can be to enforce the law. There is not even a guarantee that there will be a growth in the number of officers. The police officer numbers may increase in neighbourhoods by moving them out of murder teams, organised crime teams or all the other things they do. If the Government were to rely on the fact that the 13,000 extra officers in neighbourhoods were going to help in this particular effort, I am not convinced. It is time for the Government to be clear about how many more officers there will be. If the answer is none, that does not help with things such as this, which is just one of the things that we are asking the police to do.

This is particularly important at the moment, because the surge that will come from this release programme—which we may or may not agree is a good thing—will lead to extra work, as many, I am afraid, will reoffend quickly on release. Often their lives are upside down, and they start drinking again and quickly get back into it. I am afraid that burglars carry on burgling and drug dealers carry on dealing drugs; it is what they know. Unless we have somebody to intervene at that significant point in their career, more people and more victims will accumulate. That worries me. Those are the three areas that I would like some reassurance from the Government on, given their plans.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

The noble Lord recalled what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about having a list of crimes to which this will apply, but the moment you do that you have fettered the discretion of a judge. It must be left open for the judge to determine. If it is not, and you list the crimes to which this applies, when he or she listens to the evidence, it will be absolutely clear that the person must be sent to prison. But you have fettered the judge’s authority and power. I would not go for a list. Certainly, I support the noble Lord’s suggestions around tagging and the last question he raised, but I am not so sure that the Government can say to the judge, “You’ve got discretion but, by the way, over this you don’t”.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

That is probably for the Minister. I say only that I fundamentally agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, but discretion for judges has of course been limited in some ways. For example, there are minimum sentences: of five years if you carry a firearm and of six months on second conviction if you carry a knife after the age of 18. There are occasions when their discretion is fettered, and the Sentencing Council does that anyway with a list of a type.

I am with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The Government offer one broad principle, but I do not think it is sufficient to deal with some of my concerns. It may be improved. It may be that there should be a list—I would not argue that—but, personally, I am not reassured by the Government’s approach to what I take to be the broad assumption that people will not go to prison for a 12-month sentence. There could be some horrible cases and somebody might get hurt. That is what worries me.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly challenge some of what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, rather implied that it was his belief that the Bill intends to remove all short sentences. From the Minister’s opening remarks and those of others, that is clearly not the case. There is, however, very good reason for reducing the number.

The Minister pointed out that there is a significant reduction in the level of reoffending. He has not given the figures, so I will share them with the Committee, as a result of the work of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, in a report that was done during the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It showed the figures then—they have been replicated by more recent research—that, of offenders who are put in prison for short sentences and are released, 60% reoffend, whereas the average reoffending rate for those on custodial sentences is only 24%. As that report said, and as we will discuss in future amendments, there are very good ways in which we can improve non-custodial sentences to reduce the rate of reoffending even more.

I am going to disagree during our deliberations over the three sessions that we will have on the Bill—maybe more—with a lot of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, says, but I entirely agree with him, and it has been reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend, that none of these measures we are talking about will succeed unless we have the resources to do the job. Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others that there are amendments coming later where we can address the need for more probation officers and more people in our prisons. There is not currently, as far as I am aware, an amendment on police numbers, but there would be time to put one down.

The only other thing I want to say is how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about getting rid of the list argument, which has also been picked up. I hope the Government will listen to his proposal about finding language that can be used about those people we know we would not want to put on short sentences, but not necessarily have the sentence inflation that has, sadly, caused a problem for us and is one reason we have so many prisoners in our prisons today.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, save that I think that the Bill already deals with the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. It is important to look at the text of the Bill: this is a “presumption” against short sentences; it is not a bar to them. Of course, there is a philosophy behind the presumption: the authors of the Bill and the Government have taken the view, which is not a revolutionary view in relation to the evidence that has been collected over many years, that, generally, short sentences are not a great idea. They do not lead to rehabilitation; they do not help with reoffending.

If you disagree with that and think that a short, sharp shock is a jolly good thing, you are obviously going to disagree with the Bill and these provisions. Having lists of various offences is a good wheeze, but it is not consistent with the philosophy of the Bill, which is that, in general, short sentences do not work—they do not keep the public safe because they do not rehabilitate anyone and, in fact, some people go to the university of crime for a short course of less than 12 months and come out with drug problems, relationship breakdown and other issues that they did not have before. But this is only a presumption; it is not a bar. To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with whom I so often agree, I do not think that anything else is required as an alternative to the list approach of exceptions, because there is the residual discretion provided in the Bill for exceptional circumstances.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Is this not a case for the Sentencing Council to express some guidance on these matters rather than go down the route of the list system in a statutory form?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I find myself back in the comfortable spot where I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Of course, that is something that we will come to later, no doubt, when we discuss the independence and the constitutional role of the Sentencing Council. If noble Lords are worried that I am being too glib, because “exceptional circumstances” seems too vague an alternative to a prescriptive list of offences which are exceptional, the answer is, on the one hand, to trust the judges—this is about their discretion, and they know jolly well about the awful case that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned, and about situations where people are repeatedly not paying their fines or breaching community orders, which should be exceptions to the 12-month presumption.

The second part of the argument is that the judicial limb of our constitution has in the form of its Sentencing Council—and I use that language deliberately because I am for the independence of the Sentencing Council—a council to help guide judges so that there can be an element of consistency in courts around the country as to the approach on what is exceptional, and therefore what type of case justifies the exception to the presumption and the philosophy of this measure that short sentences are a bad idea.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on this matter, but I wonder what thought has been given by the Ministry of Justice to simplification. The Sentencing Code is now a very lengthy document. The way in which the title of the clause has been put is very sensible: it says that there is a presumption for a suspended sentence. However, one goes on to read the entirety of this text, with the words “the court must … unless”, and then there is a whole series of exceptions to that order. Why do we have to have complexity?

There are two strong reasons against it. First, there will not be parliamentary time to alter this if we get it wrong. Secondly, it is much better to leave this to the guidance of the Sentencing Council. If the Bill could say “the Sentencing Council will provide guidelines to bring about that there should be a presumption against short sentences”, would that not achieve what we want without language? I heavily criticise the parliamentary draftsmen for this unnecessary complexity. Can we go not go back to the Victorian age and do things simply? I know these words are likely to fall on deaf ears, but it would be so much better if we had simple sentencing legislation and left it to the Sentencing Council, which can adjust it as we see whether it works, because one thing experience shows is that we try one type of sentence and, a few years later, we want to tinker with it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a judge who did not sit very often in crime but had to do it from time to time, I have been listening with increasing dismay to what has been discussed in these increasingly elaborate proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because that was the first bit of absolute good sense, whether we need to call it Victorian or just remind ourselves that the Victorians did a lot of things extremely well. At the end of this discussion and throughout this Bill, could we not do three things: simplify, trust the judges, and trust the Sentencing Council to do a lot of what is going to be, at the moment, in primary legislation?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that I was not a co-author of this Bill; it is entirely the responsibility of the Government. I was merely saying I had a similar view: that prison numbers could come down and we could be safer. That was the discussion I had with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, after the Bill was announced. If it had been my Bill, there would have been something in it about a 10% or 20% reduction in the Sentencing Council guideline targets for maximum or minimum sentences. In my view, there have been two causes of prison numbers going up: the lack of the ability to get parole, which has been addressed by the Bill, and the grade inflation in sentences, which has had nothing done to it. Unless someone would like to correct me, no political party has gone into any election promising lower sentences. Has anybody ever said that?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Without wishing to delay our deliberations, I point out to the noble Lord that if he feels passionately about it, there is still time for him to draft and put down amendments on the issues he raises. He may well find support from these Benches.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, let us remember that we passed a Bill here about the Sentencing Council, when there was a disagreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council, and we know how we resolved that, so we cannot put too much faith without that legislation, which went through here not long ago.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Jackson, for the further amendments they have tabled to Clause 1, which has allowed for another engaging debate on the presumption to suspend short sentences. I begin by reiterating that we are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. We are implementing the Gauke review, for which I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Texas, which the noble Lord referred to, saw crime fall by 30% and 16 prisons were closed. I would also like to reiterate how much missed Lady Newlove is.

17:15

As I said before, we are following the lead of the previous, Conservative, Government, who originally introduced this measure. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. That is the key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences, and that is why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that, given the clear evidence on short sentences, the Government should not introduce further exemptions. To do so would increase reoffending and create more victims. I do not think any Member of your Lordships’ House would wish to see that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for reminding noble Lords of the evidence that underpins this measure. Through Amendments 6 to 10, 18 and 19, noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have proposed that the presumption should not apply to convictions for a wide variety of offences. The Government, of course, fully recognise the seriousness of such offences, but I must stress that Clause 1 as drafted already provides robust exceptions; I hope that that reassures the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Public protection is our main priority, and we will make sure that the most dangerous offenders are put where they belong: behind bars.

As I set out earlier, the Bill clearly states the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply. Moreover, many of the offences addressed in these amendments carry substantial custodial sentences—in some cases up to life imprisonment—which puts them well outside the scope of the presumption. This includes terrorism offences: it is very rare for such offenders to receive a sentence of 12 months or less. The same applies to many knife crime offences. While some could be within scope of the presumption, the evidence shows that many serious knife offences attract sentences longer than 12 months. The average term for threatening with a knife or offensive weapon in 2024 was nearly 15 months, in which case the presumption would not apply.

I can reassure noble Lords that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti rightly pointed out, we are not abolishing short sentences. We are not trying to empty our prisons. We will have more people in prison than ever before. But this is one part of the story. The other is a focus on reducing reoffending and public protection.

Noble Lords have also tabled amendments to exempt repeat offenders convicted of multiple offences from the presumption, including where an offender is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise after the same incident or when there is a series of offences of the same or a similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the courts should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate.

Noble Lords know that the Government take prolific offending extremely seriously. Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public, and we must drive it down. That is why we are ramping up intensive supervision courts, targeting the prolific offenders whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction and other needs. The international evidence is clear: these courts cut crime, with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrests compared with offenders who received a standard sentence.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for raising important points about tagging. Despite Serco’s performance levels falling below expectations, through my direct ministerial intervention with its senior leadership and robust management of the contract, delivery is now improving—and the offer is still there to visit the team up in Warrington.

Finally, in addressing the amendment on breaching a court order, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the Government agree with the thrust of the argument. The Bill already provides for exemptions where an offender has breached a court order, so the presumption does not apply and judges retain a discretion to impose a short prison sentence. Through amendments tabled in Committee in the other place, we further clarified that this also includes breaching a supervision order, such as a suspended sentence order. Therefore, repeat offenders who breach the terms of their suspended sentence, or commit a further offence while serving a suspended sentence, could go to prison.

We have also ensured that offenders who commit an offence in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in itself a criminal offence, could be sent to prison. For example, if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order, which is a civil breach rather than a criminal offence, and assaults their partner, the presumption will not apply. Judges would retain full discretion to impose a short prison sentence.

On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on keeping it simple and trusting people, I am sure they will not be surprised to learn that that is how I ran my business—quite successfully—for many years. I hope that that will rub off on my Ministry of Justice colleagues in my many meetings with them.

I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns and clearly explained why the current position in the Bill is the right one.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

Perhaps I might ask the Minister about the way he ran his business. One of the important roles of a legislature is to get things technically right. There is no disagreement, as I can see, on the view that that the policy is right, but can we not do things more simply? Throughout the Bill, I have asked the Minister: can we look at producing a piece of workable, simple legislation that can be adapted if what is set out is not right? I believe that this is something a legislature ought to address, where policy is not at issue.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The principle that the noble and learned Lord raises is the right one. I do not believe that we can change things in this Bill now, but the message that I can relay will be very helpful. There is another point around complexity: how this is then communicated to the hard-working staff on the front line, who will need to interpret and put into action what we are proposing here.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I will respond to the Minister. First, it is always our duty to put legislation right, otherwise we might as well all go home. Secondly, the Sentencing Council is there to give practical guidance; it is not our job as a legislature to tinker with the detail. I urge the Minister to go back and see whether we can produce, instead of the complexities inherent in this clause, something that just expresses the presumption and leaves the Sentencing Council to do its job. It will do it far more competently, I am sure, than the Ministry of Justice.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We will come back to that later in Committee, when we talk about the Sentencing Council. But I reassure the noble and learned Lord that I will take back to colleagues his point about clarity and simplicity.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I do not think that simple legislation will ever catch on, because it would put a lot of lawyers out of business—I say rather irreverently. The Minister in his remarks did not specifically address my Amendment 7. The piece of legislation put forward by his honourable friend Sir Chris Bryant, the emergency workers offences Act, had significant support across both the other place and here. Given the impact of these proposals, I wonder whether the Minister would revisit the specific ramifications for emergency service workers, because there is significant concern about that. I take the point that we should not specify in too much detail in primary legislation, but that Act did receive significant support.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the point about emergency workers: they deserve all our attention and we are very proud of what they do in often very difficult circumstances. I will take away his challenge on that.

I have met a number of people—especially women—in prison who are there for assaulting an emergency worker. While those assaults should not happen at all, often those people were in a very traumatic situation and, when the emergency services came to their aid, they reacted in the wrong way. That is something we need to bear in mind as well.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions from across the Committee and for the response from the Minister. Everybody appreciates that Clause 1 is not prohibiting anything. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked eloquently and correctly about the discretion of our judges and the trust that we should place in our judges. But that is not what Clause 1 is doing. Clause 1 is saying they must apply a presumption. They are not being trusted with it; they are being told they must apply it. That is one of the issues that we need to address.

A number of specific exceptions were tabled in the amendments, but I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about it being far more straightforward to produce some generic description in this regard. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out, it may even be something that should be left to the Sentencing Council at the end of the day. But that is another issue. I read this quotation:

“Even when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.


That is from the Labour manifesto. My fear is that Clause 1 is simply going to reinforce that perception, and that is one of the concerns that we have with it.

I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the potential for a suspended sentence to lead to support and rehabilitation. The problem is that those facilities are simply not available at the present time and, in any event, we do not know what period of suspension might or might not be imposed by the courts. It may well be one or two years, but, as the Bill is framed, it may be much less and leave no sensible opportunity for either support or rehabilitation.

There is also the matter of statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, alluded to some well-known statistics about the fact that those who are in custody for short sentences are much more likely to repeat offences when they come out of prison than those who have been given a suspended sentence. But one must bear in mind that those who have been given a suspended sentence have generally committed a far less serious offence than those who have been given a custodial sentence, and that those who are given custodial sentences for relatively minor offences are given those custodial sentences because they are repeat offenders. One must bear in mind Disraeli’s observation that there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics and, therefore, we have to approach them with a degree of care. I understand and appreciate that there is more generic evidence to suggest that suspended sentences, when properly applied, controlled and maintained, can have beneficial effects—nobody doubts that for a moment—but there is a very real need here to address, among other things, the whole scourge of repeat offenders.

This arises particularly in the context of Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Jackson, which highlights burglary as a particular offence. Burglary is an intensely intrusive crime that leaves victims traumatised, and it is inclined to attract repeat offenders. Its social damage is considerable. There are particular crimes of that nature, given their impact on society as a whole, that should attract something more than a suspended sentence, given the fear is that somebody will simply repeat them. Similar observations can be made on knife crime as well.

I fully understand that there is a need to revisit Clause 1 and its implications. We have sought to do so by identifying particular or specific exceptions to it. There is, as I indicated, and as outlined by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, potentially a better route to that conclusion. Indeed, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, there is hopefully a simpler route to that conclusion. For present purposes, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendments 7 to 14 not moved.

17:30

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

15: Clause 1, page 4, line 12, at end insert “,
or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (basis of opinion provisions not to affect power to mitigate sentences), it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify that the ‘basis of opinion’ provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 still apply and that a court can still, where appropriate, mitigate a sentence to a community sentence.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before I get on to the detail of this amendment, may I say how much I agree with the comments that have been made about the increasing complexity of the Sentencing Code, the guidelines and so on? I started to look at them in connection with another amendment and found that I was very quickly bogged down. However, we need to sort out Clauses 18 and 19 first, I would say to the noble and learned Lord; otherwise, we could find ourselves in worse trouble.

I am grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for raising a reminder of community sentences and their place; my amendment provides specifically for community sentences. It should not, of course, be necessary, but it seems that it might be important to remind magistrates in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has another amendment directed to the same end, which is probably more straightforwardly drafted—though I did not draft this one; I will come to that. The briefing that I have received from the Prison Reform Trust is very much based on the risk of increasing the imprisonment of women. The point might apply not only to women, but the position of women has just been trailed by the Minister.

We welcome the presumption that we have just been talking about against custodial sentences of 12 months or less, but there are implications of a custodial sentence that is suspended that do not apply to community orders. I tripped over the issue when I was looking online for the views of women’s organisations on the Bill, and I found an article by Vera Baird for the Centre for Women’s Justice. She wrote:

“There is abundant evidence to show that women are disproportionately given short custodial sentences, mainly for non-violent, low-level offences such as shoplifting—”


I am sorry to use that term in the presence of my noble friend, but I am quoting—

“or breaches of court orders. Nearly 70% of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse”—

that is an MoJ figure, I think, and I should perhaps declare an interest as having been chair of the charity Refuge for a number of years—

“many have complex needs and whilst, for male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor, families rarely stay together if the mother goes to prison”.

On that issue of complex needs, the article also makes the point:

“Women with multiple needs may breach suspended sentences due to the complexity of their lives, the challenges they face in complying with court-ordered requirements, mental health disorders, caretaking responsibilities, unstable housing and lower employment prospects. Conflicts with conditions, missed appointments or failure to meet financial obligations linked to their sentences, can result in technical violations which will breach the suspended sentence and lead to women being returned to court for imprisonment. Women may also breach community orders, but the consequences are not likely to be as severe. Women on suspended sentences live under the threat of prison from day one of the sentence, long before the benefits of treatment and support, which may be offered alongside a suspended sentence order, have any chance of working”.


In case anyone thinks that I am advocating letting women off, community sentences are punishment. Vera Baird wrote that this amendment—I think it is this one; I have since seen a longer alternative—was drafted by members of the Women’s Justice Board. I mention that because I know that the Women’s Justice Board is very much supported by the Minister, and I have an amendment about it later, but it is significant that it is backing this. Vera Baird said that it was tabled in the Commons; it took me a while to track it down, but as far as I can see there was no comment from the Minister in the Commons in response to this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29A. It is not often that I feel daunted in speaking out on legislation in this Chamber, but I feel a slight nervousness when a lot of senior police officers, former judges and KCs start—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Most of them have gone.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Yes, luckily they have, so I do not really need to be nervous at all.

Often, in putting my or the Green Party’s views—which obviously overlap quite a lot—I feel that I am speaking from the street. I talk to a lot of people who probably do not know much about this sort of thing, and they probably agree with me on some of it.

On simpler legislation, I know for a fact that the Met Police would like simpler legislation around protests. It is absolutely sick of the confusion and it is time for us to revisit it. However, that is not for today.

Amendment 29A would make a simple but important change: it would require courts to consider the use of a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. This would strengthen the Government’s own intention to reduce the overuse of short prison sentences—an aim that I and, I am sure, many across the Chamber, including the Minister, warmly welcome. However, unless we make it clear that community orders must be properly considered first, we risk creating what justice organisations call a net-widening effect. In other words, people who should have received a community order may instead receive a suspended sentence order simply because it appears to be a tougher alternative to custody.

A suspended sentence order is still a custodial sentence. It carries the weight and the lifelong consequences of a criminal record, and it places people at far greater risk of imprisonment if they breach its terms. By contrast, a community order is a genuinely non-custodial disposal. It is designed, when properly resourced, to address the underlying causes of offending, whether those are mental health needs, alcohol or drug dependency, or others. Community orders enable people to keep their jobs, maintain their homes, stay connected to their families and communities, and continue caring responsibilities—all factors that are well established as reducing the risk of reoffending.

If the Bill’s aim is to reduce the crisis in prison capacity, we must avoid funnelling people into suspended sentences where a community order would be more effective and safely promote rehabilitation. Otherwise, we simply increase the pipeline into custody through breach, defeating the very purpose of the Government’s reforms. We also risk the danger that this disproportionately affects women as it currently stands, which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

This amendment is supported by Justice and aligned with the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, which suggested

“introducing ‘crime reduction’ as an overarching principle”

to guide sentencing. Community sentences can play a crucial role in achieving that. They provide a real opportunity for rehabilitation and practical programmes that help people rebuild their lives without the barrier of a custodial sentence on their record. Crucially, community orders can command public confidence when victims are properly informed about what they involve and understand how these sentences can reduce future harm.

Amendment 29A would simply ensure that the most proportionate, most effective and least harmful sentence is considered first. It would strengthen the Bill’s stated ambition of reducing pressure on prisons while supporting better outcomes for individuals and communities. I hope that the Minister sees this as a constructive amendment that aligns with the Government’s own agenda. I urge the Committee to give it serious consideration.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I support what is behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones, for two reasons. First, we still send far too many women to prison; we need to reduce that number. Secondly, a community sentence probably should be in priority to a suspended sentence.

However, it is not that simple. I will not come back to this point again, but the amendments show precisely why this should be left to the Sentencing Council, which can weigh up the detail of the terms and conditions that it is appropriate to attach to a suspended sentence, as you can make them almost as tough as a community order. The judgment of how the public perceive suspended sentences and community orders can also be left to the council. Unless we satisfy the public’s perception that we are punishing people, the result will be that the judges will think, “Okay, we’ve got to go above 12 months”. That would be a disaster, particularly in the case of women.

I support the excellent ideas behind the amendments. However—and I promise not to say any more about the Sentencing Council today—they are a very strong argument for changing this Bill and making it sensible.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to insert an explicit reference to Section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make it plain that courts may mitigate a sentence to a community order where appropriate. This amendment is not necessary. The Bill does not alter the courts’ ability to consider the full range of mitigating factors, nor does it disturb their discretion to impose a community sentence where that is the just and proportionate outcome. What it does is imposes an obligation to suspend a prison sentence where otherwise a prison sentence might be imposed. Those powers remain firmly in place. To single out Section 77 of the Sentencing Act for restatement in the Bill might imply that the legislation would otherwise curtail judicial discretion to impose a community sentence. That is not the case. For this reason, we do not consider the amendment to be needed or helpful.

Amendment 29A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would place a statutory duty on courts to consider a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. Although we understand and appreciate the intention behind the proposal, we do not support it. The courts are already required to work upwards through a full hierarchy of sentencing options, including setting community sentences, before custody is reached. That is the well-established principle in law and practice. Sentencing judges are highly experienced in applying those principles.

To introduce a further procedural step will not add substance but create additional bureaucracy in an already very complex framework. It risks increasing administrative burdens on the probation services and court staff, and generating uncertainty about what additional assessments or reports might be required to satisfy the new duty. We should not legislate for processes that the system is not resourced or structured to deliver. Above all, a suspended sentence of imprisonment is, by definition, imposed only when the custody threshold has already been crossed. To require courts to revisit considerations that are already inherent in the sentencing exercise risks weakening clarity and undermining judicial confidence in the tools at their disposal.

For all these reasons, although we respect the intentions behind both amendments, we do not believe that they would strengthen the sentencing framework. We cannot support them.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments. I was pleased to hear mention of two organisations: one which I used to chair, the Prison Reform Trust, and one which I now chair, the Women’s Justice Board. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on this issue. In doing so, I hope I will address the noble Baronesses’ questions, and reflections raised by other noble Lords at Second Reading.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that there are too many women in prison, and that is why we set up the Women’s Justice Board to come up with a plan to fix that.

17:45

Amendment 15 proposes that the presumption to suspend short sentences should not apply where the court considers that a community sentence is more appropriate. Amendment 29A seeks to ensure that the courts consider whether the purposes of sentencing can be met by imposing a community order before they decide to impose a suspended sentence order.

The Government agree that community sentences must remain available, but our view is that these amendments are not needed. Courts will still be able to impose community sentences when that is appropriate, and nothing in the Bill changes that. When the courts decide what sentence to impose, they are required to consider whether a community sentence or a custodial sentence is more appropriate. When the custodial threshold has been met, courts would usually impose a suspended sentence order or a sentence of immediate custody.

However, nothing in the Bill prevents a court from imposing a community sentence where it considers it to be the most appropriate sentence. The Sentencing Code and the relevant sentencing guidelines are clear. Even when the custodial threshold has been met, a custodial sentence should not be imposed if, in the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to impose a community order.

Both a community order and a suspended sentence order may have requirements attached. These can include a curfew, unpaid work, drug treatment and electronic monitoring. These requirements have the intention of punishing the offender, providing reparation and addressing any criminogenic or rehabilitative needs which may otherwise increase the likelihood of their reoffending. Again, nothing in the Bill changes that.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that these amendments are not necessary. Judges and magistrates will continue to have the flexibility to choose between a suspended sentence order or a community order, depending on the circumstances of the case. Again, I thank the noble Baronesses for raising this issue, and I hope I have provided the necessary reassurance on this point. With that in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I agree that my amendment is not necessary, but perhaps that is in a technical sense; it is the practical situation that the Prison Reform Trust, particularly, and the Women’s Justice Board were pointing to.

Of course I will withdraw the amendment; but before I do so, I just throw back into the arena the hope that there can be some way of reminding magistrates that community sentences are still available and should be used. To my mind, they are the first thing that should be considered.

I hesitate to mention sentencing guidelines, particularly as the noble and learned Lord has imposed a self-denying ordinance on mentioning them again. I would not suggest what the mechanism should be, but there should be some mechanism. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendments 16 to 18 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendments 19 to 29A not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Custodial sentences that may be suspended

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

30: Clause 2, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
“(2B) But a suspended order is not available in relation to that sentence if the sentence is in relation to—(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which involves a child under 13;(b) any offence of grooming or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity;(c) any offence of creating, distributing or possessing indecent images of children;(d) any offence of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH) or wounding with intent; (e) any offence involving use or possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in the commission of a violent offence;(f) any offence of stalking or harassing a victim with repeated conduct;(g) any offence against a vulnerable person (including children or adults) involving serious harm or risk;(h) any domestic abuse offence where the victim is a current or former partner or family member, including controlling or coercive behaviour and any offence involving violence, threats, or psychological abuse.(2C) The changes made by this section to the power under sections 264 and 277 of the Sentencing Code must not come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on, and ensured the necessary exclusion list under subsection (2B) is operational for, all offences considered to involve serious violence, sexual offences, offences against children or vulnerable persons and domestic abuse offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would disapply the ability of the court to suspend sentences to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the group of amendments in my name raise important points concerning Clause 2. Our concerns here stem from the same concerns that gave effect to our proposed amendments in respect of Clause 1. Of course, we have sympathy for the current pressures on our prison system, but we must also recognise that, in essence, an undiscriminating provision to let offenders remain in the community without custodial punishment is by no means the solution. Indeed, in many ways, the present provisions create greater challenges than Clause 1 in respect of the ability for the suspension of sentences for offenders who have been sentenced for up to three years’ imprisonment.

These are not petty criminals. This provision would apply to those going to prison for crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, organised drug dealing and possession of an offensive weapon. Amendments 30 and 32 provide a list of offences where we believe it would be unacceptable to allow such offenders to serve suspended sentences. I accept that, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham observed when we debated Clause 1, there may be scope for a generic provision here rather than a long list of specific offences, and certainly we will give consideration to that. However, we do not consider that someone convicted of, for example, sexual offences related to a child or grooming should avoid custody entirely.

Without any effective form of custodial sentence, we risk two important consequences. First, the deterrent effects that are inherent to custodial sentences cease to operate. Secondly, serious offenders will have the opportunity to reoffend, having received no effective rehabilitation, and will have continued access to their victims.

Amendments 30 and 32 similarly make provisions for offences of assault and wounding with intent involving weapons such as knives. We believe it is important that offenders convicted of these serious crimes serve their sentences in custody rather than at large in the community. Those convicted of such violent offences should have to spend some time in custody. This is not only to ensure the continued safety of the wider public, but to ensure that the public’s perception is that serious crime of this nature is punished. I again repeat that, although we recognise that prisons are under considerable strain, we cannot allow that to be the chief or principal consideration when it comes to the imposition of sentences.

Finally, Amendments 30 and 32 seek to exclude offenders who have engaged in stalking or harassment, and also those who have been guilty of domestic abuse

“where the victim is a current or former partner or family member”.

I suggest that it is self-evident why such offenders should serve their sentences in prison and not have access to their victims. I note that even in Clause 1, there is an exception in respect of “significant risk of … harm” to “a particular individual”, where the presumption will not apply. Why is there no similar provision in respect of Clause 2 when we are dealing with far more serious offences than those addressed by virtue of a sentence of 12 months?

Amendments 31 and 33 seek to highlight further operational issues with respect to the Bill, and Clause 2 specifically. The clause, in essence, leaves the door open to a multitude of issues that would never arise if a custodial sentence was going to be present. It is entirely possible that someone convicted of assault on several occasions could be handed down a sentence of less than three years under the current sentencing guidelines. This provision would operate to provide that person with the possibility of serving a suspended sentence. Without meaningful accountability, law breaking and crime will continue to proliferate.

I draw particular attention to the proposed new subsection (2B)(g) in Amendment 31, which provides that suspended sentence orders should not be imposed on those who have

“a history of poor compliance with court orders”.

I respectfully suggest that this is an obvious point to make. Those who clearly have a history of not following community orders should not be placed immediately back into society after committing a crime. Yet that is a very real possibility under the provisions of Clause 3.

It would appear that Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is perhaps underpinned by the same concerns that are rooted in our amendments, namely the real possibility of dangerous offenders on the streets, thereby putting the public at risk. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to exempt specified offences of terrorism, violence and sexual offences from suspended sentences. We support the intention behind that amendment and certainly hope that the Government will take it seriously.

I have sought simply to illustrate a few of those instances where it should not be appropriate for a suspended sentence to be available. That is not only so that the crime is met with a proportionate punishment but is also required to ensure that the public can maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, indicated, the motivation behind Amendment 34 is broadly similar to what he has just described in his own amendments. Indeed, later in the Bill, at some point next week, there is a series of amendments that I have laid, working with Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, specifically to try to make sure that when we are looking at early release provisions, a particularly hard and clear focus is placed on domestic abuse perpetrators, who have very high levels of recidivism and can be particularly dangerous.

The motivation behind this amendment came partly from an interaction with an organisation in Northern Ireland called the Marie Collins Foundation, which is particularly concerned about yet another acronym I have learned—TACSA—which sounds like an injury to your ankle. It actually means technically assisted child sexual abuse, an activity that is prevalent and growing extremely quickly, assisted by technology. There was a particularly egregious example of a father of several daughters, resident in one of our larger cities outside London, who was found to have drilled a series of holes around his home, particularly into the bathrooms and lavatories, to be able to watch his daughters as they were going about what one does in bathrooms and lavatories. I am afraid this is, believe it or not, not that unusual.

I completely follow the logic that has been put forward by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord by my side, which is that we should not and must not be too specific in the Bill. But some clear guidance is required, whether that comes from the Sentencing Council or some other bodies. While I am not a professional politician, professional politicians in office know all too well the opprobrium and publicity that come their way when—not “if”—somebody is released from prison who should not have been, and does something dreadful yet again, or when somebody who should go to prison does not, for reasons to do with trying to alleviate the pressure on the prison population, and then does something really awful. Everybody will say: “Why didn’t we pick that up at the time?”.

We need to think about this very carefully. I understand fully the reasons behind why we are trying to alleviate the pressure on prisons and His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition have quite a lot to answer for, given the state we are currently in. But we need to be very careful about this; that is really all I have to say.

18:00

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to say more about lists other than to note that these amendments contain a lot of lists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will not think this is in any way an aggressive point, but I think I picked up that he would expect to see some fleshing out of the term “serious”, as well as the detail of “specified offences”, through a mechanism that follows today’s debate. If he is looking for encouragement for further work subject to some of the comments that were made earlier, then he has it.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst, for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which aim to prevent sentences for certain categories of offences from being suspended. I would be interested to hear more about the Marie Collins Foundation; I have never heard of that organisation before. If it would be helpful, I would be interested in having a meeting with the noble Lord and the foundation to learn more and see what I can gain from that.

I must be clear that it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and following the appropriate guidance set by the Sentencing Council. For example, sentencing guidelines are clear: it may not be appropriate to suspend a sentence if the offender presents a risk to any person or if appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody. If the offender breaches the order by failing to comply with any of the requirements or committing a new offence, they can be returned to court. If the breach is proven, the courts are required to activate the custodial sentence unless it would be unjust to do so. Of course, criminals serving suspended sentences also face the prospect of being sent to prison if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders. So, under this Bill, someone could receive a two-and-a-half-year sentence, suspended for three years, and with an electronically monitored curfew lasting for two years. In this scenario, if they breach their curfew or commit a further offence, they face the prospect of being sent to prison.

I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is already provision within this Bill to prohibit the use of suspended sentence orders under any circumstances in relation to sentences for offenders of particular concern and extended determinate sentences. These sentences can be imposed in relation to the specific offences listed in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous. Currently, if an extended determinate sentence is imposed for two years or less, it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence, and both can be suspended. However, the Bill will change that position so that where an extended sentence is imposed, it cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including when it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence.

I turn to terrorism sentences. Where a life sentence is not imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a serious terrorism sentence is required if a court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public and the offence was likely to cause multiple deaths. The minimum sentence of imprisonment will then be 14 years and therefore a suspended sentence order would not be available. The noble Lords have also proposed to exempt offences with mandatory minimum sentences and those eligible for referral under the unduly lenient scheme. If the offence being sentenced has a mandatory minimum sentence and is capable of being suspended, judges still retain the discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence when there is the appropriate outcome.

To be clear, we are not abolishing short sentences. Offences falling under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are rightly treated very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that Clause 2 does not interfere with existing mechanisms that allow for the review of sentences in these cases. We believe that these safeguards protect the public while preserving judicial discretion. Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts, considering the full circumstances of the case.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which would prevent the court from suspending a sentence where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and to exempt offenders convicted of multiple previous offences from being suspended. I can reassure noble Lords that the sentencing guidelines are clear. Where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and the court thinks that they are unlikely to comply in the future, that may be a reason not to suspend the sentence.

Additionally, when an offender is in custody—for example, when they have breached their licence conditions by committing a further offence and have been recalled into custody as a result—the court will not suspend the sentence. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or a similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the court should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Noble Lords will know that this Government take prolific offending extremely seriously, and previous offending is already a statutory aggravating factor.

I must also be clear that a suspended sentence is not a soft option. The courts can impose a range of requirements on an offender, ranging from curfews to exclusion zones. This Bill includes tough new restriction zones, which will restrict offenders to a specific geographic area. These will be electronically monitored in most cases and are intended to serve as not just a punishment but an important tool to protect and reassure victims.

Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public, and we must drive it down. That is why we are ramping up intensive supervision courts, targeting the prolific offenders whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction or other needs. The international evidence is clear: these courts cut crime, with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrest compared to offenders who receive standard sentences. That is just one way in which this Government are putting the necessary structures in place to build a sustainable justice system going forward.

Suspended sentence orders in appropriate cases give offenders a chance to stay in work, keep stable housing and access support in the community. All of this goes towards reducing repeat offending and supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that that remains the case. By targeting the causes of offending in the community, we can lower reoffending rates and in turn reduce the number of victims. I hope noble Lords are now assured of the Government’s position on this, and I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments are designed to ensure that dangerous or repeat offenders cannot avoid custody due to a general presumption of suspension.

I hear what the Minister said about the discretion of the independent judiciary, but it seems to me that he is attempting to go in two different directions at the same time—we have only just looked at Clause 1, where he is imposing upon the discretion of the independent judiciary a presumption that has to apply. There is no discretion there; they must abide by the presumption. So, in a sense, we go from one extreme to the other with regard to the justification for these provisions in the Bill, and it is very difficult to understand any underlying logic or principle that is being applied here. I do hope that the Government will give further consideration to Clause 2 and the proposed amendments to it, but, for present purposes, I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendments 31 to 33 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

35: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Mandatory engagement with rehabilitation and support services for suspended sentence offenders(1) Where a court makes a suspended sentence order, it must include, as a condition of that order, a requirement that the offender engage in at least one of the following activities as directed by the responsible officer—(a) NHS mental health or substance misuse services;(b) education, training or employment support, including apprenticeships or vocational courses;(c) an approved behavioural change or accredited offending behaviour programme.(2) The responsible officer must monitor the offender’s compliance with a requirement imposed under subsection (1).(3) A failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) is to be treated as a failure to comply with the suspended sentence order.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a suspended sentence order to include a condition obliging the offender to engage with at least one specified rehabilitation or support activity. The responsible officer must monitor compliance, and non-compliance is treated as a breach of the order.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition have made no secret of our profound reservations about the sweeping presumption in favour of suspended sentences. We fear that it risks sending entirely the wrong signal about the seriousness of offending and will undermine public confidence and place additional strain on already overstretched probation services. Yet, if the Government are to insist on pressing ahead with this presumption, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that public protection, good order and the prospects for genuine rehabilitation are at least properly safeguarded. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment 35 would require that, where a court imposed a suspended sentence order, at least one meaningful rehabilitative or support-based requirement should be attached, whether that be engagement with NHS mental health services, substance misuse treatment, accredited offending behaviour programmes or structured education, training or employment support. The intention is clear: a suspended sentence must be more than a paper exercise; it must be a tool to reduce reoffending.

The Committee will have noticed that the list of activities is rather broad. The intention here is to permit the court to use its discretion as to which activity the offender is required to undertake. The activity or service would depend upon the particulars of the case before the court and the offender’s personal circumstances. If the offender had a history of alcoholism and their offending was related to that behaviour, the judge could require attendance at a substance misuse service. In other circumstances, the court could require an offender to undertake an apprenticeship for the purposes of rehabilitating them and helping them to become a contributing member of society.

If we are now to envisage a significant expansion in the use of suspended sentences, it is only right that Parliament builds in minimum expectations. Rehabilitation does not happen just because you want it, or by osmosis. If an offender has underlying mental health needs or substance addiction, or lacks stable employment, simply to suspend a sentence without addressing those elements that are the real drivers of crime is neither just nor sensible. It helps no one, least of all other members of the public.

Importantly, the amendment would not interfere with the sentencing powers of the independent judiciary. Rather, it would simply ensure that the court had power to enforce rehabilitative activity, for otherwise any failure to comply with this order would be considered a breach of the suspended sentence order.

I know the Minister has a long history of involvement in rehabilitation of prisoners, and I praise him for that. Hopefully, he will see that this amendment would complement that work. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sense behind the amendment, but I notice that it would be a mandatory requirement—the judge must do it. My own preference, as is so often the case, is to leave it to the discretion of the judiciary. As I understand the position, they already have the power to do what is suggested and I would leave it to them—there may be exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to do so.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I said earlier that there would be few occasions when I was likely to agree with the noble and learned Lord—I am sorry, I have forgotten his name—Lord Keen. In fairness, I should have added at the same time the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because he has just moved an amendment that, in view of what I have said, he might have expected me to disagree with, but actually I very much agree with the broad thrust of what it proposes, although I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord— I am trying to remember his name too; I apologise, my mind is going tonight—Hailsham.

I referred earlier to a report from the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee when it was chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee—whose name I have been able to remember. That report was called Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. I referred to the fact that statistics show that current community sentences reduce the level of reoffending in comparison to those on short-term prison sentences, though I accept the caution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, when it comes to how we interpret those statistics. Still, we know that they are already better.

18:15

However, the report from my noble friend’s committee at that time was clear. It used the very clear phrase

“they fall way short of their potential”,

and went on to make suggestions for ways in which community sentences could be improved. We are well aware that, broadly, the benefit of a community sentence is that it provides a degree of stability for the offender, who might be able to continue in the job that they are in and can certainly continue to be engaged in family life and those sorts of things. That by itself will help to reduce reoffending, but we also know that community sentences, if done well, can provide time to address the underlying causes that led to the crime. Some of those underlying causes are to do with problems of mental health and various addictions. My Amendment 70, when we come to it, will look at that issue in more detail and I will want to include gambling disorder within the sweep of issues that need to be addressed.

The report acknowledges that the sorts of things that are included in Amendment 35 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in terms of opportunities, work skills and so on, are really important. I accept entirely that those three areas should be looked at as part of a community sentence and the order that goes with it.

However, there is a significant problem that I hope to pick up in later amendments, but the Minister may wish to comment on it now: if we are going to achieve what is in Amendment 35, we need proper pre-sentencing reports, but the current Probation Service is already overstretched to the point where the number of pre-sentencing reports that are produced is remarkably low. Sentencing will often take place without such a report, which would have looked at the areas that should be covered in the community sentence. Yet again, we see the problem of a shortage of resources in delivering what we want. That brings us back to the need to address the shortfall in our Probation Service.

Pre-sentencing reports look at the issues that have perhaps led to the problem and give an opportunity to identify the type of activity that would be most beneficial to the offender to reduce reoffending, and that is important. Broadly, I welcome the thrust of the amendment, but I hope we will also pick up the problems of resources to make sure that it can be carried through, and perhaps we can address that at a later stage in our deliberations.

[Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As I said at Second Reading, good intentions go only so far. The Bill transfers a large part of the responsibility for rehabilitation into the community, a change that, as has been pointed out by many, the evidence supports. Not only does it have benefits for those who would previously have served a short custodial sentence but, in theory, by reducing the number of those in prison over time, it should provide the capacity that is needed to ensure that those in the prison estate are better able to access the education and support services they need to give them a second chance on release.

The challenge, though, is that this Bill places more people out in the community but does not go far enough in answering the question of what support they will be receiving to help address some of the underlying factors driving their offending. Unless this happens, it could make a difficult situation worse. This amendment specifically deals with those on a suspended sentence, obliging them to undertake at least one form of support, such as an apprenticeship.

The proportion of people with a rehabilitation activity requirement attached to their suspended sentence is relatively high at the moment. The challenge is that adequate resourcing for them is often not available and access can be patchy. A Ministry of Justice assessment from earlier this year found that the rehabilitation activity requirement

“tended to be seen by probation staff as the ‘right idea in theory’ but more resource is needed to deliver it appropriately”.

When asked about the biggest barriers that affect how the rehabilitation activity requirement is delivered, responses tended to centre on limited funding and resource. All practitioner participants reported that resource constraints—for example, staffing shortages and time pressures—and practical constraints, such as a lack of meeting rooms, were barriers to the effective delivery of rehabilitation activity requirements.

This matters because, as the Magistrates’ Association pointed out in its submission to the Sentencing review:

“The impact of delays on offender outcomes is clear. One magistrate told us that an offender was given a Mental Health Treatment Requirement … as part of a suspended sentence, yet their first appointment didn’t occur until nearly six months after it was imposed. The offender was not able to access treatment in time and subsequently reoffended. This may not have happened had he been given support earlier”.


If this is happening at the moment, my worry is what will happen when the system is placed under much greater strain through many more people being managed in the community. Although the Government have committed to some additional funding for probation, they have published no detailed breakdown of how this funding will be deployed. They have also not addressed the central role that the many community and voluntary organisations in this sector play as a critical part of the delivery model for this type of activity.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

If I may, I would like to help the noble Baroness with the very powerful argument that she is making, with a set of statistics that I hope noble Lords will find worrying. If we look at the 91,000 people on average who are currently engaged in probation, community sentences and so on, we find that, in 2023, only 1,302 of them even started treatment—that is 1.8%. The shortage of support services is deeply worrying.

[Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. To build on that, more needs to be done for the community and voluntary organisations that, sitting alongside this Bill, will help build the capacity to deliver, so that the rates he outlined will be increased. Policy examples include multi-year, unrestricted grant funding and regional commissioning.

I return to the amendment. By being more explicit in the Bill about the central role that rehabilitative activity plays, my hope is that the Government would be forced to resource this area sufficiently and signal that they view these services and programmes as essential, rather than discretionary.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Some 14 years ago, I travelled to San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, which was one of the worst prisons in South America. I had the dubious distinction of travelling often with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who is a noted prison campaigner. When I travelled with her, she invariably asked me to accompany her to a prison. She would regale me with the greatest hits of the worst prisons in the world. Her choice was Kingston prison, in Jamaica. At San Miguel, in Santiago, we saw the results of a system that was overly concentrating on punitive actions and did nothing on education, training and rehabilitation. In fact, a few weeks before, 81 prisoners had died in a fire following a riot in that prison. Over the course of a few years, I visited the toughest prisons in Honduras and El Salvador. I can tell the Committee that they were not Pontins holiday camp in any respect.

The serious point, our earlier debates notwithstanding, is that if we accept the importance of suspended sentences and the fact that, according to Ministry of Justice figures, incarcerating a person in the prison estate costs £53,801 a year, then the state has an obligation to provide those individuals in the criminal justice system with endemic, underlying problems—drink and drug misuse, poor family background and poor education, skills and training—with an alternative way out of recidivism.

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, particularly the work he has done on problem betting and gambling. I look forward to our debates on that issue in this Bill. He has been rather shy in neglecting to mention the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 that arose from the coalition Government. The Minister and others will know that, prior to the Act—which was groundbreaking legislation —prisoners were turfed out of prison on Friday evening with £46 and within a few hours were in the company of ne’er-do-wells, drug-dealers and others who were leading them back to a life of crime. That was the beginning of rehabilitation being taken seriously for offenders who were not at the top end of seriousness in their offences: there was drug testing and a need to attend appointments; specific, targeted help for young people; the beginning of rehabilitation activity requirement as a policy; and bespoke treatment for female offenders, which is something I know the Minister cares deeply about.

I welcome this amendment and the imperative of the wording. While it is important to respect the discretion of the judiciary, to put in the Bill a requirement that we use that time in as efficacious a way as possible, to ensure that those who have the most acute problems and who will cause the most acute problems, as my noble friend Lady Porter put it—

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

It is not so much that I dissent from what my noble friend is saying, but a mandatory requirement on the judge implies the capacity to fulfil that requirement. I can imagine circumstances in which the Probation Service would not be able to fulfil a particular requirement. In that event, the trial judge might feel that he or she could not impose a suspended sentence because they could not impose the required obligation to fulfil the condition.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My noble friend makes a fair point. However, it could be put the other way, like the chicken and the egg. Putting this as an imperative in the Bill would oblige the Probation Service and other organisations, such as the NHS and community trusts, to raise their game to provide those services.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

That may be so, but that takes you back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, was making: the fact that there is not capacity in many of the required services.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I understand the point that my noble friend is making—

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord a little in his answer to his noble friend. I am sure he has seen that later on the agenda there are a number of amendments in my name and those of others in the Committee proposing that the Bill not be allowed to go ahead until we have evidence of sufficient numbers of prison officers and in the Probation Service. That might be the way out of his dilemma.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I do not often get in-flight refuelling from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I am grateful that it has happened on this occasion. If I had my way, I would encourage the Government to develop education and training plans, in primary legislation, for each individual prisoner in the prison estate.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has said, this is a wide area for debate. This amendment begins that debate by trying to encourage the Government to put processes in place in the Probation Service and other key stakeholders to assist prisoners. If someone is in a position where they have already been given a suspended sentence, it seems very sensible, in terms of opportunity cost and saving the taxpayer significant amounts of money in the long term, to have a position where education, training, drug treatment and other areas of work are not just encouraged but mandatory. On that basis, I surely support my noble friend’s excellent amendment.

18:30

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We cannot ask for mandatory work or process unless we are sure that we have the facilities and people on the ground. If we do not, from the word go, we are setting up a scheme that is going to fail.

As noble Lords all know, in 1966 an organisation called Nacro, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, was established. I was a member of it, and we tried our best, with the Howard League. Our success at rehabilitating criminals in our prisons was very small, and the evidence about short sentences, which we have been talking about, is another great failure.

It therefore seems that history and experience tell us that we as a nation have failed to rehabilitate the people we put behind bars. We take away their freedom in the hope that they will be rehabilitated and come out as good citizens. Some do, but there is still great failure. If that is so with people in our prisons, how much more will it be for those who have suspended sentences, for whom we make engagement with rehabilitation services mandatory? The noble Lord has not identified where these centres are going to be; nor has he found who is going to carry out these services—schooling and education. I worked as a chaplain in a young offender institution. Some of the classes were no good and did not help, but there was a lot of success in some.

Our history of incarcerating people does not work. A previous Minister talked about payment by results, but even that did not do it. I want us to do a health check on ourselves, because these are suspended sentences that we would be creating a mandatory process for, through which people might go. If a judge is going to impose the proposed orders, he will want to know who will deliver these services and how certain we are that they will be delivered, because if an offender does not turn up, that may be a way of revoking this.

This mixes up two things that should not be mixed. A suspended sentence is a suspended sentence. If people do not fulfil what that suspended sentence is about, they know that the sentence in prison will begin from the day they break the order. However, with this proposal for mandatory rehabilitation and attendance at drug centres, we are saying that the suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence because somebody is going to watch over you. If it is very clear that they are going to be tagged, things offenders cannot do would be abandoned by this rehabilitation.

I have been with Nacro for so many years. I want to say that we did our best, but we never cared much or rehabilitated many people. We talked about it, and we provided money, books and all sorts of things, and these people were in our prisons. What about those who are roaming our streets—we think this is going to work? I am a realist, and I do not think that we would like this part of the Bill, particularly the way it is crafted. I am with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for raising the very important issue of offender rehabilitation. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that is extremely close to my heart. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his generous words about my work rehabilitating offenders.

I clarify that Clause 2 does not create a presumption to suspend sentences; it simply gives judges the power to suspend sentences of up to three years. This amendment would require a court, when passing a suspended sentence, to oblige an offender to engage in at least one of the following: a treatment programme, education, training and employment support, or an approved behaviour change programme.

As noble Lords are aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. It must take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the purposes of sentencing. The courts already have a range of requirements that can be included as part of a suspended sentence to rehabilitate offenders. These include treatment requirements, which require offenders to take part in accredited programmes, as well as unpaid work, which can include education, training and employment. As noble Lords identify, interventions such as these can be incredibly valuable in supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that they are available and used in those cases where they are needed.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, all raise the important issue of probation and the future of probation. Whether it is pre-sentence reports, rehabilitative activity requirements or all the various support options that probation has, they need to be funded; we need strong leadership, we need to train and retain our staff and we need to have the technology available to support them to do their jobs. We have pledged a 45% increase in funding for probation—that is £700 million. In the coming weeks, I would be delighted to do a presentation for noble Lords on my plan for probation and how funding for that links to that plan being landed successfully.

I am also very keen to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about the Santiago prison system, which I have never heard of before. I have been to a number of prisons abroad, but that is one I have never been to. If we ever have time to hear the noble Lord’s wider reflections on rehabilitation, that would be appreciated.

However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, clearly explained, the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case. This is to ensure that the most appropriate requirements are included in a sentence and that the Probation Service is not overburdened with requirements that may not be necessary in the circumstances of the individual offender.

Additionally, evidence has shown that, for low-risk individuals, the effects of accredited programme participation are usually found to be either negligible or, in some cases, even negative. There will be cases where an offender does not have any of the needs listed by the noble Lord and the court determines that it needs simply to impose a punishment. This amendment would fetter that discretion. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and many of them have supported the sentiment underlying this amendment. It has clearly shown our shared recognition that, if suspended sentences are to become more prevalent, as the Government intend, they must be made fit for that purpose. We on these Benches continue to oppose the presumption that custodial terms of 12 months or under should routinely be suspended. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, helpfully has supported the thrust of this amendment, while also highlighting the issues with resources facing the Probation Service.

Our duty today is also a practical one. The Government are introducing a major shift in sentencing practice. If they are to do so, they must build into the legislation the safeguards necessary to preserve public confidence and deliver genuine rehabilitation. My noble friend Lady Porter of Fulwood, in a powerful speech, has explained the difficulties in delivering support for offenders in the community and has explained why support is necessary for offenders. So too, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, after his excursion to Chile, made an important point: if we propose to go down this line, we must give practical help to recidivists, or they will simply come back and reoffend.

That leads me to say this: if we do not deal with this, and if offenders who have been given a suspended sentence—even if it is only suspended for 12 months—reoffend within that period, they will have to be brought back to court. This is an important point. It is not simply that they may end up in prison, but having been brought back to court, they will occupy court time. That will not help the backlog in the courts. I speak with the experience of someone who, until some 10 or 12 years ago, sat as a recorder for 20-odd years in the courts, so I have some practical experience of this.

People breach suspended sentences. That is why judges in the past have often been cautious about imposing suspended sentences, particularly on people who offend time and time again. If there are too many of them, this will be impractical. What will happen is that, in about two years’ time, we will have the courts overwhelmed with people coming back for resentencing and then having to be put into prison because, otherwise, as the courts will say, it will show that a suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence in any meaningful sense. I put that before the Government in a spirit of constructive criticism, not to try to make difficulties. That is what lies down the road if we are not very careful indeed.

If suspended sentences are to be used more widely, they cannot be hollow or simply be deferrals of punishment; they must require offenders to confront the issues that led them to offend in the first place, and they must offer the public some hope that these offenders will cease offending. I hope the Minister and those behind him, so to speak, will carefully consider this proposal, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Clause 3: Income reduction orders

Amendment 36

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

36: Clause 3, page 10, line 9, after “amounts” insert “and allowing provision for items determined by the court in accordance with section 161B”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment to page 10, line 25, is intended to ensure the court can take into account each offender’s situation as a whole and in particular not to reduce the offender’s income so that employment, training and housing cannot be accessed.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I speak to Amendment 36, and will also speak to Amendment 39.

Amendment 79 in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is in this group. As rapid consultation during the course of this afternoon’s proceedings has revealed that none of us is entirely clear what we wanted to say, I hope that it is not too late to de-group it. There will be the opportunity to come to it on one of the days next week. I am sorry if that causes a problem to any colleagues. Otherwise, I will just let the Minister reply as if it had been introduced.

Amendment 36 and 39 deal with income reduction orders. They are complex and not very practical, I would suggest. These orders were not, I understand, recommended in the independent sentencing review. They are not easy to achieve; they can impose additional and unpractical burdens on the court system, which as we know is overstretched, and on HMRC and benefits administration. A lot of fines are imposed by the court; they are the most common criminal sanction, but payment is persistently low. In 2023, 49% of fines remained unpaid after 12 months, despite the requirement that they are set at an amount which can be paid within a year. If that rather simpler system cannot reliably recover half of what is imposed within a year, the more complex income reduction order is not likely to be more successful.

The IRO penalises a person for finding employment by making deductions from their earnings each month. This poses the risk of discouraging individuals from engaging in employment or, at any rate, formal employment. They may move into low-visibility work or decide they are better off not working at all. The impact of court fines is disproportionately severe for low-income households. People with court debts are very likely to live in social housing and very likely to be unemployed, strong indicators of economic precarity. The fines system, particularly additional court charges, rigid payment plans and deductions from insufficient benefits, often escalate the total owed beyond what is affordable for people on low means. I do not need to spell out the path that some people may follow.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, what is the projected collection rate for IROs, and how does it compare with the current 50% unpaid at 12 months for court fines? How will the system track fluctuating incomes, PAYE changes, zero hours and self-employment, and resolve disputes without adding to the burden on the court? What employment impact assessment has been conducted—I am going to come back to employment in a moment—given the Minister’s well-known support for hiring people with convictions to cut reoffending? How will IROs avoid pushing low-income households further into poverty?

I said that I would come back to employment. Our Amendment 39 raises the dangers, as we see it, of income reduction orders hindering the good things that we want to see—offenders taking up employment and training and achieving housing. If the net income with which an offender is left is too low for these various activities, the net benefit would be a disbenefit as we see it. I beg to move Amendment 36.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I did not quite follow what the noble Baroness proposed about degrouping, but I draw attention to what it says in the Companion, which is that

“de-grouping is discouraged once each day’s groupings have been published”.

But I may have misunderstood.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

No, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is quite right. I had only realised it shortly before we came to this group. “Discouraged” means no in House of Lords language, I think. So I wonder whether the Minister can regard me as having spoken to what is set out in quite a long amendment, because I am sure he will have words to answer what my noble friend would have said, had he been here.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That sounds sensible.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 3 is of course a novel sentencing tool, and it is entirely correct that the Committee should probe its design with some care. Many of the amendments before us seek reassurance that the scheme will be fair and proportionate, and indeed that it will be workable in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her amendment, draws attention to the basic question of impact. An income reduction order must not be set at a level that undermines an offender’s ability to work, train or maintain stable housing. If these orders are to be effective, they must support rehabilitation, not jeopardise the very stability on which it depends. The noble Baroness’s amendments highlight that there is a risk here that requires very clear scrutiny.

The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst raise a series of questions about the architecture of the scheme. As drafted, the Bill establishes broad powers to reduce an offender’s income, yet it leaves almost all the crucial detail to regulations that we have not yet seen and that may in due course prove insufficiently robust.

Amendments 37 to 44 ask the Government to place in the Bill the essential elements that will govern how these orders operate in the real world. They begin by posing the most basic question of all: what do the Government mean by “monthly income”? Are we assessing gross or net income? How are fluctuating earnings to be treated? What of the self-employed or those on irregular or zero-hours contracts? It is very difficult to see how a fair and consistent system can be construed without clear statutory guidance on these points. If Parliament is to authorise a mechanism allowing the state to deduct a portion of a person’s income month after month, it is surely right that we also understand with precision how that income is to be defined, what thresholds will apply, how caps are to be set and which factors the court must take into account before imposing an order.

Amendment 44 goes to the heart of our concern that the Bill as currently drafted lacks the necessary clarity about the conditions under which an income reduction order may be imposed. Leaving this almost entirely to secondary legislation again risks undermining both transparency and fairness—surely qualities that are fundamental to the integrity of such a system.

These amendments illuminate the substantial gaps in the present drafting and ensure that Parliament does not sign off on a broad new power without understanding how it will work in practice and what safeguards will accompany it. I look to the Minister to provide the clarity that has so far been somewhat lacking. For our part, we do not oppose the principle of creating a more flexible and enforceable means-based penalty. But, before we take such a significant step, we must be satisfied that the framework is sound, that the protections are clear and that the consequences, particularly for those on the margins, have been fully thought through. I hope the Minister will address these concerns.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the three guiding principles of the David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishment outside prison. We are determined to make sure that crime does not pay, which is why we introduced Clause 3, giving courts the power to impose income reduction orders on offenders who receive suspended sentence orders. From the debate we have just had and from my prior conversations, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in how these will work in practice, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this at greater length today. I have been employing prisoners for over 20 years. Many are on day release and, in some cases, a proportion of their earnings goes back to victims. Income reduction orders are inspired by that principle: offenders must pay back to society for the harm they have caused.

I first turn to Amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They seek to specify what must be contained in the regulations detailing this scheme. I assure noble Lords that we are working cross-government to develop a process for delivering income reduction orders in a way that works cohesively with the rest of the powers that sentencers have at their disposal. We have intentionally kept the legislation flexible to ensure that we can deliver this measure in that way. For example, we do not agree that it would be appropriate for income reduction orders to be mandatory in certain circumstances. This would unnecessarily curtail judicial discretion to decide whether an order should be imposed based on the full facts of an individual case.

The Sentencing Council is actively considering what updates to its guidelines are needed to account for the Bill’s reforms, including these orders. My officials are working closely with the council. I reassure noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these details prior to implementation.

I turn to Amendments 38 and 40 and am happy to explain the rationale behind the drafting of this Bill. Let me be clear: this measure is a penalty for high-income individuals. It will ensure that criminals who break the law, and who benefit from keeping their jobs and continue to earn a significant salary, pay back to society. I doubt that anyone in the Committee would disagree with that. The intention is to set an income threshold that would apply at an appropriately high level. But the Bill sets a baseline that the threshold for an income reduction order can never be below. The aim is to ensure that those with incomes in line with the minimum wage cannot ever receive this penalty. The minimum wage is set at an hourly rate, and 170 times that is a reasonable approximation of the hours likely to be worked over a month.

Noble Lords have also questioned why there is an upper limit. A core tenet of our criminal justice system is fairness and proportionality. So, setting a maximum percentage of an offender’s excess monthly income that can be collected protects individuals from receiving an excessively harsh penalty. We need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. If the court determines that a higher penalty is appropriate and the offence is serious enough to carry an unlimited fine, the court will still be able to impose that, either instead of or as well as an income reduction order.

But income reduction orders must not be a disincentive to employment or amplify existing hardship. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, this is the last thing I would want to happen. Therefore, they will be applicable only to offenders who earn or are deemed likely to earn a significant income. We will set the minimum income threshold through secondary legislation at an appropriate level. This will ensure that low-income households are not in the scope of this measure.

As with any other financial penalty, judges will consider an offender’s means and circumstances when choosing whether to apply an income reduction order at sentencing. This can include, but is not restricted to, income, housing costs and child maintenance. Additionally, the provisions in the Bill allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the deductions that must be made when calculating an offender’s monthly income for the purposes of assessing whether an income reduction order can be applied.

Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes to create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants. I must inform the noble Lord that there are existing mechanisms to deal with payments to dependants. For example, the family courts are able to make spousal maintenance payments on divorce.

This proposed new clause would require the court to inquire whether an offender has responsibility for children or other dependants. Although this is well intentioned, it risks creating practical difficulties. Inquiring whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or other dependants—and subsequently inquiring about the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependants—may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements for the purposes of verification. Imposing such a duty risks delaying sentencing.

This Government have committed to identifying and providing support for children affected by parental imprisonment. As such, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working to determine the best way to do this to ensure that children get the support they need. This builds on a range of services offered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to help families and significant others, where appropriate, to build positive relationships with people in the criminal justice system. This includes social visits, letter writing, video calls, family days and prison voicemail. I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I got my calculator out because I was reminding myself, so far as I could, what the amount might be, in cash terms, that an offender could be left with. I am not sure that I believe what I am finding, multiplying the national minimum wage by 170 and so on. I realise that we are talking about the future, but is the Minister able to share now what the cash amount would be?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My intention is that this concerns people who are earning significant amounts of money and might otherwise have a custodial sentence. Let me give the example of long-distance lorry drivers. They regularly earn over £70,000 a year. These are the people who I believe this income reduction order is appropriate for, not people who do not have means beyond that which they need just to look after their children and so on. It is very much, as I reiterated in my comments, for high-income earners. That level is the minimum wage level, and that is where we see the minimum. We obviously need to have further conversations internally on this, but my intention is that this covers people who earn significantly more than that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

That is helpful, because what is a high income to one person is not necessarily a high income in the eyes of another. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments and for dealing with them in that way. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Amendments 37 to 42 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 7.41 pm.

G20 and Ukraine

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:02

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 25 November.

“With permission, I will update the House on my recent international engagements and our work to strengthen the security of our continent and economy, starting with the situation in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of all our minds. Over recent days, I have had detailed discussions with allies; I met our partners in the coalition of the willing during the G20, and I have spoken a number of times to both President Trump and President Zelensky, who I spoke to again earlier this morning.

We are united in wanting a ceasefire and a permanent end to the horrendous suffering that this war has brought to Ukraine. I have always said that our aim must be a just and lasting peace, and those words ‘just’ and ‘lasting’ are both important. I welcome the continued efforts of the United States to end the war and stop the killing. The initial draft of the 28-point plan included points that were not acceptable, but it also included some important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace. For example, it sets out steps on security guarantees from the US and partners. That is very significant. The discussions in Geneva took important steps forward, with progress between the US and Ukraine on an updated peace framework. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing to refine the plan.

We are clear about the fundamental principles: that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained; that Ukraine should be able to defend herself in future; and that matters about Ukraine and its future must be determined by Ukraine. We are clear that Ukraine’s voice must always be at the heart of the process, and that elements relating to Europe and NATO will need the consent of Europe and NATO members. There is still a long way to go and a tough road ahead, but we are more committed than ever to the cause and to keep pushing forward on the process. That is why later this afternoon President Macron, Chancellor Merz and I will convene the coalition of the willing, which now has 36 members, to discuss how we can advance the peace process and how we can continue to keep Ukraine in the fight right now.

Ukraine continues to hold the line and Ukrainians continue to mount a fearless defence of their country. They deserve not just our respect but our help and support. After all, it is not just our values that are at risk here; it is our security, too.

In addition to targeting energy and food prices, Putin continues to seek to undermine our security, including by sending Russian ships into our waters. The Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters in the last two weeks. Let me assure the House that we are more ready and determined than ever to protect our territory and protect the British people. As we work towards that end, we will never let up on the support that Ukraine needs: the vital defensive capabilities that it needs to protect its people and the economic pressure that we must continue to mount on Russia to cut off the fuel to its war machine.

The urgent need to take Russian oil and gas off the global market was something that I discussed extensively at the G20. That is vital, especially now as winter begins to bite in Ukraine and Putin continues his barbaric attacks on civilians and civilian energy infrastructure. As the House knows, and the British people know, there is only one nation that wants this war, only one nation that launched this illegal invasion and only one nation that deploys a constant barrage aimed at murdering innocent civilians. We saw that again last night with Russia’s strikes on Kyiv. Indeed, in the last week before last night, Russia had launched over 1,200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukraine, killing children, like seven year-old Amelia, a Polish citizen who was killed alongside her mother by a Russian missile in Ternopil last Wednesday in an attack that took 34 lives in total.

Last night, as a family we celebrated my daughter’s 15th birthday. Later, I saw images on the news of a young girl about the same age being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine, where her mother had just been killed. It is abhorrent—it is beyond belief—yet Ukraine lives that same story every night in its cities and every day on the front line, where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.

We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life have taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day; 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk. In total, more than 1 million Russians have been killed or injured all because of the depraved ambitions of one man. We say again that this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people. We will maintain a unity of purpose with our allies and we will focus on delivering the calm, serious leadership that is needed to advance a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and indeed the whole of Europe.

Let me turn to my broader discussions at the G20. I took the opportunity in South Africa to raise the ongoing and utterly horrifying situation in Sudan. We are working with our partners to break the restrictions on humanitarian aid and demand accountability. We must rally global pressure to stop the slaughter, achieve a sustained ceasefire and ultimately deliver a transition to civilian rule.

In South Africa I also chaired the Global Fund replenishment alongside President Ramaphosa, leading the charge in the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That work has already saved over 70 million lives, yet malaria still kills a child under the age of five nearly every minute, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women still contract HIV every week and TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, even though we have had a cure for nearly a century. We will keep driving that project forward because it is the right thing to do and because it helps protect the United Kingdom from future pandemics and health emergencies.

A central priority at the G20 was delivering economic security and opportunity, as it is at every international meeting I attend. A strong economy allows us to be strong in the world. Economic security is national security. I can tell the House that we delivered for the British people this weekend, including through deals with South Africa for British firms to upgrade its railways and submarines, a £370 million deal for Rolls-Royce to supply jet engines to Algeria and a £4 billion deal with Indonesia for new ships, delivering 1,000 jobs in Rosyth, Plymouth and Bristol, and, if I may say, delivering another rebuke to all the people who prematurely wrote off British shipbuilding. We can only achieve those things—we can only deliver for the British people—by working with our partners. I think this is a moment to raise our sights.

The House will recall that it was when the global financial crisis struck that the G20 showed its full potential, with my predecessor Gordon Brown marshalling a global response to that crisis to protect the savings and finances of the British people. In this moment of growing fragility and crisis around the world, it is time once again to take a more purposeful, unified approach, focused on global growth and stability. I called for a response based on the right balance of investment and fiscal discipline, open markets, reforming the global trading system and tackling the cost of living crisis. That approach was echoed by the leaders’ declaration from Johannesburg.

I am also pleased to say that the summit confirmed that the UK will take on the presidency of the G20 in 2027—the first time that it has returned to the UK since 2009. It will be a proud moment for our country and part of our work to restore Britain’s international leadership, which was neglected for so long. We will use the presidency to drive the agenda I have been talking about today: to drive growth and opportunity, to create jobs, to cut the cost of living and to fundamentally strengthen the economic security of the British people. That is what we are doing at home and abroad, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement—although, for those who have not read it, it ends with claims that the Government are driving growth, creating jobs, cutting the cost of living and

“strengthening the economic security of the British people”.

Having heard the Chancellor’s assault today on pensions, savings and the homes of families who work hard, and multibillion pound handouts to those who do not work, one has to ask whether the Prime Minister missed something in the 10 weeks he has spent outside Britain since he took office. Promises not to tax working people were broken today, with another punishing £8.3 billion stealth tax, through fiscal drag, on people who work hard and earn more—but I guess we should be thankful for small mercies and we can all take in a cheap bingo game on the way home.

There are grim months ahead for the British economy—we will have other opportunities to debate this—and I do not share the Prime Minister’s sentiments in the Statement, but we must all agree that even that is put into perspective by the sufferings of the heroic Ukrainian people since Russia’s brutal invasion of their country. Even as peace is being discussed, barbaric bombardments of the capital and of civilian areas in other Ukrainian cities continue. We on this side are proud that what the Kremlin thought would be a six-day war was initially blocked by the technical, logistic, arms and training support offered by the British Government, first under the determined leadership of Boris Johnson and then by all Governments in all the years since.

We on this side are also proud of the unity displayed in our House—with a few, sometimes remote, exceptions—since those first days when the Leader of the House, then sitting on this side, reached out with the unequivocal support of the great patriotic Labour Party for our stand with Ukraine. I like to think that we have reciprocated that in opposition, and we reciprocate it fully and sincerely today. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine across this House and I assure the noble Baroness that our support remains unwavering.

Not only has Ukraine been battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity and sovereignty in Europe in recent times but its soldiers on the front line are protecting principles that underpin our whole way of life—democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We thank the Prime Minister for his resolute efforts to support Ukraine and, with the coalition of the willing, to seek and secure a just peace, which can only be one involving and acceptable to Ukraine. We strongly agree with the Prime Minister, in his Statement after the meeting of the coalition of the willing, that Ukraine must have the resources, forces and security guarantees to sustain its independence up to and far beyond any ceasefire or peace that may now be secured, and, indeed, for ever. That proud sovereign nation must never be erased from the map of Europe, so can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress was made at yesterday’s meeting of the coalition on the European security guarantees which the Ukraine and the US are seeking? Can she say what precisely the Government’s vision is of the multinational force about which the Prime Minister spoke last night? To what extent do we envisage the involvement of UK forces in that?

We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, now propped up by an axis of authoritarian states in trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. I have to say, frankly, that if Mr Putin’s best chum is the crackpot North Korean dictator, what more do we need to know about him? We have no illusions about the declared and published ambitions of a revanchist Russian regime to throw Stalinist influence and Leninist borders once again over much of eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Lasting peace in the face of that can be secured and sustained only through strength, in which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees the defensive role of a revivified NATO will be essential. It was not clear from the Budget speech today how that will be achieved in the year ahead, but it is vital that we and our allies stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental principle that aggressors should not win. This is not the time for the EU to demand an entrance fee from the UK for participating in Europe’s common defence.

This is a fast-moving situation, so can the noble Baroness bring us up to date on events since the Statement in the other place yesterday, including the coalition of the willing to which I have alluded. Does she share the publicly expressed opinion of Secretary of State Rubio about progress in developing the US plan? Can she confirm that the Prime Minister was correctly reported as saying that Ukraine believes that a large part of the Trump plan can be accepted? Does she have any intelligence on the latest position of the Ukrainian Government? President Zelensky has spoken of “a solid foundation” laid in the Geneva talks. Can she confirm that the coalition of the willing has endorsed the US plan as the basis of progress, albeit with the refinements which all parties say are being discussed? Can she shed any light on the main remaining areas of concern on the part of the UK Government? We hear that US envoy Witkoff is going to Moscow again in the next few days. Is she able to say anything about our latest understanding of the Russian position?

We pray for progress in these initiatives. We are, frankly, sceptical; we have our eyes open. We may not succeed if Ukraine cannot justly accept the full price asked, or if Russia truly and truthfully does not will a peace. However, President Trump was surely right in a humanitarian aspiration to end this bloody conflict, one in which a group of old men in the Kremlin, besotted by Wilfred Owen’s “Ram of Pride”, are slaying their own sons and half the seed of Ukraine and Russia, one by one. It must somehow be brought to an end, and in all that our Prime Minister may do to assist in securing a fair, just end to this terrible war in partnership with Ukraine, I assure the noble Baroness that he will carry our full support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I too welcome the Statement. On Ukraine, the Leader knows of our continuing support of the Government’s efforts. I know that our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party support in both Houses—other than some weakness from one party, so perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. However, all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent my Benches from pressing the Government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas—indeed, there is a duty to do so. We have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of the conflict.

It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war economy and a real focus on ensuring that loopholes are closed and sanctions are not circumvented. It is why we make the case as strong as we can that Russian assets, frozen for some time, need to be fully utilised after seizure, for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin’s regime, so we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told, on a number of occasions, that we can act only as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity, so I hope the Leader can update us on when we will be able to see concrete action.

Regarding the current developments with the US, it is becoming what I might call yo-yo diplomacy; it is quite hard to grasp the White House’s intent at any given time. Russia’s response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners—that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans—is directed exclusively at Trump himself. We support the Prime Minister in his efforts. We should not need to say this, but we have to: the future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide. Anything else is appeasement.

Ursula von der Leyen was right to say that a settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve-up, with the White House as the other party. Our Government are doing their best with the coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case in our support for Ukraine, and we back up the Government 100%.

The two lines on Sudan in the Statement are welcome but insufficient. The world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communiqué. That is unacceptable. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK as the UN penholder. Last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those we have witnessed in El Fasher; they could be in El Obeid and Tawila. I hope that the Leader can update the House on what concrete actions we, as the UN penholder, are taking. We need to spend every hour securing a country-wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no-drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, which cynically says it supports peace, and the SAF and NCP, which have ridiculed it.

Last week I called for the Prime Minister’s direct involvement with Heads of State. I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communiqué and his Statement indicate. If the Leader can update me, I will be very grateful.

Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the first presidency of the G20 in the coming year, for the first time since 2009. This is most welcome. However, I hope that, when it comes, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity. I have reread the UK’s 2009 G20 communiqué and I was heartened that we had inserted, in paragraph 26, that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our ODA pledges. The Budget today confirms what many of us feared: that the Government will miss the ODA target for every year of their Administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of ODA in 50 years, since ODA statistics were calculated. The 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration of the fear that, on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the UK Government are making us smaller on the international stage.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord True, thanked me for repeating the Statement but I did not repeat it because I was sure that noble Lords had read it.

Comments from both noble Lords indicate the importance of unity in this House and across Parliament and parties, and the strong message that sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine. Lots of comments have been made about us reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, which are comments we have all made time and again, and will continue to do so. If anything, as time moves on, our resolve is even stronger because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and that cannot be repeated often enough.

However, it is not just about our support for Ukraine. We send a very strong message that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is hard to talk about winning or losing a war in which so many on both sides have died and suffered, but if Russia was to succeed, our security, and that of other countries across Europe, is compromised. Our fight is also the fight of the Ukrainian people, and we work together.

The Prime Minister met the coalition of the willing in London, and they met virtually yesterday; 36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing and that is a very strong message to Russia and Ukraine about the strength of feeling for the just and lasting peace that is required. The noble Lord, Lord True, also made the point that it is no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution and to have to come back to this point two, three or even 10 years’ later. It has to be something that can last.

Noble Lords asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a lot of this is around the capability, co-ordination and command structure across the coalition. That is important; it is not just saying, “We have capability—it is there to help you”. It is working out how that works in practice, and that is what the coalition is about. The noble Lord asked about funding; I thought for one moment he was going to divert into a party-political rant about the Budget. I think today’s point is more sombre and serious; we can have that when we have our debate on the Budget. He knows, as we have said time and again, that the strategic defence review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding.

Both noble Lords asked for updates on the plan. If I understood correctly—I apologise if I am wrong—the noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should rule out the plan completely. It is for the Ukrainians to comment on what is there. There are clearly parts of the 28-point plan that were totally unacceptable and could not be accepted by Ukraine. If it says they cannot be accepted, we support it. It is right that it makes that decision. However, there are other points within the plan that it thinks it can work with and discuss further with the Americans. It is very fast-moving.

I think that during the Statement yesterday, one MP said, “Oh, there’s a deal been done. Can we try to confirm that?” No, the deal has not been done. There are ongoing discussions, and it is important that we give the Ukrainians every support we can in having those discussions on what they need. But we would never move away from supporting them, or from them deciding on their sovereignty. That is one of the most important things.

I cannot give a running commentary on where this has got to: it would be wrong to do so. We all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days, perhaps longer. But we have to put our support, our faith and our trust in the Ukrainians, because of the suffering they have endured. The Russian community has suffered as well, yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with President Putin. It is important we recognise that, and say to both Russia and Ukraine that that is where the responsibility and the liability lies.

I will try to answer the points that were made. Questions were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored, looking at the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets. Where we are coming from is that, while this war continues, sanctions continue, and we will continue to freeze assets. We are working closely with the EU Commission and our G7 counterparts to make progress.

The noble Lord, Lord True, has asked me about this before, and I cannot give him any more updates. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we have got to on that. I think that we are making progress on how assets can be used, but he will understand that the impact of that will come if we work together to get to that point. That is part of the discussions that are constantly under review to make sure we can move forward.

As for Sudan, I understand that it was extensively discussed, although that probably is not reflected in the Statement at all. The suffering there is probably the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. It is hard to imagine, in so much of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through, and the lack of hope people must have. We fully support the work of the Quad in trying to make progress to reach some kind of agreement to end the suffering there, and the famine that ensues as well. That was extensively discussed, and was, I think, very much in the forefront of minds there.

The noble Lord also asked about international aid and assistance—ODA. May I say to him that in 2009 we had had 12 years of a Labour Government? The economy was in a better place, and the world was in a different place as well, so it does not surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009. Our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to how things were, remains. Our commitment has not ended, but that is not going to happen as quickly as I know he would like, or as quickly as others would like as well.

The noble Lord also asked for more information about the coalition of the willing. I would say that this is one of the most significant moves by the Government —to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are looking at the full range of European military capabilities. President Zelensky, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be in no doubt that he has not just our sympathy and support but our total backing, and that that is not going to fail him.

19:24

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the key part he has played in the coalition of the willing. I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing—but I wonder whether I could ask my noble friend a question. Could she say a bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It will cost a lot of money, but I think it is important that we get our policies in place, so that a quick reconstruction of that country can be brought into being.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.

On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. I fully agree with everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Although I am in an opposition party, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Prime Minister has been doing a splendid job on the external front, particularly in co-leading the coalition of the willing. I will not say anything about his domestic travails, as I do not want to spoil the harmony. He has been extremely stalwart. I heard what the Minister said, and I think it does come through that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. He is quite right.

It has been heartening, in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European Parliaments in the last few months. I recall meeting Finnish colleagues and people from the French Senate, yesterday, and today, some of the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. That we are able to say, to note and to express the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is obviously welcome to them, and it is gratifying to be able to express that.

May I press the Minister about the use of the frozen Russian assets? I realise that discussions are ongoing, but could she give us any hint of where the current sticking point is? It is reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees. I may be out of date, but I think Belgium wants guarantees about its position, because most of these assets are located—in so far as anything is located anywhere these days—in Belgium. But is it that? Is it legal? Is it political? Can she give us any kind of time horizon? People are very impatient, and want to see these assets used for the benefit of Ukraine.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She talks about domestic travails, but this is nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, and I would not want to trivialise that in any way. As she said, it is important that, across all Parliaments in different countries, it is not just the politicians and the representatives; it goes down to the people of this country. Some friends of mine feel that their lives have been enriched by being hosts to a Ukrainian family, who left Ukraine and want to return when they can. Because the politicians have been united, we have been able to lead our country on that as well.

The noble Baroness asked for further information on where the sticking point is. I cannot go into those discussions, and I think that she will understand why. Let me just say that we will ensure that everything we do on this—we want to make progress as quickly as we can—will be in line with international law and be financially and legally responsible. She will know— I am sure she has been involved in similar discussions before—that it is the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is why it is important to keep on pressing the point in order to get some progress as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right: we can focus on using the interest on those assets, but we have to look further than that for the long-term future of Ukraine.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, one of the principles that we apply in many debates is that we should not talk about people without them being present. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to resist the carve-up of an independent country by two major powers? That means that we have to put pressure on the United States to see this not just as an object of interest but as something that has to involve the Ukrainians at every step.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would hope that I have already been completely clear on that point. These are matters for Ukraine; it is not for other countries to seek to divide, or make decisions on behalf of, a sovereign country. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it has our support and backing in making its own decisions and having its own negotiations.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to the Statement. I will press a her little on how the arrangements for the coalition of the willing will work. The noble Baroness mentioned the three Cs —capability, co-ordination and command structure—but can she say more about how the UK will be involved in determining how its support, potential peacekeeping forces and other resources may be used?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is not much more I can say because these discussions are continually ongoing. The Prime Minister, when he answered questions on the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday, made clear the huge amount of ongoing military work and how that will operate in practice. These are operational matters that will have to be worked through with all the other countries, to see what part they can play. These are military plans that will be put into effect when they are needed.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the chance to discuss the Statement. This is an extremely difficult time for Ukraine—heaven knows that what they have had to live through over the past three and a half years has been difficult enough. It is also a test for the coalition of the willing. I join my noble friend Lord Dubs in paying tribute to the work that the Prime Minister has done in this regard. As this potential peace process unfolds, at what stage does my noble friend the Leader of the House understand it is envisaged that Russia and President Putin would be welcomed back into the G7, which would become the G8 again? That might be a difficult part of the process.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think my noble friend is getting a little ahead of where discussions are at the moment. While these discussions are ongoing, the most I can say is that our support for Ukraine remains absolutely ironclad—there is no dispute or ambiguity about that. The person responsible for the illegal invasion of Ukraine is Putin; the responsibility cannot be laid at any place other than his door. He can deliver peace immediately just by withdrawing from Ukraine. Until these matters are resolved, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as pro bono counsel for Ukraine in international legal proceedings. I too pay tribute to the Government for their work and support for Ukraine. I would like some clarity on point 9 of the European counterproposal, which states:

“NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland”.


We do not want Russia to read this as NATO proposing that NATO fighter jets will not be stationed in places that might be seen as more controversial to the north-east of Poland, such as the Baltic states or Finland. We must be particularly careful because in 1990 the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany contained a provision that said that there would not be foreign troops in what was then East Germany. Russia maintains, to date, that by that provision we had agreed not to station or deploy NATO troops east of the Oder-Neisse. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that NATO will continue to deploy fighter jets in the Baltic states or in Finland, if those countries so wish?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a decision for NATO to take, but I see no change in the current arrangements. The noble Lord mentioned the plan. The ongoing discussions have not yet been agreed, and when they are, the plan will become clearer. No change has been made to NATO’s current position, and the discussions are ongoing.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I too join the chorus congratulating the Prime Minister on what he has done. The coalition of the willing—although the phrase has an echo of George Bush Jr—started with three nations and its membership is now up to 36. That is not a simple achievement. The Leader of the House has done something wonderful, and I thank her too for answering our questions. If I were Ukrainian, I would feel that, in 1994, we gave up our nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, but when one of them went into Crimea, the other two did nothing. It requires a lot of belief that, despite Ukrainians having been betrayed before, we are now trying to fix it. Therefore, my thoughts are those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds: are we going to stop and resist whatever happens, so that Ukraine will not be betrayed again? Having given up its weapons, we are now demanding that the country gives up bits of its land.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear I am in danger of repeating myself, but if it needs restating, I will do so. We have been absolutely clear that decisions on sovereignty are a matter for Ukraine. Clearly, there are points in the first iteration of President Trump’s 28-point plan that are unacceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine has asked for support with ongoing negotiations. The Prime Minister regularly talks to President Zelensky, and there is no doubt that the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition of the willing—which, as the noble and right reverend Lord said, is now made up of 36 nations—is behind Ukraine. On the one hand, there is the absolute moral principle about the sovereignty of a nation; on the other, there is the recognition that, if Russia were to get its way with Ukraine, we do not know where we would be next. It is a matter of security for the UK and for Europe. I do not know how much more I can emphasise this: it is for Ukraine to make decisions for its own sovereignty, and we will support Ukraine.

Sitting suspended.

Sentencing Bill

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

19:41

Clause 4: Purposes of sentencing

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Lord Beith]

45: Clause 4, page 14, line 10, after “crime” insert “, with a view to protecting them”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify that the purposes of sentencing specifically include the protection of victims of crime.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I beg to move Amendment 45. The purpose of this amendment, and indeed of Amendment 45A which is grouped with it, is to get the focus right. We believe the focus on the victims of crime should be clear on the face of the Bill and regularly understood.

Much of this Bill is about enabling policy change by establishing public confidence in things that we know from evidence are likely to reduce crime and keep people safer. The problem is that that is not easy. Certainly, the media treatment of crime issues tends to undermine the ability of the public in general to have confidence that the system is working for them, that it is working to keep them safe and that it is also working to assist victims and to ensure that they get what they deserve, which is proper police pursuit of criminals, an effective courts process and appropriate methods of dealing with offenders that make it less likely that other people will suffer what they have suffered. That is a frequent comment from victims, who will say “What I care about is that something like this should not have to happen to anybody else in the way that it has happened to me”. I do not need to make a long speech on the subject; the issues that we are concerned about are well understood by Ministers. We want to make sure that people can see that this is what the Bill is about.

I very much welcome Amendment 45A—on the supplementary to the Marshalled List—tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and commanding the support of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. Amendment 45A sets out the purposes of imprisonment, which is what I was talking about a moment ago, so that the public can understand that we want to deter and prevent reoffending. Amendment 45A refers to the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to commit further crimes, the deterrence of prisoners, the just punishment of prisoners and the rehabilitation of prisoners. It is not our amendment, but it is closely related to what we are talking about. It sets out very clearly some of the purposes of imprisonment and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister’s reaction to it is. I beg to move.

19:45

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 45A in the place of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who, regrettably, is not able to be here today. It seems that in wider society there is a greater push for harsher punishment and longer sentences, and there is a tension with what the purpose of such punishment is. This amendment is designed to provide some elucidation on that. It would define in law the purposes of imprisonment and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s strategic objective is to

“carry out sentences given by the courts, in custody and the community, and rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment”.

But there is no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. While the Bill sets out the statutory purposes of sentencing, these do not provide guidance to judges on whether imprisonment is appropriate, nor on what should occur once an offender is incarcerated. The need to confront this, we suggest, is quite urgent. There is tension, obviously, between punishment, rehabilitation and restoration.

In the absence of a clear understanding of the purpose of imprisonment, it seems important both for prisoners and their wider families and community, as well as victims, that the expectations of what the particular punishment sets out to do are clear, rather than just handing out a prison sentence and hoping that something good will happen. I should also add that, in my own experience of prisons and talking to people engaged in prison rehabilitation, the resources to enable such rehabilitation to happen—such as education and so on—are reducing, and this cannot be good.

At present, the public express little confidence in the courts and prisons, in part as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment. A clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve prisoners, who would better understand why they have been imprisoned. This is about clarity. A number of jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, have legislated guidance for courts and the community more broadly regarding this issue. On behalf of those who have signed up to this amendment, I say that this is an amendment that could be taken seriously and would help the judicial system.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the principle that victims’ rights, safety and experiences must be considered. Included already in the statutory purposes of sentencing is the protection of the public. In practice, courts make an effort to take victims’ interests into account. The explicit addition to Clause 4 raises an interesting principle, and the amendment serves, perhaps, as a useful reminder of the centrality of victims in our justice system. We look forward to hearing the Government’s response to Amendment 45.

Amendment 45A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would place in statute the purposes of imprisonment and require both the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to them. The first of these principles is

“the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to re-offend in the community”.

I simply observe that the purposes of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are to the opposite effect. They raise presumptions in favour of the release of prisoners into the community, rather than their incapacitation to restrict their ability to reoffend. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.

I note that Amendment 45A would reinforce principles already central to sentencing and prison policy, which can only be good for public confidence. If it can lead to improvements in rehabilitation and public protection, then all to the good. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the four aims proposed in Amendment 45A.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for bringing forward Amendment 45 in his place, and for the spirit in which it has been proposed. The Government share the noble Lords’ goal and dedication to ensure that victims are properly protected within our justice system. That is why Clause 4 makes it clear that the protection of the public explicitly includes victims of crime. This is a significant and, I must stress, intentional step forward. Although I wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intentions and commitments, I do not believe that the additional wording proposed in the amendment would add substantive value to what is already being achieved by the changes we are making in the Bill.

Clause 4 will make it clear that courts should consider the protection of victims as part of sentencing. That is very important. This amendment would simply restate what is already made explicit by Clause 4. Of course, the Government’s commitment to protecting victims is not limited to the changes we are making in Clause 4. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked me to comment on the centrality of victims to the justice system. I am so happy to do that that I rewrote this speaking note this morning, with the help of the officials.

The Bill contains other important measures that will protect victims. As noble Lords know, we are introducing new restriction zones, which will limit the movements of offenders instead of the movements of victims. We are also creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This will help prisons and probation services manage offenders effectively and ensure that victims are better protected.

We are taking many steps outside the Bill to protect victims. We are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts—a very important cause, with which I have been associated for many years—with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has made an important contribution to this debate by raising whether the purpose of imprisonment should be defined in legislation. I spent many years chairing the agency board of HMPPS, and one of my jobs was to set the strategy. We spent a long time debating precisely this point and how we should frame it, so I understand the issues the right reverend Prelates seek to address.

Although I agree wholeheartedly that our debates should be guided by principles and evidence, and not by headlines—the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that one of the most important duties of new legislation is to win public confidence; I entirely share that sentiment— I am afraid that I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is needed. The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines. These principles should guide our courts every day and provide the flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances and emerging threats. With those comments in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has made a good case for his reliance on Clause 4 in its reference to victims. The wider issues raised in Amendment 45A ought still to attract the Government’s interest as we proceed with the Bill, but on the basis of what has been said in this short debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 45A not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Finding of domestic abuse

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

46: Clause 6, page 15, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) Sentencing guidelines must provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require sentencing guidelines to treat domestic abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has added his name to this amendment, which would ensure that sentencing guidelines

“provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor”.

Clause 6 puts into statute a provision that if the court is passing a sentence and

“is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse carried out by the offender”,

then the court must state that. This clause is a very important acknowledgement of offences involving domestic abuse. My honourable friend the Member for Eastbourne played no small part in getting this on to the statute book.

Enabling the understanding of offences involving domestic abuse is important, generally and for the victim. I assume that the court being required to state that the offence involved domestic abuse will better enable the MoJ to keep data about this. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to confirm that or, at any rate, note the point that keeping data is important. We are going at little more than a snail’s pace in recognising domestic abuse; it is quite laborious achieving each step. I doubt I need to elaborate on this to noble Lords, but it is important for the victim to have not just a general recognition, but something which is official, stated by the court, of what they have gone through and what underlies it. That is of great significance to the individual.

However, simply providing for findings of domestic abuse provoked the question: and then what? Amendment 46 is intended to provide the answer by putting the matter into sentencing guidelines as an aggravating factor. I believe that the commission of an offence in the domestic context is already an aggravating factor under the sentencing guidelines, with which I struggled over the weekend. However, domestic abuse is more than context. I think the MoJ must accept that, otherwise new Section 56A would refer to domestic context, not domestic abuse. It is important; as people say, you cannot deal with what you cannot name. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I read it, the amendment seeks to treat domestic abuse as an aggravating factor when determining all sentencing. Of course domestic abuse is a serious pervasive crime and it clearly has profound long-term impacts on its victims. This amendment appears to promote some degree of clarity and consistency, and, indeed, fairness in sentencing. It would ensure that the courts can take full account of both the nature and the impact of domestic abuse when deciding on an appropriate sentence. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on it.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for drawing attention to this important topic. They, along with their colleagues in the other place, have campaigned tirelessly on this issue.

I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we believe that this will improve the quality of data. The amendment we are debating today would require sentencing guidelines to provide that domestic abuse is an aggravating factor in sentencing. I fully appreciate the intent behind the amendment, and the Government wholeheartedly agree that judges should consider domestic abuse when sentencing, but I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that this is already the position and explain why the Government do not consider a further amendment necessary.

Domestic abuse is already treated as an aggravating factor through the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. Courts are required by law to follow this, unless it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council has looked carefully at this issue and has issued an overarching guideline on domestic abuse. That guideline makes it clear that the presence of domestic abuse can make an offence more serious. In addition, a wide range of offence-specific guidelines include

“an offence committed within a domestic abuse context”

as a specific aggregating factor.

20:00

Furthermore, the council reviewed its overarching domestic abuse guideline last year and found it was working well. Following that review, the council opted to add the aggravating factor I have just mentioned to 23 more offence-specific guidelines. This demonstrates that the current framework is robust, working and actively maintained. For these reasons, this amendment would duplicate existing provision and is therefore unnecessary.

I am committed to improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the system through the Bill. Clause 6 introduces a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing, which will help to ensure that cases involving domestic abuse are consistently identified and tracked. This is a meaningful and practical reform. For example, under the current system, an offender could be convicted of an assault, but there is no systematic way of recording the domestic abuse context of that offence. This could lead to the police missing this risk and not disclosing this information to a new partner. With the marker that we are introducing in the Bill, the abuse appears on the offender’s record. This helps the police to spot perpetrators and protect future victims. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue, I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances, and I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. As I have said earlier today, I have struggled with the guidelines, which are long and dense. Without seeing the individual offences which domestic abuse aggravates—if I have the words in the right order there—it is hard to respond, although I retain a wish to see domestic abuse being an aggravating factor overall rather than just in some specified circumstances. However, I am happy to pursue this outside the Chamber so that I can understand precisely how this is currently dealt with. I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed.

Amendment 47

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

47: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Parents of young offenders(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use by the courts of the following powers in the Sentencing Code—(a) sections 365 to 375 (parenting orders), and(b) sections 380 to 383 (costs, fines and other financial orders where offender aged under 18).(2) The assessment undertaken under subsection (1) must make recommendations on—(a) ways to increase use of the Sentencing Code powers to make parenting and financial orders, and(b) other potential sentencing changes to promote greater parental responsibility in respect of young offenders.(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the use of the courts’ existing powers to make parenting orders and financial orders to parents of young offenders.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a full assessment of how the courts are using their existing powers to make parenting and financial orders for young offenders. These powers are already available under the Sentencing Code but in practice are used far less than Parliament had originally intended. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that more than 1,000 such orders were made in 2010, yet only 27 have been made in recent years. That is a striking decline, which raises serious concerns about whether important statutory powers designed to support families and address the causes of youth offending are being neglected or overlooked.

The purpose of these orders is not to punish parents but to support them, to help restore discipline and stability in the home and, ultimately, to prevent the next crime before it happens. Through assessing their effectiveness and making recommendations to increase their use, this amendment seeks to strengthen parental responsibility and engagement in the rehabilitation of young offenders. Children are of course among the most vulnerable in our society and it is our responsibility as lawmakers, indeed as parents, and ultimately as adults, to ensure that when young people offend, there is structure, support and the necessary resources in place to prevent them reoffending. I suggest that this amendment is a measured and constructive step towards achieving that aim.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is not in his place, but I will just mention his Amendment 87. The amendment addresses a very different but equally important aspect of youth justice: the question of transparency in cases involving the most serious offending by those under 18 years of age. The amendment would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing where a young offender received a custodial sentence of four years or more. To receive a custodial sentence of over four years is telling of the crimes committed. I appreciate that anonymity has been a protective safeguard for most children within the justice system, and of course rightly so, but where an offence of such gravity that it warrants a substantial custodial sentence has been committed, there is a strong public interest in transparency and accountability. So I would welcome the Minister’s response not only to my own amendment but to that tabled by the noble Lord.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for raising these important issues. Obviously, the Bill focuses on the adult system, but I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate these amendments about the youth justice system, about which all of us are concerned. However, our position is that neither of these amendments are necessary.

Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness of certain orders available when dealing with a child under the age of 18. This includes parenting orders, and costs, fines and other financial orders. I am very happy to acknowledge the importance of these orders, as stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. They are very much part of the toolkit for dealing with youth offending and youth justice and have an important role in supporting greater responsibility for a child’s offending—excuse my voice; the NHS’s work in restoring my mellifluous tones is not quite complete yet. Whether they are used in a particular case is best determined by the court with access to professional advice from the youth offending team. When we were discussing this prior to this Committee tonight, we recognised the importance of youth offending officers having a view on what would be most effective in working with parents who should be doing more.

It is right that the court retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support the child’s rehabilitation—so we are not opposed to that—and that it has access to information on their individual circumstances. However, as the Minister said at Second Reading, we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in light of the changes that the Bill will introduce in due course, and we will be very happy to return to these important matters then. Therefore, although we do not agree that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment of these orders, I can confirm to noble Lords that we will consider this matter.

Amendment 87 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has set out the issue. I thank the noble and learned Lord, but let us be clear that the most serious childhood offences which result in longer custodial sentences are dealt with in the Crown Court. Here, it is at the discretion of the independent judge whether to impose restrictions to protect the identity of a child defendant. Reporting restrictions exist to protect vulnerable child victims, witnesses and defendants. They are very important. Being named in the press can obviously have a significant negative impact on the safety, prospects and opportunities of a child. That said, in all cases, judges have discretion to lift reporting restrictions once a child has been convicted, or before, where they are considered unreasonable—for example, in the well-known case of Axel Rudakubana, who was 17 when charged with the Southport murders. The Government’s view is that our existing system strikes the right balance between the fundamental importance of open justice and proportionate safeguards for children. With that in mind, I ask the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord not to press their amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been a very striking decline in the use of parenting and financial orders since 2010?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We are conscious of that and we discussed it in our pre-briefing this morning, and we want to find out what that is all about. The important point to make at this stage, without jumping to conclusions, is that we want this to be part of the armoury, but we want youth offending officers to have discretion about what will really work with the parents. Anyway, you have got me on one of my favourite subjects, so I should get off it.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am obliged to the Minister for getting on and then getting off this topic. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

48: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements(1) A person (“relevant offender”) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing —(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth,(b) their national insurance number,(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names,(d) their place of residence on the date of notification,(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay, and(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2), (b) a change to their place or residence, and(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service, and(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.(6) The relevant offences are—(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004),(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933),(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938),(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861),(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16,(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1),(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2),(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia (section 3), and(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 48 seeks to establish a notification and offender management requirement clause for criminals convicted of child cruelty offences. For convicted child sex offenders, there already exist notification requirements, whereby those who have abused vulnerable and dependent children in the worst possible way must notify the police of their home address and other relevant details following their release from prison.

I know that the sex offender register is not a perfect system and that monitoring former convicts does not mean that we can control their every action, but it does act as a safeguard. It provides the police with the oversight needed to manage offenders and reduce the risk to victims, and it means that those who commit sex offences cannot just disappear back into the community. There is evidence that it is working, with sex offender reoffending rates having decreased in the past 15 years. Given that overall sexual offences have increased nearly fourfold over that same period, a decrease in reoffences does suggest that this part of the justice system is working. It is reasonable to argue that mandating the keeping of an offender register will have had some part to play in that reduction in the case of those offences.

It is unfortunate that similar provisions do not exist for those convicted of child cruelty offences. The offence is in a sense different, but the principle is largely similar. Child cruelty, like child sexual offences, is heinous, life-altering abuse to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The only difference at present is that, once released, those guilty of such cruelty offences are not managed once their sentence and probation is over. A person can commit these horrific crimes—causing or allowing the death of a child, neglect and violence to a child or even female genital mutilation in some cases—and, once they have served a period of imprisonment, they are free to slip back into the community unnoticed. There is no centralised way for the police to know who these people are and where they are living.

This is all the more an issue given the fact that, in the majority of child cruelty cases, the offender very often has had parental responsibility for the victim. This means that they will often have connections to the child’s current guardian and in many cases to other family members with connections to the child. There is, therefore, the very heightened risk that they will be able to secure access to a child in these situations, yet there is no means of oversight or management of these people.

Amendment 48 seeks to correct this anomaly by introducing something analogous to the sex offender register. It would require those convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of their details following their release. They would need to share their home address, any other places of residence and any other name that they might choose to use. It would provide the police and probation services with the necessary information to identify individuals who might continue to pose a threat within a family community. It would give child victims some additional safeguard from the risk posed by such convicted offenders. It would also act as a deterrent to these offenders, just as entry in the child sex offenders register has done.

The child protection system should exist to save children from abusive circumstances and give them a measure of safety. This simple step of introducing a register would allow some additional protection for these victims and ensure a greater public awareness of the risks that such convicted persons would pose. I beg to move.

20:15

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for raising this matter. I pay tribute to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell. They have campaigned tirelessly and movingly on this important issue. Earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister had the great honour of meeting Paula and Helen to hear the Hudgells’ story and learn more about their campaign. This Government are taking decisive action to protect our children from those who would commit abhorrent crimes against them.

Currently, under Sarah’s law, the police can and do proactively disclose information regarding offenders to members of the public when they believe that a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult who has ever had a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, the police can and will disclose this to the person best able to protect that child—usually their parent, carer or guardian. Sarah’s law also enables members of the public to make an application to the police for this information if they are worried about child protection.

In the Crime and Policing Bill, this Government are going further. We are strengthening Sarah’s law by placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance on Sarah’s law. In practice, this will reinforce the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever that is necessary to protect children. We have also committed over £2 billion to support the roll out of the families first partnership programme to improve the early identification of risks to children and to take appropriate action.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will establish multi-agency child protection teams in every area. Additionally, we are placing a new duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. We want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to keep our children safe. We are not standing still on this issue. We are exploring the best way to close the gap that Paula has rightly identified. This is why I and Ministers in the Home Office have instructed our officials to explore options for tracking offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I thank the Minister. In the light of his undertaking that the Government are pursuing this matter—vigorously, I take it—and intending to produce something, whether they term it a register or otherwise, so that the police can not only disclose information but access information, which is a more critical element here, at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 10 agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 11: Removal of requirement to specify maximum number of days

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

49: Clause 11, page 26, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) After paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 9 to the Sentencing Code insert—“(1A) The minimum number of days on which the offender may be instructed to participate in activities must be specified in the relevant order.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the maximum-days requirement with a minimum number of days for rehabilitation activity requirements, ensuring that there is a minimum threshold of activity that offenders must complete.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, repeated reference has already been made to the independence of the judiciary and to the need to allow the judiciary full discretion in the matter of sentencing, but the provisions in the Bill at Clauses 11 and 12 erode these principles and put the whole issue at risk. The requirements in these clauses will remove a degree of judicial discretion, transferring certain sentencing powers from the courts to the Probation Service, and ultimately, of course, to the Government.

We on these Benches believe that the judiciary, who are specifically trained and appointed, and not probation officers, are best equipped to make decisions on sentencing. Clause 11, as drafted, removes the requirement to specify the maximum number of activity days to be undertaken as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. The Government’s intention appears to be to create flexibility for probation services, so that they can gauge and tailor the number of days that offenders must complete.

Of course, we appreciate that, at present, there is a discrepancy between the maximum days of activity ordered by the courts and the number completed in reality. But nowhere in the Bill does there appear to be, once the initial sentence order and length are passed, judicial oversight of the number of days that probation officers may then set; nor does there appear to be any minimum threshold or expectation of participation specified in the Bill.

Putting this conferral of sentencing power on to the Probation Service creates an obvious misalignment of, among other things, incentives. Overworked probation officers, already contending with quite unmanageable case loads, are liable to be motivated not only by what is right for rehabilitation and public safety but by what is administratively possible. The unavoidable consequence is that the number of activity days ordered will be determined by capacity pressures within the Probation Service rather than by the rehabilitation requirements of individual offenders. The clause, as currently drafted, could enable an offender to engage in little or no meaningful rehabilitative activity whatever. Such an outcome would, of course, be a betrayal of victims and simply an illusion of justice.

On the other hand, the judiciary are trained and entrusted to assess evidence, consider proportionality, and understand risk and the need to balance public protection with rehabilitations. It is in these circumstances that we give notice of our intention to oppose Clauses 11 and 12 standing part of the Bill.

Amendments 49 and 50 seek to remedy the issue of probation officers operating in a quasi-judicial capacity. Amendment 49 would ensure that the court specifies a minimum number of days required under probation activity requirement. This would mean that, rather than setting a maximum threshold, which is seldom met in practice, there would be no ambiguity for officers or offenders over the number of days that must be completed. This is a simple and practical proposal that has the effect of dealing with the impact of Clauses 11 and 12.

Amendment 50 would clarify in statute that, where activity days are to be set for offenders, the number of days must always be set by the court itself. Without these amendments, decisions relating to punishment will, effectively, be delegated from the court to the Probation Service, rather than being determined at the point of sentence by the judiciary, and we believe it is essential that it should remain in the hands of the judiciary.

I turn briefly to Amendments 125 and 126, which concern early termination of community orders and suspended sentences. These amendments would provide that a court may not terminate such orders early, unless a specified minimum proportion of rehabilitation days has actually been completed. This would prevent the unacceptable scenario in which an offender could be released from requirements without having undertaken the substance of the sentence that was originally imposed.

Again, at present, there are no checks or balances under the Bill to ensure that this is not the case. These amendments would ensure proper accountability and preserve the authority of the sentencing decisions made by the court, and they would also provide probation officers with a degree of flexibility. I hope that the Government recognise the constructive nature of these amendments.

We all recognise the intense pressure under which prisons and probation services currently operate, but the response to systemic problems cannot be to weaken judicial powers or diminish meaningful sentencing. Offenders must not be permitted to slip through the cracks in a system that is stretched to its limits. It is our duty in Parliament to reinforce judicial authority, not to erode it. It is for these reasons that I urge the Government to reconsider the implications of Clauses 11 and 12, and to recognise the importance of the amendments that have been tabled. Judicial sentencing power must remain with the courts, and I hope that the Government will listen to these concerns and engage constructively on this issue.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has raised an interesting and very debatable question, which is what the role of the judiciary should be in allotting rehabilitation time and activity and what the role of the probation officer can reasonably be. In theory, I should be with him, because I am always anxious to protect the independence and autonomy of the judiciary, but I look at our court system, and what is feasible, and I look at the detailed work that would be necessary, which probation officers are trained and equipped for—not necessarily resources-equipped but equipped in terms of their training—and I am unconvinced that it would be a good idea to move away from what Clause 11 and 12 do towards a larger role for the judiciary.

I say that having gone, decades ago, to look at the court system in Texas, as the Minister himself has done more recently, and having seen proactive courts, with the judge handing out details of rehabilitation requirements and looking at people as individuals, and the applause ringing around the court when the judge commended the offender who had fulfilled the requirement, and the sight of one offender who had not fulfilled the requirement being taken away by the state marshal.

The whole set-up was very interesting, but very difficult to graft into our system without enlarging the judiciary substantially, giving it time to do this kind of thing. We are probably better to build on the foundation of the Probation Service, despite the fact that it went through such a terrible time with the privatisation process and is still well below the level it needs to be in terms of numbers and training. The Bill provides a more reliable route, even though my instinct is to be on the side of protecting the autonomy of the judiciary. This is a job that probation officers are probably in a better position to do than our hard-pressed judiciary.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I have considered the amendments and thoughtful debate from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on this topic. Change is needed. The process evaluation of the rehabilitative activity requirement, or, as I prefer to call it, RAR days, published in May 2025, shows that the RAR is not working effectively. Offenders often do not understand what is expected of them, and magistrates sometimes sentence it as a catch-all.

Further to this published evidence, probation practitioners from Manchester to the Isle of Wight have told me personally that the way RAR is structured restricts their ability to rehabilitate offenders. From my experience of leading organisations, the people who are on the front line often give you the wisest advice. We value and trust our probation staff enormously. Their work is often unseen, but I deeply appreciate it. This change places professional judgment back at the heart of probation. We are enabling probation practitioners to utilise their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works.

I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that this change does not remove the court’s sentencing powers. It is and will remain for the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making an order. But the removal of court-specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where they will have the most impact. It brings our approach to rehabilitation activity in line with how supervision is determined. Both are led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer. If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties.

I turn to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendments 125 and 126. The community sentences incentive scheme, set out in Clauses 36 and 37, already requires offenders to complete all court-ordered requirements before the community order—or, in the case of a suspended sentence order, the supervision period—can come to an end. This will include completing all the required activities under the new probation requirement. These clauses bring a principle of progression and incentivisation into community sentences to encourage good behaviour and motivate offenders to change.

This scheme was inspired by the model in Texas, which used incentives to reduce the prison population. It will mean that the Probation Service can encourage offenders to engage early, comply with their sentence requirements and complete rehabilitation work. This will free up staff time to focus on more serious and complex offenders in order to better protect the public and reduce reoffending. Probation practitioners will be responsible for determining the amount of rehabilitation activity that must be completed under the probation requirement. The measure requires them to complete it all before the community order or supervision period can be eligible for early termination.

20:30

Therefore, it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to require offenders to complete a minimum proportion of these days. For example, someone could be sentenced to a two-year community order that includes a probation requirement, unpaid work and a treatment. Probation will undertake an assessment up front to determine how much rehabilitation activity is needed under the probation requirement. This will be set out in a sentence plan alongside all other objectives. Only once the offender has completed all of these and there is nothing more to deliver will the order end. This means that offenders are incentivised to comply with probation and show good behaviour. But if they do not follow the rules, offenders will serve their sentence in full. I also highlight that suspended sentence orders will continue, and it is only the supervision period that can end early.

With that in mind, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. We can, however, return to this on Report if he is still not content with my response. I am also happy to talk to him before then if he would find it helpful.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his answer and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his contribution. I fear that the Minister is not properly distinguishing between issues of rehabilitation and issues of sentencing. There is a matter of principle that has to be addressed in this context, and there is a risk that the Bill in its present form will turn sentencing into some form of administrative exercise performed by the Probation Service rather than by the court.

I believe we will have to return to this on Report, but I look forward to discussing the matter further with the Minister. At this time, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

Amendment 50 not moved.

Clause 11 agreed.

House resumed at 8.32 pm.

House adjourned at 8.33 pm.