Arts and Creative Industries: Social Mobility
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to improve social mobility for careers in the arts and creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, making creative careers accessible for everyone is a key priority for the Government. I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of the Question that there is an issue for us to address. That is why our refreshed £9 million creative careers service will focus on supporting priority areas where young people face the greatest barriers to accessing creative opportunities. It is also why last month we announced new funding for the King’s Trust to support direct routes for underrepresented groups into jobs, education and training in the sector.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Sutton Trust finds that there are barriers to young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at every stage of the creative industries pipeline—in schools, higher education and job opportunities. Does the Minister agree that the continuing loss of arts courses in higher education, from the loss of the prestigious undergraduate drama course at the Bristol Old Vic to the suspension of music courses at Nottingham University, does not sit well with the Government’s intent to improve arts education in state schools and increase social mobility in the creative industries?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
High-quality arts education cannot be for the privileged few. To provide certainty over future funding, we are increasing tuition fee caps by forecast inflation next year and the year after. Alongside this, we continue to invest in creative arts through the strategic priorities grant, which includes support for world-leading creative institutions. We will also revitalise arts education in schools through a reformed curriculum and support for teachers.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the millions of pounds of investment announced by Cardiff-based company Bad Wolf at the summit in Newport will create thousands of creative industry jobs and support local business and talent development? The projects will include investment in trainee placements and work shadowing opportunities, which is a great example of social mobility in practice.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I recognise what an important role my noble friend has had in inspiring young people to take up creative careers through her role and career as a teacher. We welcome the £2 million investment committed by Bad Wolf at the Wales Investment Summit last week, which is set to bring £30 million to the Welsh economy. Bad Wolf is a UK success story, having created thousands of jobs in Wales, and a key driver of the success of the Cardiff creative cluster, one of the largest film and TV hubs in the UK. It is really great to see that this investment will further grow this thriving cluster.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, to follow up on what the noble Baroness said, increasing the take-up of apprenticeships could help the many with aspiration and aptitude, but no financial net, to get into the creative industries. As the Minister is aware, the present apprenticeship system does not fit well with the sector, given the prominence of SMEs and freelancers. Can she give us an update on reform in this area? How is her department progressing with Skills England to consider industry proposals on how a reformed growth and skills levy could better work with this industry?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are working with the DWP and Skills England to refine and develop the growth and skills offer to deliver apprenticeships and skills training that recognise the particular needs of the creative industries. We will introduce short courses in areas such as digital, artificial intelligence and engineering to support industrial strategy sectors such as the creative industries from April 2026. The first wave of these courses will be called apprenticeship units.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one of the ways we support young people to enter careers in the creative industries is through the music and dance scheme, but that scheme has not been reviewed since 2011. The eight schools that participate, ranging from the Royal Ballet School to the Purcell School and others, are on their knees for multiyear funding and some sort of increase on 2011. What can the Minister do to support these very important training institutions that will produce the Billy Elliots, the Nicola Benedettis and the wonderful artists in the creative industries of the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this. I agree that those schools have an incredible record in this area. We are reforming the area of post-16 training pathways generally to make options simpler, clearer and better aligned to student needs and employer demand. We want to make sure that we preserve the best and increase opportunities by opening those up through our work. My noble friend Lady Smith, who is sitting beside me, is working to open up the skills area across the piece.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, a recent survey by BECTU, the broadcasting union, found that 49% of new entrants to the creative industries have been pressurised to take on unpaid work, often in the form of unpaid internships. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new fair work agency will be tasked with enforcing minimum wage legislation against unpaid internships and ensuring that internships are genuine learning experiences?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Noble Lords will be aware that unpaid internships are already largely banned. The law is clear that if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage, and anybody eligible must be paid accordingly. The Government published a call for evidence on unpaid internships, which closed recently, and our response is due to be published in early 2026. I am happy to meet the noble Viscount to discuss this and other issues raised in the excellent report by BECTU; I will also draw his attention to the response on unpaid internships when it is published.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, music hubs play a key role in teaching music in state schools, so they play a key role in social mobility for the careers in music, stage, film and theatre that we are talking about. The management of music hubs is the subject of a tender that was due to be placed currently but has now been postponed until the new year. I know this is causing concern, so can my noble friend the Minister talk to our noble friend Lady Smith, who is sitting next to her, to ensure that the tender and the setting up of the national centre for arts and music education go ahead as planned?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are making good progress on the national centre for arts and music education, which will lead the music hubs programme from September next year. As my noble friend rightly identifies, this is a DfE programme, so I will offer to write to her with the details she asks for.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, alongside internships, work experience programmes are a very effective gateway for young people who are considering a career in the creative industries. Will the Minister ensure that all taxpayer-funded creative organisations offer a fair and transparent work experience programme that is widely advertised and available to all, whatever their background?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
One of the key barriers to social mobility is opportunity. We are keen for those programmes not to be overly informal because, as soon as they are, they become very dependent on networks and exclusive entry routes. We are clear that we need to make sure that the roles filled through personal networks, including work experience, are open to everyone. This is an issue that the Minister of State in DCMS is keen to explore further, but I will write to the noble Baroness with specific details.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, a recent study by the Association for Art History and the Courtauld Institute of Art showed that just 17 state schools offer history of art at A-level, and only two of them are north of Nottingham. The subject is important not just for those who might become the curators and museum directors of the future but for a generation that will need to distinguish fact from fiction in an age of AI and deepfake images. What are the Government doing to make sure that everybody, no matter who they are, where they live or what their parents did, is able to enjoy this part of our shared cultural inheritance?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is important that people get the opportunity to study art history. I raised this with a sector organisation this morning. That organisation was very clear that, although it is concerned about the geographical distribution of art history, there are so many more routes in. It was keen for us to make sure that people know about the opportunities that exist within the sector, because if people do not know about the opportunities that exist, how do they get those jobs? I am keen to explore this, both with my noble friend and with others, but, beyond that, there is a basic question about how we make sure that, in primary schools, children of all abilities and interests get to know about the hugely exciting range of opportunities that exist within the creative industries and sector as a starting point for what they might study later.
Gateway 3 New-build Applications
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the clearance rate of Gateway 3 new-build applications by the Building Safety Regulator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we have acknowledged recent challenges within the building safety regulator. That is why, in June, we introduced a series of reforms to strengthen it, including a new strength and leadership team under Andy Roe, steps to address operational challenges and plans for a new independent body with oversight of the BSR, as recommended by the Grenfell inquiry. The gateway 3 regime is still relatively new, and few projects have yet reached this final stage, but early experience is helping developers and the BSR to refine the process to make sure it is consistent, efficient and firmly focused on safety outcomes. The BSR is working with the Construction Leadership Council to publish a further suite of industry guidance on gateway 3 this year.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, given the serious demand for housing in this country, it is not appropriate that those looking for housing are waiting almost six months for stage 3 application approvals. I have been informed that, on a number of occasions, inspections have been cancelled at the very last minute with no indication of when they will take place. What is the Minister doing to take that inefficiency out of the system and allow progress on this issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained, a programme of significant improvement has been undertaken under the new BSR leadership team. Of course, waiting six months for inspections is not an acceptable way forward; we want to improve things, and improvements are coming through the system now. Some of the work done by the new leadership team has already introduced this significant improvement. At gateway 3—a relatively new procedure, as I said—there have been 72 applications so far, which were received by November. Some 59 of those—82%—have already been approved, so things are beginning to improve.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many local councils in cities across our country are building upwards, with high-rise housing development even for families. I welcome these milestones in advanced building safety in building infrastructure. Can the Minister assure the House that she is doing everything she can to speed up the process and to ensure that strict regulatory monitoring of the highest standard remains, once implemented, thereby avoiding at all costs another Grenfell disaster?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to the balance we need here. I can do no better than to quote Andy Roe, who said that
“the BSR remains firmly committed to its core mission: keeping residents and their homes safe. Life-safety critical defects cannot be ignored and improvements to efficiency cannot be pursued at the expense of rigour”.
So we must get the balance right here: we have to speed up these processes and get them working properly for the industry, but we must also make sure that, in doing that, we do not relax at all on the very clear standards we must have to keep buildings safe.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, there are great concerns about the standards being applied in the building industry nowadays. We no longer have Walker Morris standards to guide us, but, having had many dangerous situations such as Grenfell Tower and a lack of quality in many builds, particularly in large estates, surely it is necessary to increase the resources available to the regulator in order to deal with these matters quickly and make sure that the standards people expect are maintained.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think the noble Lord might have been referring to Parker Morris standards, but it is quite right that we have to focus very hard on keeping up the quality of build. That is absolutely what the building safety regulator is there to do. We are making sure that we support Andy Roe and his team in what they need to do. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, there has been a capacity issue in the system, but the June spending review committed an additional £1.2 billion a year to the skills system, supporting over 65,000 additional learners in key areas such as housebuilding, remediation and building safety. That will be critical. We have also invested £16.5 million specifically to recruit and train registered building inspectors, who form a vital part of this process. We are working with the independent building control panel to identify system-wide improvements, which I am sure will help with the issues the noble Lord is concerned about.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is important to recognise the significant progress made recently, but, sadly, much less progress has been made on the 253 applications for remedial work to existing high-rise buildings. Some of this involved residents having to move out while still paying their mortgages and management fees for properties they cannot legally access. Due to a definition of “building work” that is arguably too broad, relatively simple and straightforward work is being caught up in the gateway scheme and is adding to the backlog. What is being done to consult with the industry so that common types of work, such as the replacement of fire door sets, can be undertaken without resorting to a gateway application at all, so that it can get on with the serious job of removing dangerous cladding?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two things are under way, one of which is working with the industry to identify those issues; it is very important that the remediation programme is well under way. The BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team responsible for assessing all building control approval applications relating to cladding remediation, so that is under way already. The other work the team has been doing is to make sure that, with applications that are not dependent on some of the work that can go on in the interim, that work can progress, so we are not holding up final approvals but letting people get on with what can be done in the meantime. I am sure that will help to unlock some of the hold-ups that have been in the system so far.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, if this were one isolated regulator falling down on the job, that would be one thing; but one after another, these quango regulators are failing. Is it not time to look not just at an individual regulator but at the whole model and the sort of people appointed to these jobs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord may be aware that one recommendation of the Grenfell report was to have a single building regulator. Progress is being made towards that—a single body is being set up with oversight of the building safety regulator. We need to move this forward very quickly, but it is important that we get it right as we do so. We need to work with the industry to deliver the single construction regulator in a way that will work effectively for everybody. The new body has been established through a statutory instrument, which was laid on 11 November. So progress is being made, and we need to make sure that we move this on as quickly as we can.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have seen a significant drop in the delivery of housing starts in London. Have the Government analysed the impact of delays in and the uncertainty of the BSR process on the viability of apartment blocks above 18 metres, and thus the development of those blocks? If so, will the Minister share that analysis with the House?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
One of the benefits of the changes to the BSR is that regular data is now being published monthly. The November data has been published and is available online for all interested parties to look at. As I have said, we accept that the delays have been unacceptable. About 15% to 25% of the new dwellings that we want to build will be the responsibility of the BSR to improve. The new team has introduced an innovation model to deliver significantly reduced processing times for all new build applications—not just for London but for everywhere else. We expect most cases under the previous model to be unblocked by the year end. There has been a dramatic improvement already, with reductions of 20 weeks or more in some of the approval processes.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, is not the fundamental problem here the builders, rather than the regulator? Too many builders seem to be prepared to cut corners, and that is where the fundamental problem starts.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is the important work that is being done—working with the construction industry and the BSR to make sure that everybody understands what their responsibilities are in this process. The construction industry has worked incredibly closely with the BSR to develop guidance on what needs to be submitted it, and to understand how we make can sure that buildings are safe. I come back to the words of Andy Roe: it is very important that people be reassured that the buildings they move into are going to be safe going forward. Our job in government is to make sure that we get the balance right between safety and not blocking up the whole industry, such that it cannot move forward with developing the homes people need. I am very confident in the ability of the new BSR team to take this forward.
Supply of Blood and Blood Products
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the supply of blood and blood products this winter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, NHS Blood and Transplant has expanded donation capacity to meet the nation’s needs, opening three new donor centres and additional mobile sessions, adding 3,900 weekly appointments. However, blood stocks remain fragile, and we urgently need more donors, with 71,000 appointments still to fill over the festive period. I urge everyone, including noble Lords, to donate. Noble Lords will have the opportunity at tomorrow’s dedicated parliamentary session in Portcullis House to help to ensure a resilient and reliable blood supply this winter.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply, and particularly for the reinstatement of the parliamentary donation service. However, as she says, this is a very heavy winter season for the NHS. It is a heavy flu season and a heavy holiday season, which puts pressure on donors. Is she confident that she will fill those extra donor slots and that there will be security of supply for the winter? Is she looking at specific campaigns aimed at those of black heritage and younger people, because it is important to get people early? She might remind Members of this House that you can start being a blood donor in your 60s but, if you start earlier than that, you can go on for a while longer.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly echo the noble Baroness’s comments. It is thanks to the generosity of donors—including the noble Baroness herself, who is I know is approaching her 50th donation—that overall blood stocks are at target levels, but she is right about the extra pressures coming through because of winter. The launch of the national campaign to highlight the constant need for blood in this season and to recruit new donors was set under way last month. We also have targeted media campaigns; for example, in areas of the country with larger black heritage communities to highlight the urgent need for more donors from that group.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I confess to 120 donations and thank the Minister for all the work that she is doing on this, particularly for tomorrow’s session, but she is absolutely right that only a tiny proportion of the population are blood donors. Talking personally, it is not always straightforward for working people to get those appointments. The noble Baroness is right that we are very short on black and ethnic-minority donors. With that thought in mind, would it be possible to look at artificial intelligence to make it easier for working people, particularly from ethnic minorities, to make those appointments during the working day?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is also to be congratulated, of course. As he said, despite our having some 790,000 regular donors, only 2% of the population gives blood, so we are not full up and we look forward to more donors. To the point that the noble Lord raises, which is important, we are increasing capacity for appointments to donate, but we are also looking at additional digital and logistical improvements, including in how people can book appointments. We are also piloting a new appointment reminder and better communications. There is room for improvement, and we are taking those steps. The noble Lord makes very good points in this regard.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from the previous question, to address the major barrier of donor inconvenience, will the Government look urgently at consulting employers and unions on a national campaign to encourage the adoption of a “donate time” policy, offering a flexible blood break for employees to attend donation sessions during the working day?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is part of the potential solution, in addition to where donors go, how they are communicated with and how easily they can make appointments. We will certainly put the noble Lord’s suggestion into the mix; it is certainly something that I have discussed in respect of the Civil Service, and it varies across departments.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, we are seeing reductions in the number of donors, whether it be in blood or in organ donation. Are we not getting to a serious situation where the Government need to think about how they can increase donations to historic levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not sure that I agree with the reflections of my noble friend, although I do agree that we have a shortfall of some 200,000 donors to shore up and grow our blood supply. As I said, the situation remains fragile, which is why we need more support. We are constantly working to identify gaps and opportunities to strengthen and diversify the donor base through a donor base resilience programme, launched just this year. It is not just numbers; it is also the range of people, as we heard in earlier questions.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that during Covid we used non-traditional venues to encourage vaccination? I will give an example that we talk about a lot: football clubs. In Plymouth, that resulted in people who had never been able to see the football club go and get their vaccination. I believe that if we invested heavily in similar approaches, we would get many more young people giving blood. Will the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. We have to go to where people are and not just expect them to come to us, and using a whole range of venues is important, as are mobile donation facilities. This is constantly kept under review: the service is constantly reviewing where the most successful places are and looking at new venues and new opportunities to take up.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, to continue on the line of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I remember that when we were looking at vaccine hesitancy, we looked at how we could reach certain communities—they do not like being called hard to reach because they feel they are being patronised. Quite often, it was through faith organisations; sometimes, it was through community leaders. What work has been done on the lessons learned from the vaccine hesitancy campaigns to encourage more people to give blood? I want also to ask about guidelines. I was speaking to a noble friend who said she had volunteered to give blood but was told that because she had passed the age of 66 and had never given blood in the UK before, she was not allowed to donate. Can we have some clear guidelines for those who are willing to give blood, especially Members of this House?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Of course, is the answer to the noble Lord. On his point about reaching certain groups, we have invested across 51 organisations this year that are very much rooted in the community, and 31 of the projects across those organisations have worked nationally to boost awareness, understanding and behaviour change in black, Asian, mixed-heritage and minority-ethnic communities, where we need more people to come forward to donate blood in order that we have the blood we need for the conditions that they are there to meet.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I should admit that I never decided to become a blood donor. Once, when I was at Chatham House, a van from the blood donor service was due to come to St James’s Square the next week and my secretary informed me that she had booked me in to give a donation. I thereafter donated for 20 years. That shows that there are a lot of us who would sort of get round to it if we thought about it, and taking the caravans to businesses and working with the businesses to encourage their members to donate is one way that clearly helps to get passive potential donors to say yes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord gives a good example—sometimes we need other people to sort us out to give blood—but the main point he makes is absolutely right: we need to speak to people through our campaigns. Each donation can save up to three lives. We need to tell people the effect of what they are doing too, and I am glad that we are taking innovative steps to raise awareness, including advertising on London buses.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the Minister for letting me get in just in time. I am interested in plasma. As many noble Lords will be aware, we have been importing 100% of our plasma needs ever since mad cow disease, so it is an area in which we are quite vulnerable and I know the blood services are trying to correct that. Can the Minister give us an update on where we are on that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are making considerable progress in diversifying where plasma comes from. We are also making good progress in demand management and ensuring that there is no waste in blood products, which will also greatly assist us. I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord with a full description of the advances that we are making; it is an exciting time in that respect.
SEND Budget Funding
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the commitment to fund SEND budgets centrally as announced in the Budget will affect mainstream school budgets.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have been clear that SEND pressures will be absorbed within the overall Government DEL budget from 2028-29, such that the Government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds. Budgets from 2028-29 onwards, including the core schools budget, will be confirmed at the 2027 spending review.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. On this side of the House, we genuinely wish the Government every success with their work on the reforms to the special educational needs system. As the noble Baroness knows, the expected annual deficit on the dedicated schools grant is over £6 billion in 2028-29, which is a huge number. While the Government have been very clear that this will come from current RDEL allocations, they have not specified a funding plan to cover this. Anyone who has been involved in SR negotiations will know that finding £6.3 billion, apparently from other government departments rather than the DfE, will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.
Of course, this is not even about £6.3 billion in one year; in the OBR document, if you look at the three years beyond this SR period, you see that the figure for the projected deficit is well over £20 billion. So I hope the noble Baroness will understand why schools and parents are worried, and why more clarity is needed about who is going to pay for this. I hope she can give us that now.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I take the noble Baroness’s assurance that noble Lords opposite want to support the Government in reforming the SEND system; I believe that to be true. However, it is also the case that there has been a fair amount of misinformation being peddled, not least by some of her colleagues at the other end of Parliament, about the nature and source of the £6 billion, and the way in which it will be dealt with in 2028-29. As I made clear in the original Answer, in the Budget the Treasury was very clear, in careful wording, that future funding implications will be managed within the overall Government DEL envelope—not the DfE’s DEL—and will be part of the spending review that will start in 2027.
The other important point is that that figure assumes no reform of the SEND system, and of course that reform will be focused first and foremost on ensuring that children and their families get better outcomes than they are getting from the system at the moment, and it will be important to ensure that that happens. It will also make system more sustainable.
I hope that all those interested in SEND reform will, for example, take part in the quite extensive engagement activity that is currently under way to help to inform those reforms.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I applaud the intention behind the Government’s announcement, but does the Minister agree that there will be no real reform unless there is capacity within the school system to identify early? This will require training budgets and technology to back it up. If the Government can assure us that this is going to be there, they stand a chance of doing something here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. To be clear, the objective here is to ensure better outcomes in a system that at the moment costs a considerable amount of money but is not delivering the outcomes that children and families need. The noble Lord identifies a couple of areas where the Government are already investing additional money, for example into teacher training from early years onwards; into the support available for continuing professional development for teachers; into initial teacher training and the early career framework; and into the national professional qualifications for teachers. All of those have had reform and investment from the Government to ensure, as the noble Lord accurately said, that we are in a better position to identify children’s needs at an earlier stage and to address them in our mainstream schools.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely correct to suggest that early-stage identification is critical. She will be aware that there have been decades of persistent underfunding and pressures on local authorities about SEND services. Hundreds of thousands of children are still awaiting their final assessment. Can the Minister assure the House, and parents who are waiting for these assessments, that the local authority can be asked to ring-fence the budget, so children receive the care they deserve?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am afraid the situation is even worse than my noble friend has identified. A considerable amount of money is being spent on special educational needs and disability provision, but parents remain concerned about being able to access the support they need, the outcomes for children are not good enough, and local government is facing considerable deficits because of that. That is why we need the type of reform that this Government have undertaken. A test of it will be whether parents feel more confident at an earlier stage that their children are getting the support they need to flourish.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, is more being done to ensure that teachers have the time they need to assess the needs of people with particular educational needs? It takes time: no person is the same and individuals need to be assessed according to their own individual problems.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about that. That is why, for example, we are improving the ability for staff in early years settings to identify special educational needs. It is why we are also developing a national professional qualification for the special educational needs co-ordinators, who will play an important role in that assessment, and why we have invested in recruiting more educational psychologists, who play a really important role in assessment.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when there is not enough support for SEND pupils in a classroom, it has a major impact on other pupils in the classroom and on teachers themselves, some of whom are leaving the profession because of the stresses they are under? Does the Minister agree that sometimes it is in other educational provision, such as forest school and play, that these children can really thrive?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In actual fact, I think all children can really thrive in alternative provision. The important thing here is that we ensure that all of our teachers and schools are able to deliver the inclusive teaching and provision that will ensure that children can not only have their needs identified as early as possible but can then receive excellent teaching, which is what will make a difference. Also, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that we have actually seen a record low in the number of teachers leaving the profession this year.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in having recently stood down as the leader of the London Borough of Bexley, but I am still a councillor. The OBR has red-flagged the £14 billion existing deficit that local authorities are in, at a cost that is currently unaccounted for in government plans. Some estimates suggest that, by the time SEND spending returns to council balance sheets in 2028, nine out of 10 upper-tier authorities could be forced to declare bankruptcy. How do the Government aim to clear that deficit and solve the problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I take the noble Baroness’s point, but perhaps, if it were that serious, more effort could have been made on reform before we got to this Government. Nevertheless, this Government will work with local authorities. By the way, it is not an OBR red flag; it is an OBR assessment of what the costs will be in 2028-29. The OBR has been very clear—including this week in the Treasury committee—that its suggestion about the impact on core schools budget is hypothetical. We will continue to support local authorities, including, for example, alongside an extension to the dedicated schools grant’s statutory override. We will set out further details on our plans to support local authorities with historic and accruing deficits, including conditions for accessing the support we are providing through the upcoming local government finance settlement.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
“An annual report on prison capacity(1) The Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, make a report on prison capacity.(2) When reporting on prison capacity under this section, the Lord Chancellor must include the available data on—(a) prison population projections,(b) projection for the supply of prison places,(c) information on prison service staffing, and(d) information on probation service staffing and caseloads.(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The Lord Chancellor must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(5) If this section comes into force after the beginning of a financial year, the first report may relate to a period beginning with the day on which that section comes into force and ending with the end of the next financial year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to publish an annual report on prison capacity, in line with the commitment in its Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2024 for a statutory annual statement. In line with the 2024 statement, it also requires the publication of information on probation service staffing and caseloads, given the importance of probation service capacity in managing offenders with community orders, suspended sentences and on licence.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 88, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Before I do so, it is important for us to understand why the various proposers have thought them necessary. In one way or another, most address a concern about the existing capacity within the MoJ and the very big concern that there will be insufficient capacity to deal with the new responsibilities arising from the Bill.
Most, but not all, of the amendments focus on staffing in the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Damning concerns about staffing levels in those two services regularly appear in the annual reports of the prisons and probation inspectorates. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the concern about prison officer numbers and pointed out that, as the prison population has risen, the number of prison officers has declined. Prison officers are leaving at an alarming rate—17% each year—and half of them do so after less than one year in service.
On the Probation Service, Ministers themselves have acknowledged that they have inherited a service “under immense pressure”, and the Chief Inspector of Probation has referred to “chronic understaffing”. The Bill envisages more sanctioned early releases from prisons and an almost doubling of the number of people being tagged. That means more people to be supervised and therefore more work for probation officers. Currently, approximately 7,000 officers are doing this existing supervision work, and that number is considered inadequate. As one senior probation officer put it, when talking about things going wrong:
“It’s infuriating when some of us are being told it’s our fault we’re not doing enough and that we need to up our game, but actually the workload is sky high”.
I will give an example of why this really matters. Just one year ago, 73 out of every 100 released prisoners were recalled to prison. By June this year, the recall population had reached 13,538. That is the equivalent of nine prisons, costing £3.5 billion a year. Most are recalled not for new crimes but for failing to comply with their licence conditions. That is often because, frankly, they have no home or income, and they are supervised by an overworked probation officer. Preparation for release is minimal, and support afterwards is thinner still. The easy solution for these overworked probation officers, when facing licence breaches, is to get the offenders off their books and avoid any comeback if something goes wrong by taking the risk-averse route and simply sending them back to prison.
That is the situation now, but some research has indicated that, to effectively manage existing case loads and the new ones that will arise from the Bill, an extra 10,000 probation officers will be needed. The Minister will talk about how we can use new technology to help. He is absolutely right, and we fully support him, but that alone will not resolve the situation. He will also talk about the 1,000 additional probation officers already recruited and the 1,300 additional officers the Government hope to recruit. He will talk about the £700 million over four years of extra funds for the Probation Service. We do not yet know how that money is to be allocated, but it is certain that not all of it will be spent on new staff. It is my contention that combining these measures will certainly help and certainly be welcome, but they seem unlikely to meet current and new demands combined. As I said at Second Reading, I therefore fear that we will not have the means in either the Prison Service or the Probation Service to achieve the ends.
That is the context of the amendments in this group, which fall into two categories. The first consists of amendments which call for regular reports on capacity issues. The second consists of amendments that, in effect, would prevent the main measures in the Bill being enacted until proof of adequate capacity to deliver them, or that they will deliver what is intended, is provided.
In the first category, reports on capacity issues, my Amendment 88 serves as a clear illustration. It would require an annual report from the Lord Chancellor on prison population predictions, projections of the supply of new prison places, information on Prison Service staffing and information on Probation Service staffing and case loads.
Such reports have been produced from time to time. Indeed, there was one last year, but that report had something additional within in it. It included a very specific commitment by this Government that there would be a statutory requirement for similar reports on an annual basis. I confess that I was surprised not to see that commitment appear in the Bill. I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government are still committed to this type of annual capacity report on a statutory basis, that its failure to be included in the Bill was an oversight, and that he is grateful to me for giving them the opportunity to rectify the oversight. I hope, therefore, that he will support the amendment.
I hope the Minister will look equally favourably on other amendments in this group calling for reports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 110ZB, on an annual report on the availability in prisons of education and vocational provision, and the training of staff to deliver them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has Amendment 139A, on a report on resources for the Probation Service, including regional resources, and their Amendment 153 is on a report about the operability of the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill. My own Amendment 110ZB is on an annual report looking specifically at Probation Service resources to implement electronic monitoring or tagging provisions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, get up?
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My apologies—I was waiting for a colleague to jump in. Late though it may be, it is very difficult to follow that outstanding contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. It was exhilarating for me to listen to it.
My Amendment 134 is on probation capacity. It is crucial, bearing in mind that I raise this as a consequence of issues raised with me by the probation union Napo. The amendment seeks to give the Probation Service watchdog some teeth. Currently, only the people running local probation units can trigger special measures and what is called the prioritisation framework. This has given rise to accusations that they are marking their own homework. My amendment seeks to share that power with the Chief Inspector of Probation.
Prioritisation is an important safety valve to stop probation units from being swamped, but sometimes an outside perspective is needed to gauge this accurately and honestly, for obvious reasons. It is widely accepted that the Probation Service is under extreme pressure—there is no doubt at all about that—and this Bill will only add to those pressures. Officers are trained to assess risk, but they must be given the space and time to do that properly if we want to avoid reinforcing the risk-averse culture that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. It is causing so much damage to the service—damage that we can do without.
I am sure that the Committee will join with me in paying tribute to the probation officer who, shamefully, was stabbed in Oxford last week while supervising an offender. I commend his bravery and fortitude. Thankfully, he was not critically injured. We wish him a complete and fully supported recovery. Beyond the immediate harm that was caused, this incident—the second such attack recently, as an officer was stabbed in Preston in August—underscores the increasing risk faced by probation officers and the crisis of prison violence spilling over into probation. Not surprisingly, staff morale and retention have collapsed, made worse by over a decade of real-terms pay cuts while case loads have soared to unimaginable levels, and worse is yet to come.
This amendment also seeks approval from the Chief Inspector of Probation before any extra pressure is placed on the Probation Service from within the Bill. This simple safeguard should address fears that the service may be unfit for purpose or otherwise, if it is unprepared for the extra work coming its way.
I place on record Napo support for the other amendments in this group, on capacity, which all seek to place in the Bill perfectly reasonable safeguards such as maximum case loads for probation officers and annual reports on probation resourcing and tagging operations. I sincerely hope that the Minister can appreciate the merits in these suggestions and those in my Amendment 134, which have come directly from staff on the front line. I look forward very much to his response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 134, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on his very passionate speech.
This issue has come up several times, but it does need more emphasis. It is incredibly important. Although I very much support the intentions of the Sentencing Bill, we cannot avoid at least acknowledging the strain already placed on the Probation Service. If we are going to put new demands on the service, we must first be confident that it can meet them. The latest report from the National Audit Office makes it painfully clear that the service is struggling with staff shortages, rising workloads and unsatisfactory outcomes. Only 79% of target staffing levels for qualified probation officers have been met, leaving around 1,500 vacancies across England and Wales. Of the 12 regions, 10 are operating beyond full capacity, and almost half of local delivery units are now rated red or amber for performance.
In that context, asking His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to confirm adequate capacity before we put pressure on it is a necessary safeguard. If we want the measures in the Bill to succeed, our Probation Service must be set up to succeed. This proposed new clause would ensure that—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his kind words about it; I am a complete passenger on this—and that is why I am pleased to second it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93E. In this case, the capacity is that of prison officers. The amendment calls for an annual report, but, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, the wording is really only a mechanism to introduce an issue. In this case, this is a probing amendment seeking assurances about activities and the need for prison officers to support those activities.
It is common sense that activities in prison are important. Nothing in what I say is intended to downplay the work of probation officers; this is just a different focus. Activities that are “purposeful”—a word that we used a lot on the previous day—including, in particular, educational and vocational activities, are too often either not available or not sufficiently available. They would not all be delivered by prison officers, but they need their buy-in and support. I have raised this because I have become aware, as others will have been for longer than I have, of the shortage of prison officers and the strain on them. To be attractive, the work needs to be more rewarding and to have its professional status recognised.
Purposeful activity—by which I mean meaningful and rehabilitative, not performative—should be central to time in prison to reduce reoffending and for transferable skills to be taught. But we know that activities start from a low base—they are inadequate in number and, I guess, in type—and are cancelled because of chronic staffing shortages. As a result, basic numeracy and literacy are not available.
As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said:
“The Ministry of Justice should prioritise purposeful activity as a core function of the prison regime, ensuring that work, education, and rehabilitative programmes are protected from disruptions caused by staffing shortages. This will require a strategic focus on maintaining consistent activity delivery, even in the face of staffing challenges”.
That was one of the recommendations accepted in full by the MoJ. This amendment therefore has two focuses: the activities themselves and the position of prison officers.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 93, which would remove the cap on sitting days in the Crown Court for sentencing hearings. This was an amendment moved by my honourable friend Monica Harding in the House of Commons. I will then move on more generally to sitting days and the other amendments in the group.
There has been a somewhat surreal argument in this House and elsewhere about the number of sitting days, given the appalling background of delays in Crown Court hearings, particularly with trials delayed sometimes, as we have heard, until 2029, which has amounted to a denial of justice as well as a delay in justice. Our wish is to see everything possible done to reduce court delays.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. If there is a single theme in these amendments, it is that we cannot go on legislating for increased demands on our criminal justice system without ensuring that the system has the capacity and is resourced to cope with them. Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is a straightforward attempt to put the Government’s own commitments on a statutory footing. If the Government are serious about being transparent about prison capacity and probation case loads, as their 2024 annual statement on prison capacity claims, they should have no hesitation in agreeing to Parliament receiving that information on an annual basis. It is not possible to plan sentencing policy responsibly without understanding the numbers and the pressures on the system that must administer it.
Amendments 93, 93D and 93E in this group address the issue of Crown Court sitting days. These backlogs have consequences for victims awaiting closure, for defendants waiting to clear their name, and for the overall ability of the system to move cases towards sentence. Whether the cap on sitting days should be lifted entirely or adjusted specifically for sentencing hearings is a legitimate question, and an assessment of the merits is the very least the Government should provide.
Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, calls for digital tracking of offenders’ progress and provides for the sharing of data on offenders’ progress between the courts and the agencies—this is plainly a good idea, and we support it. We urge the Government to take it on board and give teeth to the new court powers. It is difficult to think of any sensible objection. If we move offenders out into the public from prisons, we need to know how they are doing. Good, accurate data informs good policy.
The Committee has also heard important contributions on the impact on the Probation Service of new sentencing and community-based powers. The Probation Service already strains under unmanageable case loads and severe staff shortages. That is why we support Amendments 134 and 137. Amendment 134 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would ensure that provisions in the Bill likely to drive up demands on probation are not to be brought into force until the independent inspectorate is satisfied that the service can meet that demand. It would also empower the inspectorate to trigger a prioritisation framework for local areas. That is not disruptive; it is responsible. It recognises that probation officers cannot be asked to do more and more with less and less resource and without there being, in the end, a serious risk to public safety. Amendment 137, again from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require the Secretary of State to establish maximum case load limits before commencing major parts of the Bill. If the Government believe that probation has to shoulder more responsibility, they must give probation the capacity to succeed.
Amendments 139A, 149, 150 and 152 are all aimed at ensuring proper resourcing. Again, there is the need to ensure that the Probation Service is not overloaded and is properly resourced. For the reasons I have explained, that is absolutely right and necessary.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, a question. I think that the amendment in his name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, refers back to their Amendment 76, headed “Electronic monitoring: practicability of enforcing restriction zone requirements”. That amendment itself acknowledges that there may be differences in the availability and accuracy of the technology in urban, rural and indoor environments. This is a straight question: I am not sure whether we are in the UK here, or just in England and Wales, but is the noble Lord suggesting that the restriction-zone condition should not be brought in until the whole country is covered by the technology?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
We are saying that the relevant technology has to be available for this to work. It might be that it could be done on a regional basis, but the important thing is that it is not introduced somewhere where there is not the ability to make it work.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking noble Lords for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate the capacity of the criminal justice system. I must of course start by saying that this Bill is a necessary step towards ensuring that we have a sustainable justice system.
I turn first to Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to greater transparency on prison capacity. We showed this by publishing the first annual statement last December, and we will shortly publish the 2025 edition. However, setting the timing of publication and the content of the report in primary legislation would create unnecessary rigidity. Our goal is to increase transparency without compromising flexibility.
I now turn to the amendments that address the issue of capacity within the Probation Service. I am pleased that this gives me another opportunity to pay tribute to our incredible probation staff, who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I am proud to be their colleague.
I begin by recognising the close interest of probation trade unions in Amendment 134, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations; their input will continue to inform our approach. I also thank my noble friend for mentioning the two horrendous attacks on our probation staff in Preston and Oxford. These are fine public servants who turn up to work to protect the public; they, and all probation staff, should not be in fear of their safety. I send both my colleagues best wishes for their recovery.
We recognise HM Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder and value its involvement in implementing the provisions of this Bill, but it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny.
While we are sympathetic to Amendment 139A, we fear it would duplicate existing reporting mechanisms and risk delaying measures in the Bill that would themselves improve probation capacity. We already have strong and independent scrutiny, and ensure transparency on probation case loads and staffing through various publications. For example, HMPPS publishes quarterly reports covering probation staffing and case loads.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, the National Audit Office has conducted a thorough analysis of probation capacity, and this is informing a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. However, a further statutory reporting requirement, particularly one imposed within three months of Royal Assent, would duplicate existing processes and divert resources away from implementation and capacity building. Thanks to the established analysis and reporting processes, we are clear about the challenges facing the Probation Service, and, thanks to the detailed picture on capacity that this data gives us, we are taking swift, targeted action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, correctly predicted, I can inform noble Lords that we are recruiting an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March next year and are working hard to retain experienced officers. We are also investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review. While the detailed allocations of that money are still to be finalised, I reiterate that my priorities are clear: more people in post, digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use.
We are starting to see the benefits of an initial £8 million investment in new technology, including an initiative called Justice Transcribe. This cutting-edge AI tool has cut note-taking admin time by around 50%, with outstanding user satisfaction scores. I have heard that probation officers are describing it as life-changing. Furthermore, many of the measures in this Bill will have a positive impact on probation capacity. Delaying these essential reforms while we undertake work proposed by the amendment would not be helpful for our front-line staff.
Amendment 137 speaks to a similar concern about the case loads that our hard-working probation officers manage on a daily basis. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, it is important to recognise that not all probation cases are the same. Imposing a fixed case load limit would not account for these variations; it would make it difficult to manage workloads effectively across the service, it would reduce organisational flexibility and it could undermine the professional autonomy and judgment of our valued practitioners and managers. These top-down limits could therefore potentially lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks, and would serve only to mask the capacity problems I am working to resolve.
On Amendment 119, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Probation Service already uses digital systems to effectively manage those under probation supervision, but there is a lot more to do here, especially using AI. I believe that its potential is massive.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 153 and 154, which give me the chance to discuss one of my favourite subjects: the rehabilitation of offenders. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycle of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that the new restrictive conditions protect victims. All restrictive measures must accommodate rehabilitative aims such as employment. That way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims. So, where there is a rehabilitative purpose, such as driving for employment, practitioners will have the ability to grant permission for this. Restriction zones will be developed to ensure that an offender can access rehabilitative activities, including employment, while, of course, also considering the victim’s needs.
Electronic monitoring is the subject of Amendment 155, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendments 93D and 110ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is a vital tool for managing offenders in the community, and there will be a significant uplift in tagging alongside the provisions in this Bill. Where appropriate, electronic monitoring will be applied to support monitoring and compliance with restriction zones. When a restriction zone is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches if they identify that offenders have not complied—for example, through police intelligence or victim concerns. Our professionally trained staff are experts in this specialist work, but we do not feel that a report on the practicality of enforcing restriction zones is necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 93E. We share the ambition of ensuring that time in custody is used productively to reduce reoffending. Every prison has a legal duty to provide education. This is monitored through the annual HMIP report, regular Ofsted inspections and published prison education statistics. Therefore, a statutory requirement is not necessary. I reassure the noble Baroness that I look at the data regularly, and I challenge it when I am not content.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 93 and remind noble Lords that we inherited a justice system in crisis, with a court backlog at record levels and rising, and victims waiting years for justice. We have already taken action to tackle court backlogs and improve court productivity. For this financial year, we are funding a record 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded last year. This will mean that more trials and hearings can be heard, tackling the backlog of cases. However, even at maximum capacity, sitting days alone cannot solve the backlog. We need to do things differently. This is why we need fundamental reform, not piecemeal measures.
The previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of the criminal courts. We are considering its recommendations carefully before legislating where necessary. This amendment seeks to require an assessment of introducing uncapped Crown Court sitting days for sentencing hearings. However, listing decisions are a judicial function, not an executive one. It is essential to preserve judicial independence in managing court business. Introducing a statutory requirement in this area could be seen as government influencing judicial listing decisions, which would compromise that principle.
I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me. I hope I have reassured them about the seriousness with which this Government are taking the issue of capacity. I reiterate my offer to meet with noble Lords before Report.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who has spotted a drafting error in the Bill and sought to correct it through Amendment 103. He clearly has a bright future in legislative drafting ahead of him. I confirm that the Government accept that this amendment is needed and will not oppose it if the noble Lord wishes to move it formally.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I reassure the Committee that I will formally move Amendment 103 at a later stage. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, which has clearly illustrated my main contention that there are many welcome provisions in this Bill but they are unlikely to be delivered unless we address the serious capacity crisis within the MoJ and in particular within HM Prison and Probation Service.
My biggest concern about the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, relates to my first amendment, Amendment 88, which seeks to give the Government an opportunity to put into practice a commitment that they made at an earlier stage to have a statutory report on capacity every year. The Minister has just said to us that he is not prepared to accept that amendment, whereas I had hoped that he would thank me for drawing attention to the fact that the Government had forgotten something that they had meant to put in the Bill. Instead, he has told us that he is against having a statutory report, because it provides a lack of flexibility.
Therefore, I shall read to the Minister his own Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 20 March 2025, when he said:
“The Government has committed to legislating to make laying the Annual Statement on Prison Capacity before Parliament a statutory requirement in the future, when parliamentary time allows”.
I provided the parliamentary time, but the Minister has not taken it up. Rest assured, I shall return at a later stage to give him another opportunity to accept the commitment that his Government have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Woodley
“Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every individual serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (“IPP sentence”), whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge or retired judge—(a) under the age of 75,(b) authorised, or authorised immediately before retirement, to try cases of murder, and(c) nominated by the Lady or Lord Chief Justice.(4) Within six months of being appointed, the committee must lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.(5) After a report has been published under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) whenever the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.(6) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced.(7) A person (“P”) serving an IPP sentence must be re-sentenced in relation to the offence or offences for which P was originally sentenced at a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose.(8) The re-sentencing court—(a) must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon the basis of which the tariff was specified as needing to be served before an application for release on licence might be made, and(b) may substitute for the IPP sentence a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, with or without a restriction order under section 41, but only if—(i) the court is satisfied, on the evidence required by that Act, that appropriate in patient treatment is available for P, and(ii) in the case of a restriction order under section 41, the statutory criteria for making such an order are met.(9) The re-sentencing court may confirm the sentence of IPP only if—(a) the re-sentencing judge determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, P might appropriately have received a sentence of life imprisonment, and(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further serious offence resulting in substantial harm if released. (10) Cases falling within the scope of subsection (9) may only be re-sentenced by a judge authorised, or authorised immediately before retirement, to try cases of murder.(11) The re-sentencing court may recommend that P may be subject to an extended licence for a period of up to five years, incorporating such conditions as the re-sentencing court considers appropriate to minimise the risk of re-offending.(12) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (7)—(a) the power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Code, and(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 (since repealed) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 (since repealed) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or(c) a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a re-sentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise. It would also allow the court to substitute a hospital order, with or without a restriction on release for an IPP sentence in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 89 on IPP resentencing, and in support of all the other amendments in this group.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to make the argument for resentencing to your Lordships again, although I am under no illusions that the Minister is ready to announce a U-turn from this Dispatch Box to wipe this shameful stain off our justice system once and for all—at least not yet. I have no wish either to flog a dead horse but, as I said at Second Reading, it is important for us to continue scrutinising the Government’s position on this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice.
Ministers have consistently refused to consider IPP resentencing, which the Justice Committee in the other place called for as the only solution to this terrible injustice. To put it bluntly, Ministers are still defending the indefensible. We must see this for what it is: inexcusable excuses while more people die—yes, die—and more people give up hope. This must stop; action, not warm words, will be the most important thing going forward.
In this debate, I particularly want to hear the Minister’s objections to the kind of IPP resentencing exercise described by my amendment, which has not been presented to your Lordships in this form before. Crucially, what is new is that the resentencing court can impose a secure hospital order if it thinks this is necessary for public protection, and impose any kind of extended supervision post release—again, for the same reason.
It is widely acknowledged that the IPP sentence itself has caused harm, to put it mildly. Too many unfortunate souls have suffered problems between 2005 and 2012. It is understandable that the Parole Board might have concerns about the poor mental health of some of the people whose cases they are considering, but it is simply wrong and a great injustice that this poor mental health, in many cases caused directly by this long-discredited and abolished sentence passed by this Parliament, is being used to condemn anyone to indefinite preventive detention, stuck in prison where their mental health is just going to get worse. As I said, there will be more suicides and more hopelessness.
Noble friends from across the House have previously described this as a gulag sentence, and they are, of course, correct. The Minister has previously claimed that the Parole Board is best placed to decide whether an IPP prisoner should be released, but there is no evidence of this beyond the justification originally used to create this torture sentence in the first place. It is too slow and too laborious, in spite of recent helpful changes.
Natural justice dictates that it should be the courts, not the Parole Board, that are empowered to make this decision for this cohort. That distinction lies at the heart of this injustice and is the reason why IPP sentences were abolished over a decade ago. The Minister and his officials will of course say, “What about public protection?” The secure hospital backstop I am talking about—originally a suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as an amendment to my Private Members’ Bill—is an elegant solution to this conundrum.
Under my amendment, if the resentencing court considers someone to be too mentally ill to be released, it can transfer them to a secure hospital where they can receive the therapeutic resources necessary for recovery. On release, all former IPP prisoners would have the supervision and support considered necessary by the court—another key safeguard to protect the public that should address the concerns previously expressed to us by the Minister. That is why I am proposing, in a nutshell, an IPP resentencing exercise with a secure hospital backstop and public protection right at its heart. I sincerely look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the real issue in this debate is: do we persist with the so-called action plan? I pay tribute to what the Minister has been able to do with a flawed idea, but we have to decide now how we deal with this justly and remedy the injustice. It is useful to reflect that there are people who have never been released. For example, one got a nine-month tariff and has served 20 years; another got a 330-day tariff and served 17 years; one got a six-month tariff and served 16 and a half years; and another got a tariff of three years and five months and served 20 years. Those are the realities, and you judge the seriousness of what they did by those tariffs. I shall come to the misunderstanding at the heart of the MoJ about the problem it is facing.
We also have the deaths. It is important to recall that this involves people committing suicide, and we should not walk away from that. There were nine in 2023, and four in 2024. The population was down, but it might be explained by the hope that had been engendered. My concern is that, if we do not act now, we will have—I use this word deliberately—blood on our hands. We cannot shirk the responsibility for rectifying an injustice, and what an injustice this is. Perhaps we should turn in due course to the “two strikes” injustice, but that is for another day; let us concentrate on IPPs.
We need a just solution. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has put forward his amendment. I do not want to add to the time we will take on this by giving my views on resentencing, but that is one option. However, the Howard League put forward another proposal, which I have put into an amendment. Very simply, it is to give the Parole Board the power to direct, and to require it to direct, the release of all these people within two years. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has put forward an amendment to that, suggesting giving the Government the power to apply to the Parole Board. But whether we take the resentencing exercise or this, this must be the last chance of doing anything. If we funk it now, we funk it for ever and we allow the so-called action plan to trundle along for years and years, not remedying an injustice.
Why do we have to do that? There are five points I wish to make. First, the sentence is accepted to be wrong in principle by absolutely everyone. How can we as a nation continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle and rests on the fallacy of thinking that we can predict human behaviour? There is no justification for continuing this sentence. It is simply unjust.
Secondly, and it pains me to have to say this, there is a complete misunderstanding of this sentence, partly because it was imposed so long ago, and people have moved on. When we are looking at the action plan, it is important to look at what was said in the 2024-25 IPP annual report. The sentence was described in these words:
“It was intended as a means of managing high risk prisoners, who were convicted of an offence where they would be liable to imprisonment for life, but the court did not consider the seriousness of the offence was such to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life”.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the sentence. How can we have any confidence in a plan when people do not understand the sentence they are dealing with? I regard this as a very serious problem with this plan. I have had the privilege of being able to look at a number of cases of recall, and it is plain that those who are dealing with this do not understand the problem.
I recognise that when the error was pointed out, the department accepted the error, but it is important to see the harm that such a statement does. It puts the position of these prisoners on a false basis. They did not commit serious offences of the kind described. Many of them, as illustrated by the tariffs to which I have referred, committed offences that are not in the same league, by any imagination, as those committed by those sentenced to life imprisonment. Some of them were sentenced in respect of offences for which the sentence was no greater than five years—I note that the Government think that five years is the sentence for the kind of crime that does not deserve a jury trial. So please, will we try to understand what we are dealing with and recognise that we have done a great injustice?
Then one turns to another argument: that these people are dangerous. If we look objectively at the problems of many of them, they are not. But the test is high, and we have to accept that if we lock someone up for a very long time for an offence that is not that serious, we are likely to do them damage. That is the accepted psychiatric evidence, which those who will not accept that we must do something about this ignore, for a reason I cannot understand. But it is worse than that. Why are these people subjected to increased risk because they have been locked up under this unjust sentence? In all humility—and I do not seek to blame either political party for this—we made a mistake. In the case of the Post Office, we have done justice. In the case of blood transfusion, we have done justice. What is wrong with our system of justice, that we cannot do justice for those we have unjustly imprisoned? It is something to which we have to address our minds. I very much hope that we will have a cross-party solution. I am open to any suggestion, but the action plan is a failure. It will not deliver justice in time, and we must do something different.
There is a fourth important argument. Had any of these offenders who are locked up had the good fortune—and I say good fortune deliberately—to have been sentenced before this sentence came into effect, or to have been sentenced afterwards, they would not be subjected to this horrendous sentence from which they cannot escape. What conceivable justice is there in discriminating against a group of people and refusing to acknowledge our wrong in doing so?
Those arguments are to do with justice, and one would hope that justice is central to this Bill—we call this part of the criminal justice system. However, the Bill is meant, in a sense, to be a utilitarian Bill and one can praise it for that.
We are going to come later this evening to Amendment 122A—how many noble Lords will stay the course is another question—which deals with foreign offenders. We are intending to deport them so that we have prison places. We will not punish them; they can go free. What justice is there in a system that will seek to allow people who are foreign to escape punishment when we cannot look at the utilitarian advantage of releasing from prison some 2,500 people who have either never been released or are back on recall? The justice should be that we will deal with our own people first, free up the prison places, and if someone comes here to assassinate someone or shoplift, or deal in drugs, they should be punished, and we should use the prison places for them.
They are all powerful arguments; I have no vested interest in any solution, but I do have a vested interest in justice, and this Government are not doing justice.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is extremely difficult to speak after two such very powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has advanced again the resentencing option which was originally proposed by the Justice Select Committee in the other place, under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill when he was a Member of Parliament, on a unanimous, cross-party basis. It therefore cannot be dismissed as some reckless and trivial proposal; it should be taken with great seriousness. However, I am not going to elaborate further on it now because it has been debated already. The noble Lord has an extant Private Member’s Bill which would give it effect.
It is fair to say that the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is new at debate in your Lordships’ House and it emanates, as he said, from a report produced by the Howard League. There are two points in what the noble and learned Lord said that I want to present in my own way. The first relates to the action plan, which has been excellent in many ways. It has achieved a great deal but, as I said at Second Reading, the difficulty with it is that there is a large number of people—nobody can put a figure on it, but consensually there is an idea that it is several hundreds, maybe nearly 1,000—who are the hard cases left after the action plan has done its work and has resolved the issues in relation to the, if you like, low-hanging fruit. We are left with several hundred people for whom it is clear the action plan is never going to be a solution. If there is no other way out for them than the action plan, then, in effect, the Government are saying that they will stay in jail until they die, because what else is there? There is no other route out.
The noble and learned Lord has presented a proposal which would help. The process would be that the prisoner would apply for parole, be refused parole, but then the Parole Board would at that point be obliged to set a date, up to two years later, on which the prisoner would be released.
The second point is that it could be represented that this is, in effect, an automatic release that follows two years after they have failed to achieve release—but that is not the wording of the amendment. I draw noble Lords’ attention to proposed new subsection (5), inserting new Section 28(6B), which says that the Parole Board, having set the date,
“may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoner’s release at the specified future date as it considers necessary having regard to its duty to protect the public”.
This is not a reckless and automatic release that follows without any effort on anybody’s part from the decision to refuse parole. The essential idea is that the machinery of the Probation Service should be brought together and energised under the direction of the Parole Board to provide those tailored services and that tailored support, such as education and courses, and the other measures that are necessary to ensure that that person is safe to be released. That is the objective.
Let us remember that many of the people who will not be released through the action plan are in that group because they have ceased to engage with the system. Having been through the effort to achieve parole in the past and having suffered the severe psychological blow that can arise from having been refused and knocked back, many of them will simply not go through that again. But if you could offer them a date, if you could say to them, “Here is hope, in two years, if you do these things”, perhaps we can get that engagement, and perhaps those people for whom there is otherwise no exit could be engaged and brought to be released, with the approval of the Parole Board and the support they need to get them to that place. If that support turns out to be expensive and difficult to provide and requires a superhuman effort on the part of the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Ministry of Justice and the other organs of the state, is that not the least we owe those people now? That is why I really hope that noble Lords will be able to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and that the Government will be able to relent. It might need some work in detail, but I hope the whole House will be able to support the principle behind it.
Briefly, there are also amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which relate to the parallel—and in some senses, almost deeper —scandal of DPP prisoners. Noble Lords will be aware that, in essence, the only difference between DPP and IPP prisoners is that DPP prisoners were sentenced when they were under 18. Those people are still in prison. They almost certainly should not be, but they are. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, deserve support.
Finally, and I feel this is very much an anticlimax, my own Amendment 109 is almost bloodless in its technical insignificance in comparison with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It is a very modest proposal and entirely administrative. I very much hope that the Minister will support it.
The amendment would allow IPP prisoners, who are in the community already serving a licence, annually to apply to the Parole Board for the discharge of that licence. In the Victims and Prisoners Act, we reduced dramatically the statutory period of the licence, and we made it easier for people to be discharged. Hundreds of prisoners have had their licence terminated as a result of that; it has been the most significant step so far in removing the scandal of IPP prisoners.
However, there are administrative difficulties, whereby if someone misses out on their discharge, they have to wait another whole two years before they can be considered again. What I am simply doing in my amendment is introducing the idea that they could apply—I would expect nobody to do this, unless they were supported by their probation officer—after one year, not two years, to have their licence discharged.
There is no threat to the public in this. We must remember that these people are already living in the community, and all the amendment seeks to do is give them permission to apply for something. The decision whether to discharge their licence finally—not to release them from jail, because they are in the community already—would still rest with the Parole Board. There is no risk to the public at all in doing this. It is a modest administrative change that will help some—not many—prisoners get rid of the stigma of this sentence sooner and resume their lives in the community as free subjects.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, my contribution this evening will be brief, only because there is a long evening ahead for the many noble Lords on the Front Bench and no lack of enthusiasm and commitment to continue working with other noble Lords who have spoken this evening to get this mess sorted out. I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley, who has taken up the cudgel so strongly; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, whose commitment could not be doubted after his contribution this evening; and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has hunted with me for a very long time now—since I first came to your Lordships’ House, it seems.
Before speaking to my Amendments 116 and 117, I note that the three contributions that have been made already illustrate the urgency of getting this matter resolved once and for all. All three Members have put their finger on one of the tragedies of the IPP sentence, which, ironically, was in part intended to deal with the two strikes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned. The tragedy reflected in the action plan wording that the noble and learned Lord read out—what was originally intended was never in the Bill itself; it was a matter of interpretation—was one of the terrible twists of life that we now have to untangle. The main issue I have picked out concerns those people who have been in prison for so long that their mental health has inevitably deteriorated. As the noble and learned Lord said, psychiatrists have accepted that now, in a way that was not recognised in 2003—we should have done that, and they should have done that, but we did not.
On the amendments from my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe that, if we could build in a formula that allowed the transfer of some of those prisoners to a secure medical setting for support to be given—I am not talking about Broadmoor or Rampton; there needs to be an intermediary alternative—then it might be possible to accept the two-year imperative. That would go a long way to meeting what my noble friend is seeking to achieve in his amendment: to move this on rapidly. The commitment to help from my noble friend on the Front Bench is unequalled, and I pay tribute to him. Listening and responding from the Front Bench is not easy—I know that, because I was there for eight years and experienced all kinds of constraints. My noble friend understands what we are talking about, so perhaps, with some creativity, we could think of a way to achieve this aim.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I could not possibly improve on the speeches that we have heard so far, but my reason for speaking is that I think I am the only Peer here with previous judicial experience to have actually conducted a statutory resentencing exercise. Perhaps I could explain how that came about and what it meant for me.
When I became the Lord Justice General of Scotland —that is, the Chief Justice—in 1989, it was not the practice of judges to state a tariff when imposing a life sentence, whether discretionary or mandatory; that was simply open-ended. It was my job, as Chief Justice, to advise the Secretary of State when the time had come for the prisoner to be referred to the Parole Board for consideration for release. It was done in a system whereby civil servants sent the papers to me and I then had to conduct a paper exercise and, in effect, tell the Secretary of State how much longer the prisoner would have to serve before it was time for him to be released.
It was a different world, and the prisons were not crowded. Usually, they came to me when the prisoner had served about 11 years. My advice was to extend it by three or four years, so that they were being referred to the Parole Board quite early compared to what happens today. It was a paper exercise and I found it extremely difficult. There were about 50 life prisoners I had to consider. I was provided with enormous files, which described their conduct in prison, as well as the original offence itself. In order to equip me to understand them, I visited all the prisons in Scotland except one, which was too far away. I also spent several sessions attending the Parole Board to understand how it worked. I had to equip myself fairly well to understand the job I was doing.
About three years into my office, the law was changed. In the interest of transparency, it was decided that the Chief Justice in England and Wales and me in Scotland should establish a tariff. That brought to an end the system I was using, because, from then on, judges were going to produce a tariff when they passed their first sentence. That was a system that I worked with for a while and had to give up.
It is with that background that I am extremely interested in the very well-crafted amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has advanced, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I have looked at it rather carefully and it seems that it requires the resentencing judge to look at four issues. First, what should the notional determinate sentence have been for the offence or offences which were committed, thereby identifying the tariff which would be applied for the purposes of reference to the parole board? Secondly, there is the additional point of whether a hospital order should be substituted, which is a very important safeguard in working through the system that he is describing. Thirdly, if the prisoner might appropriately have received a life sentence, is there a risk of committing a further serious offence resulting in serious harm if the prisoner were released; and, fourthly, if that is the case, should the IPP sentence simply be confirmed?
As I say, it is very carefully crafted and it has public safety in mind, as well as the interests of the prisoner. However, I think we have to be quite careful as to what this would mean for the resentencing judge. He or she would need to be equipped with a great deal of information, not only about the original offence but about what has happened to the prisoner since then, considering whether a hospital order is required or, if it is a life sentence, whether the safety of the public requires that the IPP sentence be confirmed. The Minister might also like to bear in mind the workload of the judges when considering what to make of this proposal. I suspect that the volume of material would be very considerable, and therefore judicial time needs to be found for that evidence to be assimilated and understood, and then a decision taken.
What is not clear at the moment—I think this is for the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has suggested we set up—is how the exercise would be conducted. I assume that it is going to be a paper exercise rather than a hearing in court, but that is to be determined. I assume that it would require a written decision to be given—that was not required of me at that time, but I suspect that nowadays a written decision would need to be given—and of course there is always the risk of appeal or judicial review. So the decision-taking exercise has to be very carefully conducted.
In my case, in dealing with the cases I had to deal with, I had to give up two weeks of judicial time to conduct the exercise which I had to carry out. One has to assume that at least one day of judicial time per case would be needed here, because, otherwise, the decisions would be open to being set aside because they have not been properly considered. The whole point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is that the safety of the public is being protected by the care which would be taken in this exercise. So one has to bear in mind not only the nature of the exercise but the time that the judiciary would have to commit to it.
I am not suggesting that this is not a very good way of finding an answer to the problem we are faced with. However, if the Minister is not inclined to adopt it, I would very much adopt the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and, if that does not succeed, there is of course the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which I would also support.
I hope that what I have said has been of interest, to give some background to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, which has my support. I suggest that it has to be seen in its full context and what it really means for the judges who have to conduct the exercise.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the expert contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 89 and I would say that that judicial time, if it is necessary, needs to be allocated. Society and the Government have a responsibility to people whom we have put in this impossible situation to find a way out and that amendment implements the Justice Committee’s recommendations.
It is a great pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate thus far, many of whom are veterans, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, in trying to sort out this mess. I did not speak on this group at Second Reading and I apologise for that. However, as I said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 89. She very much regrets that she has to be somewhere else at the moment and so your Lordships’ House gets me instead. I did speak on the issue of IPP prisoners at Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023. I said then that it was an extremely knotty and long-running problem. That is what we have heard and what has been reflected here.
However, we can see from that debate in 2023 and today the power and force of the contributions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, someone perhaps not usually given to such language, spoke about “blood on our hands”. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, spoke about “creating gulags”. We abolished this sentence in 2021 because it was wrong, yet the people subjected to it are living with its consequences every day and we have a responsibility to sort this out. There is also the practical point that, if the Government want to reduce the prison population, here is a group who should be at the forefront of looking at how to do that. Instead, far too many of them are in prisons that are wholly unsuited to their progression—30%, according to the latest figures. We cannot claim to be serious about reducing the prison population while leaving this situation to fester. There are other amendments in this group that take us some way forward, but Amendment 89 is the best one. This is the bare minimum of justice for a relatively small group of people who were handed a sentence that Parliament has already acknowledged was a mistake.
I will make one final reflection. What is behind this tragedy is a reflex that we have seen from far too many politicians over far too many years. Under pressure, the reaction is, “Lock ‘em up” or “Lock ‘em up for longer”. That is a reflex that we cannot allow to run loose in future.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will say a brief word and apologise that I have another commitment in 15 minutes, so may not hear the Minister.
I back up what all speakers have said this afternoon—in particular the passionate and convincing words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. We all believe that the Minister’s heart is in the right place and we need to encourage him to go back to anyone who is putting constraints on what he can do and ask them to read the speeches from this afternoon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, the state has recognised other cases—the Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, to some extent Hillsborough, and others—where it has created a major injustice and has tried to make up for those miscarriages. This is not a technical issue, it is an ethical issue, and we are all begging the Minister to deliver the justice that has been called for from all sides of the House this afternoon.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put his finger on something very important when he said to us that we must be careful about giving hope and then dashing it. But without hope, what is there? That is the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made and it is why I say that I have rarely sat in this Chamber and listened to such powerful speeches.
I was very happy to hear once again that the Minister welcomes this, because he is so involved with rehabilitation. The problem for a lot of these people is that there is no rehabilitation, and that is why we really have to act now.
I am not going to recap everything I said at Second Reading, but I will pick up one point. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, who spared some time to talk to me about joint enterprise, which in some ways is connected to this. I have had a further discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has more ideas that I hope the Minister might be prepared to hear.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, in this country we really have our hearts broken when, in places in the world where there are dictatorships, people are incarcerated year in, year out with their cases not even heard. We find that quite appalling.
When I was sent to administer justice in the northern part of Uganda, where a lot of people had been locked up because President Amin did not want them around, I arrived there and they said, “No, you can’t hear those cases because the president has told us we shouldn’t do this”. I had been trained in the English way of looking at justice. I could not but hear those cases. My first job was to hear those very hard cases, and I found out that there was no evidence as to why they should be in prison.
I remember that I took nine of them into my chambers and told them, “I’m going to keep you locked up, but I’ll tell you on which day you’re going, and I’ll announce in court, when you have already left the country, that you have been discharged from this particular thing on these grounds”. That went on for four months. Then I had my time, when there were no soldiers in the court observing what I was doing. I knew that if I had released them before then, they would have been killed. Part of my falling out with Amin was to do with some of those cases.
It is not easy to deliver justice. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was clear that some of these prisoners—I have met quite a few in Birmingham and in the province of York when I have visited prisons—and their stories leave you saying, “Is this the mother of democracy? Is this the mother of the way courts work? Is this how we treat people?” Those who committed crimes when they were young, particularly, have looked at possibilities, and then what has happened? Hope has been dashed.
I plead with the Minister that, instead of asking noble Lords to withdraw their amendments—that may be the language used, in order that this does not necessarily become a strategy—there be a dialogue with people with good ideas, which the Minister is very good at, so that we solve this once and for all.
This has left me sometimes very angry, so I can understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that if we do not do anything about it, we already have blood on our hands. A just society is shown by how it deals with the vulnerable, the weak, the helpless. They have been put there for years at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and now at the King’s pleasure. Something has to be done. My view is that the Minister should gather together a group of people with good ideas and have a real conversation, rather than going through the motions of “I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment”, because that is postponing justice, and that is not on.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the speeches in this debate have been comprehensive and committed, so I have little to add to them. All noble Lords who have spoken have done so passionately and persuasively about ending this scandal. I use the word “scandal”—it has been rightly called a disgrace, a stain on our system, and many other things. The passion for justice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, shone through every sentence of his speech and has to oblige the Government to end this appalling injustice. We have been guilty, in a country dedicated, nominally at least, to ideals of justice, of the grossest of injustices in this case. It must end, and it must end now.
We have a chance to end it now, completely and for ever. We thought we had abolished IPPs in the LASPO Act when we stopped any new IPP sentences being passed. My noble friend Lord McNally, then Minister of State, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, Secretary of State at the time, believed that the power to reverse the burden of proof in that Act would be exercised, so that we would never have this long tail of IPP prisoners who have now served way beyond their tariffs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, explained how unjust it was that IPP prisoners were treated unlike any other offenders. For those prisoners, we have abandoned any principle that the punishment should fit the crime, in favour of a system of preventive detention with a heavy burden placed throughout on prisoners to prove their fitness for release after their proper punishment—often very short punishment—has been completed. The principle of punishment fitting the crime has been ignored, as has been illuminated by nearly all the speeches today. That illumination has extended to the complete ineffectiveness of the action plan in the case of many IPP prisoners, however well-intentioned it was at the time. Those prisoners could end up, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, imprisoned for the rest of their lives if they fail to qualify for release under the action plan.
The sensible way to end this now is to accept one or more of the amendments before the Committee in order to ensure the early release of all remaining IPP prisoners and to end their risk of recall within a reasonable time span. I do not mind which amendment is adopted. I note that after his detailed and learned analysis, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was broadly content to endorse any of the solutions proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Moylan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and myself. I too am content with any of those solutions. The important thing is to persuade the Government now to accept one of them and finally to put an end to this injustice.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what is a profoundly serious and necessary debate, and to those who have tabled the amendments before us: the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble friend Lord Moylan. These amendments reflect a shared recognition across parties and across the Committee that the legacy of the IPP regime remains one of the most challenging unresolved issues within our criminal justice system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, observed, a “stain” on our justice system.
Under our system of criminal justice, we do not detain and imprison people because we perceive that they are probably or even certainly going to commit a crime at some indeterminate and uncertain point in the future. But that is essentially the basis upon which we detain IPP prisoners in custody after they have served the prison term of their original offence. It is, of course, worrying that many IPP prisoners may present a serious risk to the public if released. However, under the logic that flows through much of this very Bill, the Government must be prepared to advocate for society to accommodate such a risk by community supervision rather than endless detention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, observed, the Justice Committee’s 2022 report described the IPP system as “irredeemably flawed”, and he seeks to give effect to its recommendation. Whether or not Members support that specific mechanism, it is beyond dispute that thousands of IPP prisoners remain trapped in a system never intended to endure, with outcomes that the state itself acknowledges are simply wrong.
My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment raises another vital point: the ability for prisoners on extended licence to seek annual review after the qualifying period. Whatever one’s view of automatic termination on mandatory timelines, there is clear force in the principle that people must not be left without a meaningful hope or a clear route to progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke to his Amendments 116 and 117 on recall and automatic release. Again, many noble Lords will be uneasy that individuals can be recalled indefinitely for minor, technical breaches, long after tariff expiry. This, again, points to the need for clarity, confidence and, indeed, proportionality in the present system. It cannot be simply risk aversion that dictates outcomes.
The amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, supported by others, propose a future release mechanism whereby the Parole Board can set a specified release date, subject to compliance with directions. This recognises the reality described by countless practitioners that progression can become possible only if there is a clear destination and a structure to reach it. Amendment 130 then introduces a safeguard enabling the Secretary of State, if necessary, to seek variation to protect the public.
No one in this debate has suggested that risk can be ignored. Equally, nobody advocates arbitrary release of dangerous offenders. But every proposal brought to the Committee today has an element of public protection embedded in it. Where Members may differ is only on the most responsible and principled route to resolve a system that all agree has patently failed. The point is to choose not the easiest path but the right one. The public are entitled to a system that protects them, but then IPP prisoners and their families are entitled to justice and to fairness. The rule of law should produce finality—indeed, it must produce finality.
I thank noble Lords again for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. I look forward to continued constructive engagement as the Bill proceeds—and to the necessary outcome that justice demands, not just for IPP prisoners but for our collective conscience.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will now address these amendments, which were spoken to very powerfully, on the imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentence. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that I also feel very passionately about. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley for his tireless efforts on this issue and for his amendments, which seek to resentence all IPP sentence individuals. I am also grateful for the reflections from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the requirements of a resentencing exercise and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ludford, for their thoughtful words on this important issue.
I hope it is clear that the reason for not resentencing IPP offenders is to protect the public and safeguard victims. Although we are determined to support those in prison to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk. Resentencing would result in offenders still in custody being released even when the independent Parole Board has determined—in many cases repeatedly —that they are too dangerous to be released, having not met the statutory release test. My noble friend’s amendments would allow the court to confirm an IPP sentence for those who might have received a life sentence, but this would not prevent the resentencing and release of those who do not fall within the proposed parameters but who the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released.
The amendments also provide for the substitution of an IPP sentence with a hospital order. However, at the imposition of an IPP sentence, the courts already had the power to issue a hospital order under the Mental Health Act if there was evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed. Additionally, if a prisoner now has a severe mental health need to an extent that detention under the Mental Health Act may be appropriate, they will be referred and assessed clinically to determine whether a transfer to a mental health hospital is warranted. This has always been available to those serving the sentence.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would provide IPP prisoners with a release date within two years. Again, in this circumstance, individuals would be released who have not been considered safe for release by the Parole Board. The addition to this amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would provide a limited safeguard. This would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the Parole Board for the release date to be varied or set aside. However, when considering an application to set aside, the Parole Board would be required to release the prisoner or fix a new release date at the following hearing. The Parole Board already reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly.
We have to remain focused on the best and safest way to support IPP offenders as fast as possible to a safe release. It is important to remember that IPP offenders received their sentence after being convicted of a violent or sexual offence. Therefore, for any decision that removes the protection of the statutory release test, we must be comfortable with the prospect of these offenders living in our communities; that is what we would be demanding of the public.
We know that individuals received the IPP sentence because they committed a sexual or violent offence. Extended sentences were available alongside the IPP sentence, but the sentencing judge decided that an IPP sentence was appropriate for the offender at the time. Under that sentence, a person is released only following assessment by the Parole Board. There would be considerable risk to the public and victims if we released those serving the IPP sentence who are currently in our high-security establishments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but does the noble Lord accept that, in many cases, especially in the early part of the IPP regime, judicial discretion was almost nil? It was not that the judge determined that an IPP sentence was appropriate; rather, the guidelines given to him said that in certain circumstances, where the offence for which the person had been found guilty and an earlier offence for which they had been convicted appeared on a certain table in a certain configuration, they had no choice but to give an IPP sentence. That is how the sentence was imposed in many cases. There were circumstances where two people were prosecuted for the same crime, which they had carried out together. One of them had a history which brought this table into operation, the other did not. One would get an IPP sentence, the other a determinate sentence appropriate to that crime, although they had both been involved. That point, which is of capital importance, has never been fully recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Judicial discretion was not exercised or exercisable in the case of many of these sentences.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, could he also reflect that this took place on a Court of Appeal ruling two years after the implementation of the Act in 2005? That judgment then determined the hearings and therefore the sentences granted by judges, consequent on that Appeal Court ruling.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their helpful comments, which explain why this is such a difficult and important area. We need to keep the public safe, but we also need to keep working as noble Lords to try to do what we can to address this situation.
I welcome the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, on the importance of supporting IPP offenders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Might I say to the Minister that I set the history of all of this out in a judgment? If only his officials would read it and understand, we would not be in the mess that he has been placed in.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will take the noble and learned Lord’s comments away and read that again, but that is also why our quarterly Peers’ meetings on IPP are so important in discussing all these topics.
We must do all that we can to support all IPP prisoners to reduce their risk and progress towards a release decision, but I would not be doing my job to protect the public if they were to be released without the independent Parole Board deciding it is safe to do so. My hope is that every IPP prisoner gets the opportunity to be released and have a successful life in the community, but we need to do that in a way that sets those prisoners up for success in the community. The Government’s view is that any change that removes the protection of the statutory release test is not the right way to do this.
I am aware of criticism of some parts of the IPP action plan, including those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but it remains my view that the steps we are taking through it are the best way to support this progression. It has contributed to a 10% reduction in the IPP prison population in the 12 months to 30 September 2025. The number of people who have never been released fell by around 14% in the same period. Since the publication of the first action plan in April 2022, the unreleased IPP population has fallen by 39% and is now below 1,000. The focus that I and colleagues have on the IPP action plan means that I need to do more and more work on it, to see where we can add improvements all the way.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his amendments, which seek to allow the Secretary of State to make provision for the automatic re-release of those serving an IPP or DPP sentence who are recalled to prison. My noble friend will be aware of the deep respect I have for his ongoing commitment, drive and tenacity to do all he can to support those serving the IPP sentence. I greatly value his contribution to today’s debate, as well as the thoughtful insights and individual cases he raises with me outside the House.
I appreciate that noble Lords have questioned why we are introducing fixed-term recalls for offenders serving standard determinate sentences but do not accept this change for IPP offenders. There are two crucial differences: the threshold for recall and the level of risk that the offender poses. IPP offenders can be recalled only for behaviour or breaches of their licence that are causally linked to their offending. That is a high bar, and one higher than for recalling prisoners serving standard determinate sentences. I must remind noble Lords what that means in practice: that the Probation Service no longer believes that controls available in the community are sufficient to manage that offender’s risk to keep the public safe, and that the public are therefore at risk of further sexual or violent offending.
A fixed-term recall for IPP offenders would not provide sufficient time for an individual to demonstrate that their risk had reduced, or to receive the required support to reduce their risk, before being automatically re-released. This would put victims and the public at risk. While we will return to the question of recall in more detail later in this debate, I must remind noble Lords that we have built significant safeguards into our fixed-term recall changes. These mean that many offenders who pose a similar risk to IPP offenders recalled to prison are also not eligible for a fixed-term recall.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a power for the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP prisoners where it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should remain in prison. This is referred to operationally as release after a risk assessed recall review, or RARR. Recalled IPP offenders have already been re-released using this power, when they were due to wait for a number of months before their scheduled oral hearing before the Parole Board.
The revised IPP action plan, published on 17 July this year, now includes a commitment to enable swift re-release following a recall through RARR, where it is safe to do so. This means that HMPPS is considering all IPP offenders recalled for being out of touch, or in relation to allegations of further offences, for RARR, and is trialling an extended referral period to allow more time to consider cases for potential use of RARR before referral to the Parole Board. I respectfully suggest that this power means we already have the ability to do what the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to achieve: a quicker re-release of recalled individuals where it is safe to do so.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment, for my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s reflections on it and for their ongoing interest in this important issue. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to allow a prisoner whose licence is not terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the relevant qualifying period to make an annual application to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period by reducing the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board and introducing a provision for automatic licence termination. This automatic provision provides greater certainty to offenders than the annual referrals about when their licence will terminate, which is also important for victims. These changes have resulted in the number of people serving a sentence in the community falling by 65%.
Furthermore, at the four-year point after initial release, if supervision is not suspended or the licence is terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the three-year qualifying period, probation practitioners can further consider applying for suspension of supervision at their own discretion. We must also consider the potential effect on victims of going through an additional Parole Board review just a year after the previous one, but I acknowledge that the noble Lord’s amendment would preserve the role of the Parole Board in this process. I am happy to have further conversations with him and other noble Lords on this point in the coming weeks.
I thank noble Lords for their work on this important issue, and I hope that they are assured not only of the work that we are currently undertaking but of our absolute resolve to make further progress for those serving the IPP sentence. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords and look forward to seeing them at the upcoming round table, and to discussing the points raised between now and Report. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the concept of us imprisoning individuals on the grounds of a perception that they may commit a crime at some indeterminate point in the future is utterly anathema to our whole system of criminal justice?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Our expert probation staff who manage the risks in the community are experts in determining the risk that offenders pose, including IPP offenders. It is therefore their professional judgment and their decision whether they recall someone or not.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for my stumble at the beginning. My inexperience in the process here got in the way. Having listened to all the contributions, some of them were very emotional and some heart-rending, but I am quite certain that did not change the tremendous contribution that each and every noble Lord has made in here this afternoon.
I was heartfelt as I sat here, as I know that we have dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of IPP family members—maybe even some prisoners—watching this today, hoping for maybe more than the Minister has just said. I will come back to that in a moment. Nevertheless, listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Blunkett—indeed all the other Lords who contributed—I think that the experience was absolutely unbelievable.
It is a shame that, while the Minister has listened to them, he has come up with exactly the same answer that I predicted at the very beginning, which is more and more reasons why we cannot do the right thing. There is no doubt at all about that in my mind: there were more excuses for allowing people to suffer in prison and more reasons why we will, unfortunately, see more people take their lives, with no hope, because they are still in prison and serving sentences there.
The Minister said that his efforts were to make sure that we protect the public, and I wholeheartedly support that. That is why my amendment for resentencing clearly identifies public safeguards as being at the very forefront of all we want to do.
However, it is not too late. I intend to continue to work with all colleagues and comrades in this Chamber to try to convince the Minister to talk with David Lammy and others and do the right thing on behalf of this group. On behalf of those families, prisoners and all the contributors here this afternoon, I implore the Minister to go away and rethink, re-evaluate and reassess, and, I hope, to come back, as this goes along, with a completely different response to that he has given us again today.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
With the leave of your Lordships, I would like to clarify my comments on Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. We have already publicly committed to legislation to make this a statutory requirement, and that commitment stands. We are, however, concerned that setting the precise timing for the report’s publication, and its content, in primary legislation may create unnecessary rigidity, but I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we share the intent behind the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has just said. Can he assure your Lordships’ Committee that if he is not prepared to accept my Amendment 88, he will bring forward his own amendment at some later stage in our deliberations to bring into effect the commitment that he has just repeated from the Front Bench?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We may not bring forward an amendment, but we will legislate to make sure this happens.
Amendment 90
“Independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending(1) There is to be an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. (2) The purpose of the panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources, helping to encourage a more sustainable criminal justice system in the long term.(3) The panel is to act as an authority on what works to reducing rates of reoffending, including but not limited to—(a) championing and promoting the most authoritative evidence on what works to reduce and prevent reoffending;(b) producing advice on the most effective methods to reduce reoffending drawing upon evidence from national data, international contexts and expertise within the sector;(c) championing best practice examples of technological interventions to reduce reoffending, with consideration of the risks or ethical implications of using such technology.(4) The panel must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, report to the Lord Chancellor on its work during the year.(5) The report specified in subsection (4) must include but is not limited to—(a) a longer-term assessment of the cumulative impact of government policy and legislation on sentencing and prison and probation capacity;(b) an assessment of the effectiveness of the government’s overall reducing reoffending strategy.(6) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and place copies in the Library of both Houses.(7) The panel must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(8) The panel is to consist of at least 8 members appointed by the Lord Chancellor.(9) The Lord Chancellor must appoint a chair of the panel.(10) In exercising his or her responsibilities under subsection (9), the Lord Chancellor must seek approval for his or her choice of chair from the Justice Committee in the House of Commons.(11) A person is eligible to be a member of the advisory panel if the person appears to the Lord Chancellor to have experience in one or more of the following areas—(a) judiciary;(b) criminal defence or prosecution;(c) sentencing policy and the administration of justice;(d) prisons and probation;(e) psychology and psychiatry;(f) academic study or research relating to criminal law or criminology;(g) independent inspection and scrutiny of the criminal justice system;(h) the investigation of complaints;(i) the welfare of prisoners;(j) criminal justice reform and rehabilitation charities.(12) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for—(a) The term of office, resignation, and reappointment of panel members,(b) The renumeration of panel members, and(c) The budget of the panel.(13) For the purposes of this section—(a) “legislation” means— (i) an Act of Parliament if, or to the extent that, it extends to England and Wales;(ii) subordinate legislation made under an Act of Parliament if, or to the extent that, the subordinate legislation extends to England and Wales;(iii) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or subordinate legislation made under such a Measure or Act;(b) “policy” means—(i) policy of the UK government;(ii) policy of the Welsh ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, along with others from Lord Marks to after Clause 19, would introduce an independent panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending, implementing recommendation 9.1 of the independent sentencing review.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group comprises Amendments 90 to 92 in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate not just for adding her name to these amendments but for her commitment to fairness and evidence in sentencing and criminal justice generally, which she has shown over a great time in this House. I am also grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for its help in preparing and presenting the amendments.
Together, the three amendments would establish a new panel on sentencing policy—to be called the independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending—to advise the Government on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The new panel would be completely different from the Sentencing Council, which is an independent body that exists for a different purpose: to advise judges on sentencing within the framework of the law passed by Parliament.
The amendments would implement recommendation 9.1 of the independent review of sentencing, chaired by David Gauke, which has inspired the greater part of this Bill. The independent review was keen to get away from the focus on punishment in sentencing, and the further idea that punishment meant immediate imprisonment or incarceration—in the face of all the evidence that imprisonment is often ineffective in reducing reoffending.
The review highlighted the inescapable fact that the increasing use of imprisonment and the imposition of ever-longer sentences have led to the prison capacity crisis that this Bill is partly directed at addressing. The report recommended the establishment of an independent panel to focus government on maintaining a sustainable approach to sentencing. The review saw this independent panel as an external body of experts that would give the Government access to evidence-based expertise and give both the Government and the public impartial advice on what works in reducing reoffending and therefore cutting crime. These amendments would implement and take forward that recommendation. It must be the hope that the amendments and the new panel would bring about a change of approach, on the part of the press and the public, to sentencing and the treatment of offending in general.
Amendment 90 would establish the new panel with a duty to report annually to the Lord Chancellor, who would appoint its chair. Importantly, Amendment 91 would require the Lord Chancellor to refer government policy proposals on sentencing and reducing reoffending to the panel where such proposals had significant resource implications.
The panel would advise the Government on the evidence drawn from research, both in this country and internationally, on what works in reducing reoffending, as well as on the value for money and likely effect of government proposals. The Lord Chancellor would be bound to respond to the reports of the panel and to lay both the reports and the response before Parliament. It is to be hoped and predicted that Parliament and the public would be better informed about the thinking and evidence behind sentencing policy, which is often misunderstood.
These proposals mirror those by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, the think tank Transform Justice, the Sentencing Academy, the Prison Reform Trust and the Centre for Justice Innovation. They represent a missing item on the agenda of sentencing reform. I urge the Government to accept these proposals. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I will make a few brief comments; I am aware of time, and there is a lot to get through. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I thank him for his kind comments.
When it comes to sentencing, I have believed for many years that we need more independence and not less. My own submission to David Gauke’s sentencing review focused on this, and, as has been said, followed the Justice Committee’s recommendations—I ought to underline that—in its own inquiry on public opinion and the understanding of sentencing.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for using language about “a change of approach”, because it is important that we get away from making legislation based on a public narrative that is not based on evidence—so-called penal populism. How do we enable the Government to remain focused on maintaining a sustainable approach to custody and facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation without the constant pressure from that public narrative, which is affecting the way we do our sentencing? The aim of these amendments, which uphold the principles of independence, is to support Ministers to make objective, evidence-based policy in the midst of all the pain and loss that come through crime.
A couple of years ago, I was in the Netherlands looking at its criminal justice system. Ministers there were horrified at how the public can so affect the way that Ministers act—at how people can beat a path to the door of Ministers, which then affects legislation. The Netherlands has decoupled the way Ministers make legislation and the independent factor, which is what we want to do here. I wholeheartedly agree with these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. Collectively, they seek to introduce an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The stated purpose of this panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources. I am sure that all noble Lords support that aim, and the idea of creating an independent body to help the Government in developing better policy in this area is an interesting concept that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to.
These amendments seek to implement recommendation 9.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review by Mr David Gauke and others, a document that has inspired many of the provisions of the Bill. Should the Government decide not to support this recommendation, they should make plain their reasons and justification.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for these important and thoughtful amendments. They seek to give effect to a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review, by David Gauke, which would involve creating an independent advisory body that would provide greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on the criminal justice system. I absolutely understand the sentiments behind these amendments, and we recognise that this Bill represents a big change to sentencing in the future and that the Government will need timely advice from voices of expertise and experience. I have worked with some of the organisations the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to and hold them in the highest esteem.
The Government do not believe that it is right to legislate for a new statutory panel at this stage, but I will say a little about how we think we can take forward the spirit of this. There are already many advisory and oversight authorities for prisons and probation, many of them with statutory remits. However, we will certainly continue to consider whether the creation of a new advisory body is the appropriate mechanism to ensure greater scrutiny and greater effectiveness of the impacts and outcomes of policy and legislation in this area.
Although we are considering this recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review carefully—I hope I have made it clear that we take it very seriously—we do not support an amendment at this time. As I hope the Committee will understand, creating such a panel requires a good deal of thought about its purpose and responsibilities and how it could fit within the panoply of organisations that already advise the wider criminal justice system. It is already a Rubik’s cube.
As noble Lords will know, the Government are undertaking an ongoing review of arm’s-length bodies, and this sets out clear principles, including ministerial policy oversight, avoiding duplication—that is very important—and improving efficiency. So we are not clear that the creation of such a body in statute, as this amendment would do, would quite align with these aims. So, although we do not accept these amendments today, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and indeed the whole Committee that the Government will continue to consider this recommendation.
On the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate about improving the understanding of the press and the public, we are certainly in the market for anything that will improve their understanding of how the criminal justice system, particularly sentencing policy, works. So I hope this reassurance about the seriousness with which we take the spirit of David Gauke’s recommendation, and indeed the amendment, enables the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his response and his understanding. I am, however, disappointed that he is not prepared at this stage to commit to putting this recommendation into statute. It seems to me and the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Gloucester to be an important feature. If his concern is that we should continue to try to inform the press and public of what sentencing is about, and of what government policy on sentencing and reducing reoffending is about, then the formation of this body is very important. If the formation of this body is very important, why should it not be sanctioned by statute?
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Unduly lenient sentences scheme: extension to victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 36 (reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by either a Magistrates’ or Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.(2B) An application can be made under subsection (2A) where a sentence has been passed for one or more offence under the following provisions, in either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court— (a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978,(b) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or(c) section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.(2C) An application can be made under subsection (2A) by a victim, or their next of kin where the victim is a minor, of one of the specified offences under subsection (2B)(a) to (c).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would extend the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, allowing victims of technology assisted child sexual abuse offences, and their next of kin where the victim is a minor, to apply to the scheme regardless of where the sentence was passed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to see that we are picking up the pace slightly. The last group was a fairly brisk 13 or 14 minutes, so let us hope we can keep this up and get the Minister to bed at a half-decent hour. Of course, we are missing the joys of hearing about the somewhat shaking edition of the American constitution by being in the Chamber at the moment.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 34, which we discussed last week. Again, this is as a result of working in co-operation with an organisation I mentioned last week: the Marie Collins Foundation. I will start by referring to statements by various bodies that illustrate the nature of the problem this amendment seeks to flag up. The following quotation is from the 2023 report of the College of Policing and the NPCC on the national analysis of police-recorded child sexual abuse and exploitation:
“Within the online space, perpetrators of sexual grooming are most commonly adults aged 18 to 29 years. This highlights the risk posed to children in the online space by adults looking to abuse and exploit them. Abuse of children by adults is more likely to be hidden and requires a strong law enforcement response focusing on pursuing perpetrators, as well as a response focused on prevention”.
The next quotation is from the National Crime Agency this year, in the national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime:
“We estimated in the National Strategic Assessment 2024 that 710,000 to 840,000 adults in the UK pose varying degrees of sexual risks to children”,
a pretty horrifying total.
“However, police recorded crime does not effectively reflect the full scale of online offending, as one offence can relate to multiple instances of child sexual abuse material, and the most serious physical offence is recorded instead of any precursor online offences such as grooming”.
Lastly, hot off the press, as of yesterday, is part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, which is pretty horrifying reading for those of your Lordships who have not read it. On page 173, under the heading, “The effect of pornography and social media”, Dame Angiolini says that
“there needs to be recognition of the link between perpetrators’ online behaviours and their behaviours in the physical world”.
They are directly linked.
The key issues in this area are, first of all, an overreliance on non-custodial sentences. In 2020, 80% of those sentenced for sexual communication with a child avoided prison. It is the magistrates’ courts rather than the criminal courts that dominate the outcomes. Online child safety risk is escalating rapidly. The Internet Watch Foundation reported an 830% rise in child sexual abuse material on the internet since 2014, making 2024 the worst year on record. The phenomenon of technology-assisted child sexual abuse—I think I introduced your Lordships to the acronym, TACSA, last week—lives in the shadow of child sexual abuse and is underrecognised.
We all acknowledge—it is the reason that we are talking about this Bill—that there is an issue with capacity in prison places. One factor in this area is that offenders can effectively strategise what the outcome of their offence might be. If it is a sufficiently heinous offence, with a lot of class A material, for example, on their computers, rather than going to the criminal court, where it is quite possible they might get a custodial sentence, what they can opt to do, and many of them do, is plead guilty, which automatically means the case goes to the magistrates’ court, in which case the sentencing powers are much more limited. This is a tactical way in which it is possible to get out of jail early by pleading guilty and opting to go to a magistrates’ court. That is causing a lot of concern, particularly, as you might imagine, to victims.
There is a coverage gap to do with the unduly lenient sentence scheme, because that reviews only Crown Court sentences. If a magistrates’ court with a particularly unpleasant case decides that a custodial sentence is the right way to go, there is no appeal mechanism under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to challenge that. Further, there is a misconception of harm. This type of online abuse is regarded as less serious than contact forms of child abuse. However, there is an increasing amount of research making the direct link that those who start off abusing children online are particularly statistically likely at some point to go on and actually do it physically.
I turn to what one would like to see happen. The first thing is improved parity and sentencing range for this particular type of egregious online abuse, so that the technological abuse of a child has parity with the physical abuse of a child—or they are brought more into balance, because at the moment, there is a clear imbalance between the two. Secondly, we should expand the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include all offences of this type, so they could be looked at if a magistrates’ court has given a rather lenient sentence. In an ideal world, one would like to prohibit the use of suspended sentences for these kinds of offences, many of which are deeply unpleasant. We should prohibit the use of what is called good-character mitigation in many of these cases. It is very hard to use good-character mitigation when an individual is found, as in some cases, to have more than 1,000 examples of class A child abuse material on their computer.
Last week, in response to discussion about Amendment 34, the Minister said on mitigation, or the ability to challenge the sentence, that it was possible for the offence to be challenged under the unduly lenient sentence scheme
“where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]
However, that does not cover the cases that I mentioned that go through the magistrates’ courts.
Finally, I shall give one or two examples of what happens when individuals go through the magistrates’ court. An 18 year-old from east London who had 183 category A images got a two-year community order. A 62 year-old from Cumbria had 503 category A images, and he got an eight-month sentence, suspended for 18 months, and 200 hours of unpaid work. A 26 year-old from Norfolk had 69 category A videos, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 12 months. And the list goes on. One of our more energetic newspapers, the Sun, profiled a large number of these individuals under the usually slightly brash headline. Basically, it said that something is wrong with the system if this is what is happening.
I have explained the background to why I have brought this amendment forward. It would be really helpful for us to look at this in more detail. The Minister indicated last week that he would be interested to hear more about this particular foundation and what it does. If he is willing, I would very much like to follow up his invitation to talk about this in more detail and to lay out what is happening and the imbalance that there is currently in the system, which is allowing a lot of deeply unpleasant men to get away with virtually no sentence whatever. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The noble Lord reminds me of a comment that was made, I think, during the proceedings on this Bill, but which is certainly apt. The online world and what my generation would regard as a different, real world have actually come together, and it is one world now.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, to follow on from what my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, we on these Benches support this amendment, for all the reasons given and explained at length by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I will add one point. We heard yesterday in the discussion on restricting jury trials about defendants gaming the system, with which, in the context of jury trials, I do not entirely agree. It undoubtedly happens some of the time, but not all of the time, because it is not a reason generally for electing a jury trial. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has illuminated the degree to which defendants who are guilty of particularly nasty offences can game the system by retaining their cases in the magistrates’ court and avoiding committal to the Crown Court for sentence or trial. I am bound to say that his amendment shows an ingenious solution to that, by seeking to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We support it on that basis as well.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can be brief. Amendment 93C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme so that for victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse, and where the victim is a minor, their next of kin should be able to refer sentences to the scheme, regardless of the level of court where the sentence has been passed.
The noble Lord explained the rationale for his amendment eloquently and elegantly, and with clarity. His detail was illuminating. This is a narrowly framed and entirely reasonable proposal. Technology-assisted abuse does not respect borders or ages, and is often complex, cross-jurisdictional and deeply traumatic. It cannot be right that a victim’s ability to challenge an obviously lenient sentence depends on the court level at which the matter has been disposed of and in which the perpetrator was tried.
This amendment would close that gap and ensure parity of access to this important review mechanism for victims of what are in fact some of the most serious and distressing offences dealt with by our criminal justice system. It would, we believe, stop the system being gamed, to the advantage of the offender and the disadvantage of the victim. It would strengthen accountability without widening the scheme beyond its existing remit. This is a practical, victim-centred improvement and we urge the Minister to give it serious consideration. I ask: if not, why not?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for this amendment and for raising awareness of the Marie Collins Foundation on the first day of Committee. I am looking forward to meeting a representative of the foundation, with the noble Lord, on this matter, I think in the coming weeks.
The unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any person to request that the Attorney-General consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review if they believe it is unduly lenient. I have in fact been listening to some very interesting podcasts to learn more about this topic. This amendment would create a specific right for victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences and, where the victim is a child, for their next of kin to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, even where the sentence was imposed in a magistrates’ court. Currently, the unduly lenient sentence scheme covers all indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery, as well as certain specified triable either way offences sentenced in the Crown Court, including stalking and most child sex offences.
Parliament intended the unduly lenient sentence scheme to be an exceptional power and any expansion of its scope must be approached with great care. The Law Commission is currently reviewing criminal appeals, including the range of offences within the scheme, and expects to publish recommendations in late 2026. When it comes to sentencing for child sexual offences, the data shows significant variation by offence type. Around 20% of offenders convicted of sexual offences against children receive an immediate custodial sentence. This rises to approximately 70% for the most serious crimes, such as sexual assault of a child under 13, familial sexual offences and possession of indecent or prohibited images. These patterns have remained broadly consistent over the past five years.
As I have noted previously in Committee, sentencing decisions in individual cases are for our independent judiciary, guided by robust Sentencing Council guidelines that already address technology-enabled offending. For example, the guidelines require courts to consider intended harm even where no actual child exists and to take account of aggravating factors such as image sharing, abuse of trust and threats. While I fully recognise the importance and severity of the issue raised by the noble Lord, given the exceptional nature of the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the ongoing Law Commission review of criminal appeals, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, which was pretty much what I think probably all of us expected. There is a case to be made for looking at this more carefully. The exponential rise in the volume of this type of abuse using technology has outpaced the ability of the system to understand what is going on. It has outpaced the statistics that the Minister mentioned. That is the tip of the iceberg; it does not actually tell one what is going on.
As in so many cases to do with the online world, we are all behind the curve. This is happening now, in plain sight; it is not theoretical. I hope that, in the meetings that we will have, we can explore this more fully and explain the extent and the depth of this and the deeply worrying link that is increasingly being demonstrated between perpetrators abusing online, using images, and then at some point moving on to actual physical abuse of children. I hope that we can explore that in more detail. I thank all noble Lords who contributed and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—(i) rape,(ii) assault by penetration,(iii) rape of a child under 13,(iv) assault of a child under 13 by penetration,(v) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity,(vi) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13,(vii) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence,(viii) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children,(ix) grievous bodily harm,(x) grooming,(xi) stalking, or(xii) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult.(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation 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, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. It will not surprise the Minister that I broadly support the principle underlying Clause 20 of the Bill. If prisoners can prove that they have made positive steps towards rehabilitation, we would not oppose the principle that, in those circumstances, there are arguments for releasing such offenders early.
However, regrettably, this is not the outcome that Clause 20 will give effect to. On many occasions during Second Reading and Committee, the Minister has made reference to the “earned progression model” and the Texas system. Under Clause 20 as drafted, there is no such reward for good behaviour or evidence of meaningful rehabilitative steps. The independent House of Commons Library briefing is quite clear on this point: the release point is a default automatic release date and the only way it will not apply is if a prisoner has been subject to additional days for proven misconduct before a judge. That is not earned progression; it is automatic release with a very low threshold of eligibility. There is no assessment of behaviour, remorse, work or engagement with treatment programmes. There is no review by the Parole Board. There is no evaluation of risk. There is only the clock.
The Lord Chancellor said that the public can be reassured because the “most serious offences”, as he termed them, will be excluded. However, the ministry’s own data confirms that offenders convicted of rape, child grooming and attempted murder will be eligible. If such offences are not within the Government’s definition of “serious”, I must ask the Minister to outline exactly which offences are considered serious. Every rape of a child or an adult, every victim of grooming and every life shattered by serious violence represents profound and enduring harm. On what basis are we telling victims that these crimes do not count and that they will meet their offenders at just one-third of their custodial sentence?
This is not a technical or procedural matter. It is a question of fundamental justice and of public protection. It is also a question of whether this House is prepared to legislate knowingly and deliberately to reduce prison time for such serious offenders. The Bill, as drafted, would cut custodial sentences for more than 60% of rapists and over 80% of offenders convicted of child sex offences. It would allow those convicted of stalking —an offence with one of the highest reoffending rates and a well-established connection to homicide—to be released automatically after serving only one-third of their sentence, and it would do so without assessment of risk and without any evidence of rehabilitation.
Amendment 94 would exclude from the early release provisions of Clause 20 those convicted of the most serious sexual and violent offences, including rape, child sexual abuse, stalking, grievous bodily harm and causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult and ensure exclusions for other serious offence categories before these drastic changes to sentencing came into force. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the other place were in rare agreement over this amendment—it was almost like a recall of a coalition concern. In that other place, I understand that 65 out of the 71 Members of the Liberal Democrat Party voted in favour of it.
We are told that the justification for these provisions is prison overcrowding, but the emergency powers that already exist to manage emergency capacity pressures have been installed and are not to be removed. The measures in this Bill will be permanent. They are not temporary; they are a long-term shift in sentencing policy that will reshape the criminal justice system for a generation. We spent much time earlier in Committee arguing against the presumption of suspended sentences, but Clause 20 deals with a far higher category of offenders: those who have been put into custody for several years but will now automatically be released at the one-third point.
The Government propose to release an estimated 43,000 offenders into the community who would previously have been imprisoned. As with many other clauses in the Bill, Clause 20 will place yet more pressure on probation services if implemented, and they already face a shortfall of 10,000 officers. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust warns that the system is already at breaking point and that releasing thousands more high-risk offenders without necessary supervision poses a serious threat to the safety of victims and to public confidence. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that allowing perpetrators back into communities after only 28 days is “simply unacceptable”. The Victims’ Commissioner warned that victims will be left feeling “unnerved and bewildered”. These are not political opponents of the Bill but respected independent authorities speaking on behalf of victims and the public at large.
The Howard League warns that earned release models are undeliverable without a functioning rehabilitation infrastructure, yet prisons remain impoverished and dangerously unstable. Drugs and violence are rife. Education provision has been cut by up to 60% in some prisons, and half of prisoners receive no education or employment support at all. In that context, early release cannot be earned because there is nothing meaningful with which to earn it. Every Member of this House understands the need to reduce pressure on the prison estate, but public protection and public confidence must remain at the forefront of legislative change. The public expect that those who commit serious crime face real punishment and real consequences. More than 6,500 of the most serious criminals, including rapists, stalkers, violent attackers and even murderers, will qualify for early release.
The public do not expect Parliament to legislate to let these criminals out after one-third of their sentence. Every time a victim reads in the paper that the person who raped or attacked them has been released early, or a family sees the person responsible for the death of a child or a relative back in the community far sooner than they were told originally, that will create fissures in the rule of law. Public confidence matters because without it, the justice system loses legitimacy.
Amendment 94 is a proportionate and necessary step to ensure that early release is not granted to those whose crimes are simply too serious to justify automatic release. It represents the minimum safety measure that this House must insist on. The Government must accept that such serious offenders should not walk free after serving one-third of their sentence, and do so by default. If we take that step, we will lose sight of what our justice system is all about. I urge the Government to reconsider and to support the amendment in the interest of victims, of public protection, of public confidence, and of the integrity of our justice system. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for this amendment, which seeks to exclude a wide range of offences from the new release provisions under Clause 20. The offences listed are serious crimes. Although some are in scope of the progression model, many perpetrators of these offences will receive life or extended determinate sentences, so would not be in scope.
I must start by pointing out that two of the offences—rape of a child under 13 and sexual assault of a child under 13—are already completely outside the progression model. Those convicted of these offences can be given only life, an extended determinate sentence or a sentence for offenders of particular concern.
There are more than 17,000 prisoners serving extended, determinate or life sentences—those convicted of the most serious crimes. We are clear that these offenders will be unaffected by these reforms. Under Clause 20, offenders sentenced for certain sexual or violent offences will be released at the halfway point of their sentence. They will spend even longer inside if they behave badly while in custody, up to their full sentence. This approach, inspired by the effective reform in Texas, reflects incentive schemes widely used across the United States and is the single biggest measure to preserve prison capacity in the Bill.
I must remind noble Lords of the context in which this measure is needed. When this Government came into power last July, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. We were days away from running out of places entirely, from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, and from the criminal justice system failing to deliver the one thing it is for—delivering justice. If prisons run out of space, we fail victims and compromise safety. Without prison space, victims are denied the justice they deserve, and a stable prison population allows for a better regime and outcome for prisoners.
We must ensure that there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. Our reforms will ensure that those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences, and that is possible only if there is enough space to house them. These measures will be crucial to ensuring that we never reach breaking point again; I must respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord that by the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in our prisons than ever before.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, he has done nothing to reassure us that Clause 20 as drafted offers an earned progression model of any kind whatever. These are not temporary changes to relieve prison overpopulation but permanent changes to our justice system. We will, I suspect, return to these on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
“(17) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the provisions of this section so as to provide that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of the sentence unless they have earned such early release through their participation in purposeful activity.(18) “Purposeful activity” means such activity for which the regulations under subsection (17) may provide.(19) The power to make regulations under subsection (17) include powers to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.(20) Regulations under subsection (17) are to be made by statutory instrument.(21) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (17) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 94A touches on an issue that arose in a number of important speeches at Second Reading, particularly one by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I thank the Prisoners’ Education Trust for its advice with this amendment. It relates to the issue of earned progression, which all noble Lords know is at the very heart of the Government’s worthy intention in this Bill: to restore our criminal justice system so that it can once again, in time, be the envy of the world. The issue is what the earned progression model means, or perhaps ought to mean, now and in the future, and it is one of the few differences in approach between the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, or ISR, and the policy of the Bill we are debating.
The executive summary of the Independent Sentencing Review says at page 10:
“While it is for the Government to decide which of the Review’s recommendations it will accept, the Review considers its recommendations as a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.
I believe that the Committee will say amen to that. The ISR’s superb report, produced so speedily and clearly, along with the Minister’s own convictions, experience and obvious passion, are the catalysts for these once-in-a-generation, long-overdue changes to our outdated penal system.
It is not unknown for there to be differences in matters like this, even in those of serious importance. Here, though—and this is important to my amendment—there is good will on all sides and in no way is this amendment intended as anything other than a friendly, and hopefully helpful, contribution. It is obviously right when scrutinising the Bill, as is our duty, that these differences be openly debated.
Put simply, at page 57 of its report, the ISR argues:
“The criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules. Actions which violate prison rules”,
which it then sets out,
“and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings … would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back”.
It goes on:
“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available. This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding”.
The Bill, on the other hand, argues that the criteria for maximum early release will be limited to complying with the prison rules. Once those are complied with, the maximum discount will be available. The arguments for the ISR’s stronger criteria are well known and were set out at Second Reading here and, if I may say so, in an excellent speech by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth MP at Third Reading on 29 October in another place. I can summarise those arguments. First, there is the danger of too many recalls if no purposeful activity has been undertaken by the offender. Secondly, there is no need for positive effort by the offender, who knows that they will be released if they do nothing wrong. Thirdly, there is the even greater pressure on the Probation Service. These are attractive arguments to me and many others; however, the Government’s response must be listened to. I anticipate that they will not oppose the principle that earned progression should involve something more than obeying prison rules, but that the reality of the present position, bequeathed as it undoubtedly has been, is that for the prison system to function in the near future, it is necessary to ensure that prisons are never put under such pressure of numbers. Thus, the Government propose weaker criteria.
This is an important issue, but people of good will who want this new system to work can see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the case. That is why it is important that a way through be found, both now and in the future.
My amendment suggests that there should be a statutory reminder in the Bill that, in due course, regulations should be introduced to alter the criteria for participation in purposeful activity. Indeed, the Minister in the other place said that the Government would like to go further. There are alternatives to my amendment, and we may hear about them in due course.
I will make two urgent points before I sit down. First, there needs to be an even greater effort, as a matter of urgency, to increase the amount of purposeful activity across the board. I pick out education, which is crucial to any future success. It is rumoured that cuts have been made to the education budget. Can the Minister tell us the truth of the matter on cuts? Secondly, all this argument places extra concentration on the Probation Service. As this Committee has heard time and again, it is at the heart of any success or failure of this brave new scheme, and that should be remembered when we are looking at this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am going to comment on Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and then I will present my Amendments 95 and 128. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.
I very much agree with the spirit of the amendment tabled by noble Lord, which he presented very powerfully. As I said at Second Reading, earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, but this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, just reminded us, allows early release at the one-third point without any real rehabilitation having been earned. A prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of prison rules such as offences against discipline; threatening, abusive or violent behaviour; or possessing unauthorised articles.
The experience of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 teaches us that release is truly “earned” only if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation, where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, recognises that the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to purposeful activity is severely limited, and that early release cannot currently depend on engagement in purposeful activity. It therefore proposes an enabling power so that, when the time is right and staff capacity issues allow, provision can be made for purposeful activity to be taken into account in deciding early release at the one-third point of the sentence, not least to give prisoners an incentive to undertake purposeful activity which they otherwise would not have.
I previously supported, and indeed suggested, this approach at Second Reading. However, it raises issues of fair and equal treatment of prisoners, and the quality and consistency of the regime available to them. I listened carefully to the debate on Monday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on mandatory purposeful activity for custodial sentences, and it was clear that there are concerns about the impact on prisoners who are unable to take part in many forms of purposeful activity due to learning or physical disabilities, as well as problems with the estate having insufficient resources to provide such opportunities. Amendment 94A therefore has the potential to create unfairness for prisoners who are not offered such opportunities or cannot take them up for reasons beyond their control. However, I am very interested to know the Minister’s view, especially on when this sort of change might be feasible, since it is obviously sensible when resources allow.
I now turn to my Amendments 95 and 128, beginning with Amendment 95. For certain serious violent and sexual offenders, the Bill retains an automatic release point of 66% without an opportunity for earned release at the halfway point. The new clause introduced by Amendment 95 would bring this cohort into the scope of earned release. The Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise his or her discretion, at the 50% point in the sentence, to refer the case to the Parole Board for consideration of release. It thereby gives effect to the recommendation of the ISR that a progression model apply to all prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence.
This amendment and my next one relating to EDS prisoners would not create the same risk of unfairness that I mentioned in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, since the Parole Board would consider a much wider range of factors than purely “purposeful activity”: for example, whether the offender has worked on addiction issues, whether they have addressed their offending behaviour or whether they will be honest with their offender manager, et cetera.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for earned release, that in addition to compliance with rules to earn early release, there should be meaningful, purposeful activity. Irrespective of how we look on a prison sentence, whether as a punishment, a sanction or a deterrent, engaging in purposeful activity will certainly help prevent recall from early release or reoffending. For all kinds of reasons, it is very important to stop the revolving door of somebody being released from prison and coming back, for one reason or another including reoffending.
In support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I will mention here some work we did at the think tank Politeia, where I am research director. We called it Jailbreak and looked at schemes for what should happen to prisoners once they are sentenced. Among the various proposals that worked was a one-to-one adviser from the moment the offender came in to the moment they were released, who saw they had an education—which has been mentioned before—and that they had engaged in meaningful activity.
Noble Lords might be interested to know about one firm in Sheffield which taught offenders how to make umbrellas and promised them a job on release. Another meaningful activity—if the Minister will forgive my mentioning it—was provided by Timpson, which trained offenders in the craft of shoemaking and repairs, and also offered them a flat when they left, so they could live in a new place to start a new life and cut themselves off from their previous life and contacts, often in a criminal world. These things depended on engaging in meaningful activity, but they certainly contributed to avoiding recall, whether on early release or as a result of reoffending.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 139C takes a rather different approach to the adjudication system. Not for the first time, “The Archers” has drawn to aficionados’ attention issues that we had not considered before, and the adjudication system is a current example. I cannot say that I listened to every episode—although I make quite an effort to do so—but, in that context, an offender who was coming to the end of his sentence had a weapon planted in his cell. He was very worried that he was going to be on the wrong end of an adjudication and that his sentence would continue.
I understand that the current system is handling much larger numbers than would have occurred to me. In a three-month period last year, there were almost 69,000 adjudication outcomes, punishments rose and additional days were imposed more than 1,500 times. I was interested in the consistency between prisons and different governors. The Minister has told us that he gets reports about education and activities. I do not know what comparative records are kept by the MoJ about adjudication outcomes—I am sure that records are kept—and I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that tonight.
I was interested for another reason. I read somewhere —although I could not track it down again—a concern about the quasi-judicial nature of these decisions, which are made without recourse to appeal and without any of the other protections that one might normally see. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister has any comments to share. He had no warning of my asking these questions, so it is probably not fair to expect anything tonight, but I would like to place my concerns on the record. Perhaps he can write later, if he or the MoJ have anything to say.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting group. When the concept of earned progression was originally floated and considered by the Government, considerable stress was laid both on the Texas model and on the concept that there should be an element earning release rather than simply being told that you would be released unless days were added. I agree with the proposition that the concept of earned progression should involve a combination of reward and deterrence. To put it informally, there should be carrot as well as stick.
I also agree—I am sure the Minister does too—that the Bill introduces a scheme of early release provided that no delay on release has been imposed for bad behaviour. Having thought about this, I accept that it is a difficult challenge to import into the Bill more opportunity to earn release by engaging with opportunities for rehabilitative activities in the widest sense. It is certainly difficult to do so without damaging the Government’s desire to ensure that the prison population is limited and reduced.
I was attracted by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular by the way he introduced it and his reasoning. It would give a role to the Parole Board in recognising a prisoner’s earning release. While I found many of the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, persuasive—as I always do—I remain concerned by the element of compulsion in the amendment that would prevent some offenders earning release, through no fault of their own, if they were unable, for whatever reason, to participate in rehabilitative activity. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.
On these Benches, we would welcome proposals from the Government to introduce a measure of incentive to the earned progression model. As I understand it, currently when days are added, there is a quasi-judicial determination by a district judge. One would hope that such a district judge hearing an added-days case would always take into account a prisoner’s progress towards rehabilitation. However, that could be further developed to introduce some statutory element, whereby added-days hearings would always take into account any progress that the offender had made.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments, as they seek to turn the Government’s earned progression scheme from a superficially attractive promise into a credible and responsible model for rehabilitation and, consequently, for public safety. As drafted, with release contingent only on the absence of serious misconduct, the provision does not amount at all to earned progression; it is simply accelerated release by default.
We know from recent evidence that meaningful rehabilitation in prison, such as through education and vocational training work, is far from universal. Only this year, the Government cut the provision of education services for prisoners by 20%, and for some prisons by up to 60%. The Justice Committee’s 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisoners are not engaged in education or employment programmes, and many remain confined for 22 hours a day. In those conditions, expecting that prisoners will earn their release by default is neither realistic nor responsible.
In that light, it is not only reasonable but imperative to link early release to engagement in meaningful activity. That is what Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, seeks to do: it insists that a one-third release point is conditional on participation in meaningful activity. That would ensure that early release is genuinely earned and based on reform rather than simply time served.
Equally, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to embed an earned progression principle for both standard and extended determinate sentences, rather than treating release as an automatic milestone after half the sentence has been served. This makes the model proportionate and conditional on real change, rather than automatic and unearned.
If we accept the Bill without amendments to the supposed progression model, we will knowingly legislate to release on terms we cannot expect to support rehabilitation or protect the public. Frankly, that is not reform; that is risk. But, if we accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we would reprioritise a system that balances the need to manage prison populations with the social imperative of reducing reoffending.
I thank all noble Lords for their submissions on these matters and for the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in reply.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; I thank her for her kind comments about my previous work.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill by regulations, so that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of their sentence unless they have earned release through purposeful activity. I want all prisoners to be in work or education, if they are able; however, we need to be realistic about what is possible in different types of prisons. Currently, prisoners do not have equal access to the full range of classes and employment required to meet their needs. To confirm, our education budget has been increased by 3%—but, unfortunately, that buys us less education. So, while one is up, the other is down. However, I think there are other things I can do to make improvements in that area.
We also need to be mindful that many prisoners may behave well but still struggle to engage with some activities. There are high levels of mental ill-health, trauma and neurodiversity that should be considered, and we often need to meet these needs before engagement with education and work can be productive. As noble Lords know, this is an area that I am passionate about. Positive change is necessary, but it is better achieved through gradual operational and policy improvements rather than legislative measures. I also agree that the Probation Service is vital to the ongoing support of offenders after release.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for Amendments 95 and 128, which address release points for more serious offenders. Regarding Amendment 95, I must clarify that Clause 20 already sets an automatic release point of half way for these offences. Of course, if the offender behaves badly, they could have days added to their sentence. It is essential that the progression model can be implemented quickly and effectively. The best way to do that is via a system which we know works and is legally robust: the existing adjudication system.
Through Amendment 128, the noble Lord also raised an important question about prisoners serving an EDS. It would allow the Secretary of State to refer offenders serving an EDS to the Parole Board for consideration for release at the halfway point of their custodial term. At present, offenders serving an EDS are referred to the board after serving two-thirds of the custodial term, which is a statutory requirement.
The noble Lord’s amendment is similar in effect to a recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review that the extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward to the halfway point. But the Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that, for an offender to receive an extended determinate sentence, the court will have decided that they are dangerous. These are offenders who have committed serious offences, such as rape, other sexual offences or violence against a person. To impose an EDS, the court will have decided that there was a risk of them doing so again in the future. This is not the case with standard determinate sentences. Having seen all the evidence, the trial judge will have imposed a custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the offence. Prison is the right place for dangerous offenders such as these. Our firm view is that they should not be able to achieve an early release through progression and should remain in prison for as long as they do now.
I turn briefly to Amendment 139C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I assure the noble Baroness that we monitor the performance of the adjudication system and it remains under constant review. I get regular data on prisons, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the answers to her question.
We have effective scrutiny structures in place through His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards. They are able to provide valuable insight into the operations of the prisoner adjudication system. To reassure noble Lords, I ask questions about the adjudication system on every prison visit.
As noble Lords are aware, I am passionate about this area and have routinely pressed for improvements, but my view is that this is best achieved through existing monitoring and scrutiny rather than legislation. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all other speakers in this interesting debate on this important part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, although I have one remark for him before I sit down.
The noble Lord accused me, in the nicest possible way, of wanting this to be compulsory. I hoped it was a little bit more careful than that. I am saying that it is for the Government to decide, if progress is made in this area—I venture to think that that might take some time—that they might then bring in a regulation which would have a compulsory element, no doubt with exceptions. My amendment definitely does not seek a compulsory change from the Bill so that it is important that every offender has to have done some purposeful activity. That is not the intention of the amendment; it is to leave it to the Government, but to ask them to bear it in mind when the time is right. Sorry, I put that rather clumsily, but I think he will know what I mean by that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
If I may say, it was only the use of the word “unless” that caused me to think there was an element of compulsion.
Lord Bach (Lab)
I will leave it there. Of course I am going to withdraw the amendment, but this is an important point that we should consider now and in the months to come. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, linked to another in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool, enables an additional condition to be added for consideration by the Secretary of State, when determining if an offender should not be released at the end of the section 255BA automatic release period.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 118 and the related Amendments 114 and 115 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for adding their names to these amendments. I am concerned that the provisions in Part 2, which allow the automatic re-release of recalled offenders after 56 days, will put victims of domestic abuse at serious risk of harm if, as drafted, perpetrators of domestic abuse remain eligible for automatic re-release.
These amendments have the full support of Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. She stated her concerns directly to the Secretary of State, David Lammy, in a letter on 11 November.
For victims and survivors of crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking, their perpetrators know everything about them: where they live and work, where their children go to school, and all their regular routines. They remain fixated on their victims, and escalations in the risks they pose are consistently in relation to particular individuals. If we think about this provision from the perspective of a domestic abuse victim, they are already likely to have been subject to years of abuse before reaching the point where their perpetrator is convicted and sentenced.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 118, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name.
I will start by referring to the basic intention of the Bill, which is to use our prison places more effectively and to focus custody on those who most need to be there—an aim that many support. We all want a system that is proportionate and effective and that reduces the pressure on the prison estate, but we cannot pursue those aims at the expense—whoops, I think I am speaking to the wrong amendment. Are we discussing Amendment 118?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thought so, but I got confused.
Amendment 118 responds to a serious problem: automatic release after 56 days of individuals who have been recalled specifically because they breached the licence condition relating to the victim of the original offence. In other words, they have shown, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, that they are willing, even while on licence, to breach restrictions designed to keep that victim safe. This is a behaviour that may indicate continuing risk, which, under Bill as it stands, will not be assessed before release.
The victims, overwhelmingly women in these circumstances, must not be put in this potential danger. The amendment is essential to ensure that if there is a victim-related breach, the individual is not released automatically. If necessary, the case must go before a parole board—an expert independent body whose very purpose is to assess risk. The Government have been very clear through the Bill that their aim is to ensure that public safety remains paramount. This amendment seeks to deliver on that aim.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments 111 to 113. When asked by the Deputy Chairman, I said that I did not wish to do so, but that was because I did not realise that we had jumped an amendment.
These three amendments concern recall for a fixed term. The first point is the question of whether recall should be for a maximum of 56 days rather than a fixed period of 56 days. As presently structured, recall to prison is to an automatic release date 56 days after the recall occurs. The purpose of my three amendments is both to make the 56-day period a maximum period, not a fixed period, and to make automatic release subject to the exclusion in those cases where it applies—and in that it has much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The process for determining the period will need to be fixed by regulations, but the intention is clear, and I am happy to discuss how substituting a flexible period for a fixed period might be implemented.
The fact is that recalls happen for a number of reasons, some of which may be relatively trivial breaches of conditions. I am concerned—as was my honourable friend Jess Brown-Fuller, the MP for Chichester, who moved similar amendments in the other place—about the effect of a blanket fixed period of recall irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, and believe it may be inappropriate.
It may be that 56 days or eight weeks, which is quite a long time, is far too long for a prisoner who faces recall for missing a probation appointment, for example. It would almost inevitably interfere with work where an offender had found work. It could interfere with housing and educational or rehabilitative programmes in the community. Community programmes are, I understand, typically held open for four weeks, so eight weeks would mean that they were closed. An eight-week recall might have a damaging effect on mental health treatments which a recently released prisoner was undertaking. Addiction programmes might be undesirably affected. A shorter recall might avoid that.
Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of conditions would do nothing to reduce the prison capacity shortage as it continues, while a shorter recall would mitigate it. Other recalls may be much more serious. In such cases, 56 days may be too short a period. The 56-day automatic release provision in our Amendment 113 would take effect subject to the provision excluding automatic releases in serious cases, so that those who had committed more serious offences would not be automatically released at the 56-day point. That might be particularly appropriate if an offender who had been guilty of domestic abuse or stalking had been recalled for intimidating, harassing or stalking their victims. While they would presently be required to be released under the proposals as I understand them, our amendment would rectify this.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would make the cause of an offender’s recall a necessary consideration when determining whether the offender should be released at the end of the automatic release period. This is a prudent approach. We do not want people with a record of breaking probation conditions given the chance to do so again after just 56 days. We therefore support the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for these amendments and for providing me with the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on recall reforms. The policy in this Bill is designed to support rehabilitation and reduce the need for future recalls, but recall remains an essential safeguard to protect the public when risk increases. The 56-day period provides more time to undertake a thorough review of an offender’s release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed. There is a specific focus on mitigating risks against known victims.
I turn first to the amendment tabled to Clause 26 by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The existing recall test set out in operational guidance already provides a clear and robust framework for decision-making. It ensures that recall is used appropriately when risk can no longer be safely managed in the community. Legislation is a blunt and inflexible tool and would create barriers to recall where swift action was needed to protect the public. Let me give a brief illustration. An individual on licence for stalking and harassment begins to show a marked deterioration in their mental health. They commit breaches, entering an exclusion zone and making indirect contact with a victim online. None of those incidents taken alone would have met a rigid statutory test such as imminent risk or persistent non-compliance but, viewed together, they clearly indicate escalating risk.
It is important to note that the clause already includes a power for the Secretary of State to amend the recall power in Section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, specifically to make provision about the circumstances in which a person may or may not be recalled. This means that there is already flexibility to adjust the recall framework in future should evidence show that further refinement is needed. For these reasons, it is not necessary to legislate to amend the recall threshold at this time, but I am keen to review what more can be done beyond the Bill to bear down on the use of recall and ensure that it is really the last resort.
The offences listed in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are extremely serious. While some of these cases would fall within the scope of the new recall model, many of the perpetrators of the offences referenced are excluded. This is because they will have received life sentences or extended determinate sentences and therefore remain subject to standard recall arrangements. This means that their re-release will be subject to approval by the Parole Board or the Secretary of State.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can I ask for a bit of advice on the procedure, because we got slightly out of order in this group? Mistakenly, the first four amendments in the group were not moved but were then spoken to. I stood up first and spoke to Amendment 114, so I am not quite sure whether it is me who is meant to reply to the Minister, but if everyone is happy and Jake the clerk is happy, then I am happy.
I thank the Minister for his response, but the Domestic Abuse Commissioner feels that she has genuine reasons for concern. It would be helpful, if the Minister agrees, for him to meet us between now and Report. We feel strongly enough that if we are not able to resolve this to her satisfaction, we will certainly want to bring it back on Report and may take it to a Division.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am very happy to meet as suggested. It is a very good idea.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
COP 30
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment and welcome him to the Front Bench. The Secretary of State in the other place is fond of talking of the United Kingdom as a trailblazer. As the shadow Secretary of State in the other place outlined, we are—but for all the wrong reasons. We are the first country to voluntarily close down our own domestic energy supply and to voluntarily hike our own energy bills. We are not an example to the world: we are a warning.
Since the COP summit, it seems that the department has started to come to its senses. Monday’s termination of a liquified natural gas project in Mozambique is a welcome step. It was a typically green initiative with a well-meaning façade that was, in practice, damaging, as LNG gas emits four times more carbon than the North Sea off our very shores. These overseas initiatives are used to prop up a narrative of reduced emissions while simultaneously causing more harm to the natural world, and they encompass a whole one-third of our energy system.
Sadly, the Secretary of State’s Statement demonstrates that he has not returned from Brazil enlightened and that the department is still bound by his damaging ideology. He cites three achievements that he came back with from the summit. The first was the commitment to continue cutting global emissions towards net zero, which he said needed to be achieved by 2050. It should be noted that the Statement also acknowledged that the UK accounts for just under 1% of global emissions. That number has in fact halved in the past 20 years. Does the Minister not agree that this proves that the United Kingdom has already played its part in the net-zero drive?
Unfortunately, this COP 30 achievement will undoubtedly now be used to justify the continuation of his campaign to wreak utter havoc on the North Sea industry. The tired old clichés of a declining basin will be the response of the Government, and we have come to expect this narrative. But let us examine the human cost: 1,000 jobs per month, companies drawing back from investing and energy bills spiralling. I draw noble Lords’ attention to north of the border, where the Government are responsible for destroying what remains of Scotland’s industrial base. Alexander Dennis, Mossmorran, Grangemouth: going, going, gone. Is it time to accept that we need to face the root cause of this deindustrialisation, namely high energy costs and the effects of government green diktats?
The second achievement that the Secretary of State trumpets is a commission to reduce emissions through working with the finance industry. Again, this achievement will not benefit the British people. Investment will not be channelled into reducing bills. The Government’s team returned from Brazil with a pledge to scale up funding for developing countries to $1.3 trillion. It is internationalism at the expense of the British people.
The Statement mentioned nothing of the £60 billion investment required to build energy infrastructure in our own country to meet the Government’s artificially hastened 2030 net-zero target for the electricity grid, and nothing of the £3 billion annual government policy cost to turn off the wind farms.
There was nothing on the investment desperately needed in our nuclear sector. Cutting emissions is a noble aim, but the Government are undertaking it in a haphazard and ideologically blinkered manner, all to the detriment of the British people.
Thirdly, there is the announcement of not one but two road maps: one to cut fossil fuels and one to cut deforestation. The Government already have a road map to cut fossil fuels. In fact, John Fingleton’s nuclear report was published last Monday. The Government seemed to have accepted the recommendations on Monday, but let us see if that translates into a policy U-turn. Will the Minister outline to the House the timetable for the implementation of the Fingleton recommendations in legislative terms?
I offer the same argument for the deforestation road map. One of the primary drivers of nature depletion in the UK is a sprawl of solar and wind farms across our countryside. If the Government want to put a halt to deforestation, it could begin at home. This unfortunately means moving away from the endless expansion of solar. The Government cannot have it both ways. Once again, they need to build more nuclear.
This summit and the Secretary of State’s Statement will, unfortunately, do nothing to help British people with the exorbitant cost of energy, where our industrial energy prices are seven times those of China and four times those of the US. Even if wholesale energy prices halve in the next five years, electricity bills will still be £200 higher per household. That is the direct cost of government policy. No number of multilateral commitments will ease that burden. Only a radically different approach to energy and a comprehensive plan for cheap energy will take us forward.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead. I pay tribute to his experience and look forward to working opposite him going forward.
COP is 30 years old and multilateralism, as frustrating as it can be, remains the only practical means of protecting our shared home, planet Earth, and progressing our joint efforts to ensure the survival of future human generations. Here in the UK, the Met Office’s State of the UK Climate in 2024 report confirmed that the UK is warming at approximately 0.25 degrees per decade, with the past three years ranking among the five warmest since records began in 1884. While some continue to deny the existence of climate change, last year in the UK we had the worst-ever wildfire season and the second-worst harvest on record.
Our world is warming faster than we can change our carbon-based ways, and even more extreme weather is inevitable. I thank Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive. It is testimony to global co-operation that, despite the challenges, 194 parties united to adopt the text, confirming that the global transition towards low emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible.
It is important to acknowledge that collective progress since the Paris Agreement has bent the emissions curve, moving projected warming from over 4 degrees Celsius to the 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius range. However, we cannot celebrate incremental progress when the future of our planet remains in jeopardy.
The final text acknowledged that the collective progress is
“not sufficient to achieve the temperature goal”
and that the carbon budget consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now small and being rapidly depleted. The COP text acknowledges that there is likely to be an “overshoot” of the 1.5 degrees Celsius, the extent and duration of which we must work collectively to limit. This is a stark warning and my concern is that Governments have failed to grasp the urgency of the climate emergency.
Any delay in action will push millions of vulnerable people further into poverty and lead to climate breakdown. Urgency must be met with decisive global leadership, yet the UK Government’s commitment to this leadership has been undermined by a lack of financial support. While the negotiations resulted in ambitious financial targets, such as the call to scale up financing to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2025 and the reward target to scale up and at least triple adaptation finance by 2035, the UK’s financial contributions failed to materialise.
The UK was acknowledged for working with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility. This vital fund aims to prevent deforestation, yet while that fund secured $9.5 billion in commitments and was endorsed by 53 countries, the UK Government did not contribute. I note that the Secretary of State said in the other place:
“We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 247.]
We hope this is the case. Will the Minister say what non-financial contributions the Government are able to make?
We remain concerned about the UK’s official development assistance and the cuts to those programmes. They are vital programmes helping those on the front line of climate change to adapt. Global leadership could see the UK as part of the chair of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, working alongside Brazil, and using remote monitoring to help detect methane leaks and using our world-leading oil and gas expertise to help fix them.
The Government rightly acknowledge that the transition away from fossil fuels is critical, and that it was
“the hardest sticking point in the talks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 241.]
Despite a broad coalition of 83 countries backing a road map away from fossil fuels, the final text tragically contained no explicit reference to the phase-out. At home, we welcome the commitment to no new oil exploration in the North Sea. More must be done to bring about energy market reforms, reduce energy bills and insulate our homes urgently. Many parliamentarians, including me, attended the National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature crisis last week, which called for an emergency-style Marshall plan. I call on the Government to engage with and take heed of these calls for urgent, sustained action.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, the climate crisis is the greatest long-term challenge we face, but, equally, the transition to clean energy is the greatest economic opportunity of our time. Emissions from energy being some 70% of emissions overall means that the path to clean energy is an essential part of tackling the climate crisis, not just in the UK but across the world. At home, our commitment to clean energy is about energy security, lower bills and good jobs. Globally, with the UK responsible for just 1% of emissions, working with other nations is the only way to protect our way of life and seize the opportunities of a green economy.
We are reflecting today on the outcomes of the COP 30 conference in Belém. More than 190 countries met in Belém, where the Brazilian-framed COP 30 focused on implementation. The UK worked with Brazil and partners to put forests at the heart of the agenda and supported global coalitions to cut methane, phase out coal and accelerate clean energy investment. The negotiations were tough, but progress was made on three critical fronts, and they will be reflected in some of the further questions that I think will follow from the Statement this evening.
The first goal is keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to 1.5 degrees Celsius global net zero by mid-century and encouraged countries to raise their targets where needed to support this. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, underlined, we are quite a way from that, and some of the more faint-hearted among us may think that it is a target we cannot reach now. I accept that it is very difficult, but the signs are good that there are some possibilities to moving further towards making that target achievable, such as new commitments from China, for example, in its NDC coming into the COP at this stage. China has pledged to cut its emissions significantly for the first time. Indeed, 120 countries so far have come forward with 2035 NDC, with large numbers coming up in the next year, including India, which is an important actor in this realm.
Secondly, there is finance for developing nations, building on the COP 29 pledge to mobilise $300 billion annually and scale towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP 30 agreed to pursue efforts to treble adaptation finance by 2035 within the climate finance goal agreed last year, ensuring that vulnerable nations have the resilience they need. The UK was active in that area.
Thirdly, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, is going to like this very much, there is the transition away from fossil fuels. While a universal road map could not be agreed, 83 countries and 140 organisations endorsed the concept that Brazil will launch road maps on fossil fuels and deforestation, showing that coalitions of the willing can drive progress even where unanimity is elusive. The UK very much welcomed that coalition of the willing and will work closely with the Brazilians to move that commitment forward, even though it was not the final communiqué as far as the COP itself was concerned.
The mutirão agreement advanced carbon markets, gender, technology, technology transfer and transparency. Importantly, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement and multilateral action. That is essential right now as far as the crisis we are in is concerned.
I shall now briefly answer some of the points raised by noble Lords this evening. Perhaps before I do that, I could just express, as a newcomer to this place, my extreme disappointment—almost distress—about the abrupt turn that the party opposite has taken on its commitments on climate change and all that is associated with it. I certainly recollect in my time in the other place working closely with many thoroughly dedicated Members on the Conservative side in bringing forward what Britain was going to do about climate change and how we would go forward together to achieve those goals. Indeed, I was a member of the committee that brought in the net-zero target as far as UK emissions are concerned. Noble Lords will recall that that was when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Prime Minister. Indeed, she is one of the noble Lords who have, in effect, denounced this pivot away from action and support for net zero as a target for the UK and serious action on climate change. I am afraid that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, thoroughly reflected that pivot and simply did not address the issues at COP and what we need to do together as far as those issues are concerned.
The Government’s commitment on North Sea gas and net zero is clear. Our commitment to clean energy is about delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs—400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. So this is not a threat but an opportunity as far as a low-carbon future is concerned. Indeed, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine illustrates the cost of relying on fossil fuels. Globally, twice as much is now invested in clean energy as in fossil fuels. Globally, renewables have this year overtaken coal as the largest source of electricity. The economics have shifted and the direction of travel is clear, and it is distressing to hear the party opposite going in precisely the opposite direction. I hope that wisdom will prevail in the longer term and that we will be back together with a consensus on where we go on climate change in the future.
I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that on nuclear the Government have committed £63 billion in capital funding for clean energy, climate and nature, including nuclear, putting the UK on a path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, creating thousands of good jobs for our country and tackling the climate change crisis.
In relation to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 1.5 degrees, as I have mentioned, we need great ambition—of course we do—but we should also recognise the progress that has been made since the Paris Agreement. The final text agreed on action to take in the form of the Belém Mission to 1.5 and the Global Implementation Accelerator, as well as countries’ commitments to net zero that can be built on. In respect of Brazil’s new fund for forests, the UK has played a big role in helping to support Brazil to design the TFFF. We have a difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have absolutely not ruled out—I stress that—contributing to it in the future. We are determined that the fund succeeds and will continue to work with Brazil to help ensure that it does.
The message from Belém is clear: clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being rebuilt. They are good for Britain because they deliver jobs, investment and energy security. They lower bills for families and businesses, and they are the only way to protect future generations from the threat of climate breakdown.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the new Minister to your Lordships’ House and to his role, and welcome particularly his response to the noble Lord, Lord Offord.
Central Hall Westminster on the morning of 27 November was very crowded. I did not see the Minister there and I appreciate that he had many other things to be doing at the time, but that of course was when the National Emergency Briefing to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred was being held, when 10 of the UK’s leading scientific experts spoke to the packed hall, addressing our interrelated climate and nature emergency. Given the, I am afraid, limited outcome of COP, particularly in the failure unanimously to agree the road map on transitioning away from fossil fuels, those experts asked for a televised emergency briefing to the nation to explain to the country the urgency of the crisis that we face. Are the Government prepared to support that call and act on it? What else are the Government planning to do to highlight the reality of the emergency situation we are now in, as demonstrated by the dreadful floods in Asia—Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand—where the death toll is already more than 1,400?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right that we are seeing in front of us right now all the things that the scientists said were going to happen. They have been proved absolutely right. So the first thing we need to do is stick to the science, make sure that whatever we do is in line with the science and explain that science to the country in a very clear way: if we do not do these various things, we can already see the results of inaction in front of us. While I cannot commit this evening to a national televised discussion on how we go forward, what I can commit to is the continuation of the attempt by this Government to explain very clearly what they are doing, for example, on clean energy and why that is absolutely essential to keeping our hopes of 1.5 degrees open and making sure that as a result of that—for the episodes that we are now seeing, a lot of this is baked in, obviously, to the climate warming we have already—there is the possibility of a better, safer, cleaner and more prosperous world in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I pay tribute to Secretary of State Miliband for his sheer commitment working towards COP 30—building, let us not forget, on the work that the previous Government achieved, led particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Goldsmith. Those were Conservative commitments.
However, I note that in the language around coal and fossil fuels at successive COPs, there has been a great weakening, from the “phasing out” of Glasgow through “phasing down” to “transitioning away” and now to a weak plan and pathway. It was St Basil the Great who spoke about us always having two different paths,
“one broad and easy, the other hard and narrow”,
and that within our minds we are always working out which path to take. Basil said:
“The soul is confused and dithers in its calculations. It prefers pleasure when it is looking at the present; it chooses virtue when its eye is on eternity”.
If we are serious about keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees—an immense task in itself—does the Minister agree that we need to use bold language in the UK to show global leadership and to press those who have walked away from the Paris Agreement to follow the path of virtue?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question, which I very substantially agree with and find very little to disagree with. It is essential that we use bold language in moving forward as far as this crisis is concerned, and it is essential that globally we stick to what we have said at successive COPs—and I accept that some of the wording has been weakened over successive COPs—on moving away from fossil fuels and bringing in clean low-carbon power. It is fair to say that the UK has used bold language on this and continues to pursue policies which indicate the practical aspects of that bold language as far as the UK’s commitment is concerned. We were disappointed and would like to have gone further as far as the language and commitments of COP 30 were concerned, but I remind noble Lords that there was this commitment by 80 nations to pursue moving away from fossil fuels, and a great deal of activity from the Brazilians following on from COP 30. All is not lost in this activity, and I look forward to that being considerably strengthened and taken forward as we move from this COP to the next COP.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the way to increase energy bills is to go on with fossil fuels, which are the most expensive, and that the idea that we get cheaper energy by extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea when we would be paying the international price for them is not sensible? Does he also agree that if Britain does not keep to this excellent policy, produced by Conservative Governments again and again, and supported by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, we cannot ask anybody else to do it? Would it not be the very worst thing for the British people to make global warming worse so that we have a climate in which we cannot live properly? Is it not the shortest of views not to recognise that we have to move as rapidly as possible to protect our children and grandchildren? Is it not about time we grew up and learnt the realities of life?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As on so many other occasions, I cannot find myself disagreeing with a single word the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says on this subject. I have been, frankly, in awe of his commitment and clarity on this issue over many years as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Indeed, we have spoken on a number of joint platforms with precisely this view in mind. The only thing I would add is to remind noble Lords that the recent fuel price crisis was a fossil fuel crisis of the volatility of global gas prices and it exposed the extent we are in hock to fossil fuels in a way that we would not be if we had a much lower portion of fossil fuels in our economy—preferably none at all. We would have a much more stable energy economy and a great deal of new investment and jobs to go with it.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
My Lords, I am often dismayed at opposition to taking action on climate change, not simply out of a point of principle but because I am one of a number of mayors—well, I am a former mayor—around the world who have been urging national Governments and multinational organisations to create the conditions in which we can take action on climate change. I have just come back from the C40 World Mayors Summit in Rio—250 to 300 mayors getting together before COP because they were concerned that COP would not deliver the impetus for the scale and pace of change that we need. Those mayors are saying that they want to take action on climate change, not simply out of abstract principle but because, first, they see the huge economic opportunity in it and, secondly, they see the opportunity to avoid huge future costs—the impact of climate change on our physical infrastructure and cities being on the receiving end of the consequences of climate change; for example, migration. They are doing it not because they think it is just a nice thing to do; in the UK, from Bristol to Glasgow to Brighton, cities across this country are taking action.
In terms of bringing a question and a challenge, something missing from the Statement was cities. We have been making the case that, on the sheer math, 55% of the world’s population now lives in cities—it will be two-thirds by 2050—and we need to move to delivery, not just statements and, dare I say, not just language. What can we do to elevate the voice of cities and make them a formal part of climate negotiation processes?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Rees has a tremendous record of taking action on global warming and low-carbon economies in his own city of Bristol. The question of how cities bring to bear the enormous potential of their action alongside Governments nationally and internationally has long been recognised in terms of the Curitiba commitment and other things, where cities across the world have banded together to take local and sub-national action alongside national and international action. My recipe for this continuing is to encourage UK cities to take part in those international joint city arrangements and become partners in global green gas carbon emissions reductions, which can take place at all levels. COPs have increasingly recognised that and have enabled cities to play a much greater role in discussions as those COPs progress.
Lord Lilley (Con)
If the noble Lord, Lord Rees, my noble friend Lord Deben and the Secretary of State are right that the cost of renewables is on a declining curve and already cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, that will be a wonderful thing, but can the Minister explain why, if they are cheaper, we need to guarantee for 20 years a price in real terms for renewables backed up by subsidies in the shape of state-financed back-up power for when renewables are not producing and therefore cannot compete with fossil fuels?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is because the model of how renewables develop is precisely the opposite of how fossil fuels develop. They are very capital-intensive and, after that, the power that comes from them is, in essence, free. Therefore, we need to establish, through capital support in particular, those renewable arrangements which can give us in perpetuity that cheap power for the future. These things in essence are not subsidies; they are investments in how that power reaches us for the future. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I have had debates in the other place, that this discussion will continue, but I very much stand by my view—and accept he stands by his view—that non-fossil fuel power is inevitably going to be cheaper, more secure and more reliable than the fossil fuel economy we have at the moment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since there is time, I very much appreciated the tone and the energy of the Minister’s response to my initial question, but that, and all our discussion, very much focused on the energy side of tackling the climate emergency. I hope the Minister will agree that, as was stressed at the National Emergency Briefing, the climate emergency and nature crisis are intimately interlinked. At that briefing, Professor Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford and founder of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative there, spoke about the incredibly parlous state of nature in the UK and the impact that is having on human health as well as on the climate. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government really are focused on and understand that interlinkage between nature and climate?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed. At COP 30, the essential integration of nature and climate change was emphasised both in the communique at the end and during discussions. I can assure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are absolutely alive to this. In terms of investment in nature funds, we have shown practically that we are willing to, as it were, put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we are full players in the international integration of nature and climate change action.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I still did not understand the answer from the Minister. If renewables are cheaper, why do they need a subsidy and a guaranteed price, just because they need a lot of capital up front? The same is true of most industries and it is simply not a convincing reply.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, these underwritings are not permanent.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
They are usually for 15 years, which means that a renewable development that is subject to that underwriting has, at the end of 15 years, a fully amortised and free energy solution for the future. Therefore, it is tremendously good long-term value, as far as that energy supply is concerned, to have that initial undertaking, which reduces and goes down to zero after that 15-year period.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would the Minister remind my noble friend that this was precisely the reason why the Conservatives invented this system at the time? It was done because we have a present system of very large companies, with a great deal of money, pushing fossil fuels all the time. If you are going to replace that, you have to provide an alternative. That is what was done, it is what the Conservative Governments continued to do, and what the present Government absolutely properly have continued.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed, and the noble Lord will recall that the previous system of renewable obligations was a continued underwriting, whereas the CfDs we now have are an investment reducing over time, leading to the implementation of secure long-term supplies of renewable energy. I am happy to pay tribute to the then Conservative Government for effectively inventing CfDs, which were a tremendous step forward from the previous arrangements. Among other things, they have certainly secured the enormous increase in wind and other forms of renewables that have come forward as a result. If only the Conservative Government had not banned onshore wind last time, we would be even further forward.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
“(4A) In section 244(1A) (duty to release prisoners not subject to special provision for release), for “and”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “to”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the insertion by clause 29 of the new section 255BA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (automatic release from recall) and ensures that section 244(1A) of that Act, which cross refers to the recall provisions, includes a reference to this new section.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 120 is in my name. I will also speak to Amendments 123 and 124 in my name. These three amendments are minor and technical, and we have tabled them as small but necessary changes to ensure that the Bill functions as intended. I begin by explaining the changes to Clause 29 through Amendment 120. This is a necessary technical amendment which ensures that the new automatic release from recall regime is integrated into the legislative framework and functions as needed. The changes to Clause 34, through Amendments 123 and 124, are also technical. They update cross-references so that existing powers which allow the Secretary of State to amend the number of hours specified in an unpaid work requirement continue to function correctly in light of the amendments made by Clause 34. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank the Minister for his series of drafting amendments, which seek to tidy up the language and cross-references in the Bill. We on these Benches do not oppose the amendments, which will make things clearer for anyone reading the Bill in future.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his view on these minor and consequential amendments.
“Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision(1) Where an offender is—(a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision, and(b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision,the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address.(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where—(a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm, (b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender, or(c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice.(3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including—(a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals,(b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour, or(c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court.(4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must—(a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible, and(b) seek approval by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days, and in the absence of such approval the variation of the terms will not be effective.(5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall not have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been approved by the court.(6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 122, which is on page 25 of the Marshalled List, would give the Probation Service the power to change the required residence of an offender under supervision, and to make necessary consequential changes to the probation conditions and terms that apply to that offender’s probation. Any such change would, however, be subject to the approval of the sentencing court.
This amendment is about trusting probation officers to do their job by giving them the power to tailor probation terms to the needs of individuals under their supervision. It would have the incidental benefit of saving the court’s time. The safeguard is, however, the requirement for approval by the sentencing court, but it is to be imagined that in most cases that would be a formal procedure. It is right that the sentencing courts have ultimate control, but I would confidently expect the proposed changes sought by probation officers to be approved.
This amendment is all about trusting probation officers to tailor the probation over which they have supervision to the needs of individual offenders. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, which concerns the power of the Probation Service to vary residence requirements and associated conditions of supervision.
I begin by saying that we on these Benches appreciate the intention behind the amendment. The ability to move an offender from one address to another, particularly where there is a risk to a partner, former partner or family member, is plainly necessary in some circumstances. The Probation Service must have the tools to protect victims and to manage offenders effectively. This amendment seeks to provide a clearer statutory framework for doing so.
The amendment rightly provides that, where the Probation Service makes any such variation, it must return to the sentencing court for approval within 14 days of the confirmation. That is an important safeguard; the offender, the interested parties and the court must all be properly kept in the picture. However, we would welcome greater clarity from the Minister on how, in practice, the Probation Service would assess necessity, ensure proportionality and manage the additional administrative and supervisory burdens that such powers might create. Probation must also be properly resourced and supported.
We are also mindful that changing an offender’s residence could have profound consequences, not only for supervision and risk management but for the offender himself, in the form of employment, family ties and wider stability that underpins rehabilitation. The threshold for such a direction must therefore be robust, evidence-based and truly transparent.
In that spirit, I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that the objectives behind this amendment—protecting victims and enabling better offender management—are achievable within existing powers, or, if not, that the Government will consider whether a more tightly defined mechanism might be appropriate. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising these issues, and we look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, it is, and should remain, the role of the court in sentencing to determine the requirements that should apply to a particular community sentence and how they are varied. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out, it is vital that risk is managed quickly and effectively. This is particularly important in cases where, for example, domestic abuse is of concern.
Where an individual has been sentenced to a community or suspended sentence, probation practitioners undertake comprehensive assessments to ensure that risk is identified throughout an order and managed early. This means that they can take appropriate action to respond to that risk, ensuring offenders are monitored effectively. This includes applying to the court, where appropriate, which has powers to vary the requirements of a sentence, including the powers to revoke a community order and to resentence, where it would be in the interests of justice.
We are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This helps prison and probation services manage offenders effectively and ensures that victims are better protected. Before making a relevant order containing a residency requirement, the court must consider the home surroundings of the offender.
The court can already give probation the power to approve a change of residence when requested by the offender—for example, where an offender would like to move closer to where they were undertaking a programme or to their place of employment. Offenders released on licence from a custodial sentence can already be required to comply with residence obligations. These can be varied as required, either by probation or the Parole Board, as appropriate, depending on the offender’s sentence.
To be clear, if an offender fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an order, they can be returned to court to face further penalties, including custody. I hope the noble Lord will agree that there are sufficient existing processes in place, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am not sure that I understand the rationale for saying that there are already existing powers in the Probation Service. That is something I wish to talk to the Minister about, and I am sure he will be happy to do that. We are very keen that the Probation Service be trusted to make such alterations on its own, subject to the approval of the sentencing court. We absolutely agree on that. However, currently I am not quite sure where the Government stand on this. It appears to me that they are too reliant on the sentencing court and too little reliant on the Probation Service, but I am sure that that is something we will discuss. While we discuss that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Verdirame
“(1A) Subsection (1) of section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not apply when a fixed-term prisoner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three years.(1B) A fixed-term prisoner is not to be removed under section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the prisoner to serve the remaining custodial period in the country to which the prisoner is to be removed.(1C) A fixed-term prisoner is not to be removed under section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the interests of justice are not defeated by the removal (having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact of the offender’s criminal conduct on those affected by it).(1D) Subsection (1) of section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not apply in relation to a prisoner detained in accordance with subsection (4)(b) of that section after returning to the UK following a previous removal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to add certain limits to early removals to ensure that the interests of justice and those of victims are taken into account, and that early removals do not result in impunity.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. If I had, I would have said that there are many positive things about the Bill. However, I have tabled this amendment, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, because I consider Clause 32 to be an unsatisfactory aspect of the Bill.
Clause 32 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable the removal of an offender from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation from the United Kingdom, so that removal can happen at any time after sentence. Any foreign offender on a fixed-term sentence would be eligible for deportation without serving any part of their custodial sentence.
The Government have chosen to go beyond the recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. The review had proposed reducing the removal point from 50% to 30% of the custodial sentence, and that recommendation has already been implemented by statutory instrument. The review also recommended that foreign offenders sentenced to three years or less could be removed more swiftly—even before they had served any part of their sentence. However, Clause 32 does not include the three-year limit.
Some of the practical and principle problems with this change in the law were spelled out in an article in the Spectator last August by Professor Ekins from Policy Exchange’s judicial power project and the University of Oxford. He argued that this change in the law risks creating “perverse incentives” for foreign offenders, who would be able to commit serious crimes in the United Kingdom with relative impunity. Serious crimes would not be treated consistently or as their moral gravity warrants.
The new policy is said to have public support. It is true that the public, if asked, “Do you want foreign offenders to be deported?” will likely say yes by an overwhelming majority. But, if the questions are, “Do you want foreign offenders to go unpunished?” or, “Do you think British offenders should be punished more severely than foreign offenders for the same crime?”, I suspect the response would be rather different. To be clear, I am not opposed to the principle that a foreign offender should be removed after serving time in prison. The question is whether we as a country should give up on punishing and rehabilitating foreign offenders and instead deport them without any punishment.
The review recommended three years as the limit because it considered that foreign national offenders sentenced to three years or less would serve the equivalent of a short prison sentence and, in those circumstances, deportation could be viewed as punishment—although I must admit that, for my part, I have some difficulty with the notion that deportation itself is a form of punishment. Where the individual is already liable to deportation, it cannot be said to constitute a new punishment. But, more fundamentally, being deported is simply not the same as going to prison, and how punitive deportation is will depend on the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime. As Professor Ekins argues, it is very obviously not true that deportation is a punishment comparable with a lengthy term of imprisonment for offences such as rape, robbery or drug or people trafficking.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I have Amendment 141A in this group, probing the position with regard to people who have been victims or survivors of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic abuse.
The large majority of black and minoritised migrant women in contact with the criminal justice system are survivors of human trafficking and/or violence against women and girls. This often happens when a trafficker or abuser identifies their vulnerability, often resulting from unmet basic needs such as housing, income and healthcare. Their criminal convictions will have stemmed very often from the abuse they have suffered, and whether they were coerced into offending or acting under the influence of unaddressed trauma.
In the case of women, particularly, who have been trafficked, we know that the section—I forget the number—in the Modern Slavery Act that seeks to protect them is not working well. The very fact of deportation adds to the vulnerability to abuse; it often leaves the person subject to it without accommodation or income, and it removes community and support networks, in many cases leaving them in a place they are not familiar with. The risk of deportation has a similar effect. A person may be left without ways in which to meet their basic needs and in fear, and the fear itself adds to the vulnerability, which is capitalised on by abusers. This is particularly true for people who are already traumatised by previous abuse and exploitation.
We know that victims of human trafficking and modern slavery—and victims of domestic abuse—need specialist support and protection from re-exploitation and further abuse. I have used the term “she” because very often, mostly, it is a she. We know too that women have particular needs, largely stemming from their own backgrounds.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name. I will also briefly comment on the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I too have great sympathy with his comments and have read the interesting article that Richard Ekins KC produced in the Spectator on 11 August. The noble Lord outlines the case very eloquently and I am minded to support his amendment because it is logical and sensible. It really goes to the heart of a philosophical debate about whether the Government’s proposals essentially forget the raison d’être of rehabilitation, re-education and punishment. If the system is predisposed just to deport someone then you are not really concentrating on some key aspects of the criminal justice system with regard to incarceration. The noble Lord’s comments and amendment are therefore logical.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think that, as usual, her heart is in the right place but, in this case, her amendment would gum up the system and be misused by, in my opinion, activist judges to prevent the deportation of people who should be deported for the public good, safety and security. I therefore cannot support it.
I will not dwell too long on Amendment 142. It is pretty straightforward and the hour is late, but I do want to discuss at reasonable length my Amendment 146. We are now reaching the end of the Bill; we are on Part 4 and Clause 42, which is on the deportation of foreign national offenders. My amendment seeks to ensure that all British citizens, including those in Northern Ireland, can rely on their Government and their sovereign Parliament in Westminster to enact legislation on their behalf, including Clause 42, which was passed without vote, as I understand, in the other place.
However, due to the iniquitous and unfair Windsor Framework and the capitulation by the previous Government—of my party, sadly—in putting it into legislation, thereby making Northern Ireland an effective colony of the European Union, this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland. Its people, who are British citizens, subjects of the Crown and taxpayers, will again be treated as second-class citizens as a result of this Bill, if my amendment is not accepted. Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework effectively disregards the will of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, of this unitary state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in favour of a foreign legal entity and a foreign jurisdiction—laws over which residents of Northern Ireland have no say and whose fundamental rights are circumscribed; they do not have equal citizenship with UK citizens in England, Wales and Scotland.
These people are subject to the direct effect of Union law—European Union law, made in a foreign Parliament, designed by a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy and unelected politicians who appoint each other—by virtue of Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives direct effect to such provisions automatically as part of UK domestic law, subject to those EU provisions. This, of course, trumps all UK domestic law, for the Supreme Court has opined:
“The answer to any conflict between the Protocol”—
that is, the Windsor Framework—
“and any other enactment whenever passed or made is that those other enactments are to be read and have effect subject to the rights and obligations which are to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 7A(2)”.
Yes, a Conservative Government legislated to make UK law permanently subservient to EU law in a significant part of the United Kingdom. In fact, this affects 300 areas of law across every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for my voice. I will try to keep going. It is not actually hurting the way it sounds, so noble Lords need not feel too much sympathy. I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and support Amendment 146, which I have signed.
Most of the Bill, as noble Lords know, does not apply to Northern Ireland, but Part 4 does. These very important amendments deal with deporting foreign criminals. I very much support the Government’s move to do that, but I hope the Committee needs no reminding that this House passed three Bills recently that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, but we then discovered the courts overruled that. We had the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act. We have had legal opinion from the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also not be able to apply. We were not able to bring in the export of live animals for slaughter Act to the whole United Kingdom as it does not apply in Northern Ireland.
The Minister is probably hearing this for the first time. Many Ministers have had to sit through statutory instruments in which those of us who wish to bring out the injustices of the Windsor Framework have been able to do so. However, Article 2 of the Windsor Framework overrules the sovereign Parliament; it very simply says that EU laws—laws that are not made in this House but by a foreign institution—overrule what our sovereign Parliament says. Whatever the history of this, and whatever party brought it in, we should all be beginning to realise that this is just not sustainable.
The three pieces of legislation to which I have referred have been overruled in respect of the people of Northern Ireland, due to parts of that legislation that offended EU rights and legislation. In the well-known Dillon case, the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law. The relevant parts of the Dillon judgment are now before the Supreme Court, and we hope to get a judgment on that soon, which will give us more context to see how we are being affected by the Windsor Framework.
This specific amendment deals with the deportation of foreign criminals. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, if a foreign criminal is an EU citizen already living in Northern Ireland and this law comes in, they will have enhanced protection against deportation. If they are not an EU citizen but a foreign criminal from somewhere else in the world who is living in Northern Ireland, they are also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have if they were living in Great Britain, because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter Of Fundamental Rights. I do not need to tell noble Lords that Article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined and that there cannot be a provision for automatic deportation. Part 4 of this Bill is going to do precisely that: for a foreign criminal convicted in our courts, the presumption will be towards deporting them.
Anyone with any common sense must think that it would be outrageous if we end up with a law that says that a foreign criminal living in Great Britain and found guilty can be deported but that a foreign criminal living in another part of our own country, the United Kingdom, cannot. That is something we need to address. The Minister never seems to want to tell us whether he has had legal advice from the Attorney-General, but if he has, he will probably say that this is okay. But they have said that on three Bills, and each time they have been proved wrong. Noble Lords will forgive me if there is a little scepticism about how the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland.
It is an important issue not only for Northern Ireland’s citizens but for citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom. At some stage, we have to look at the constitutional issue of whether we can, in our own country, make our own laws that apply to the whole country. That really does need addressing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, there is nothing about this in the Explanatory Notes—it has been completely ignored. The purpose of tonight’s amendment is to raise this issue and make it clear that many people believe that this will not be able to apply to Northern Ireland, and to ask the Minister to say very clearly that, if this Bill goes through, there will be an absolute determination—whatever it takes—to make sure that it applies in Northern Ireland.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is good to see that even a hoarse and croaky voice cannot silence her.
I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. I particularly commend Amendment 146, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which offers a common-sense solution to a very real problem. As has been indicated by the previous two speakers, this is yet another problem that has undoubtedly arisen because of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It is clear that we need a much more fundamental solution that tackles and recasts that relationship.
While we await that solution from government, and a recognition of the need to embrace that, we cannot simply sit on our hands and hope that everything will be alright until then, because this represents a real undermining of the Bill itself. Even the strongest supporter of the Windsor Framework or the protocol would have to admit that their application in these circumstances represents a high level of overreach. If the rationale behind our current arrangements with the EU as regards Northern Ireland is to regulate trade and try to protect the EU single market then the issues of the deportation of foreign criminals and immigration stand a mile away. They serve no purpose in the supposed objectives of that relationship.
There is a very good reason why issues around deportation are handled on a national basis, in whichever nation it happens to be. If there are regional variations within a country on issues such as deportation, that is, frankly, a road down which lies madness. That is what is being threatened by the current position we are left in. The Government in recent weeks have laid out a range of measures to try to help tackle and be serious about dealing with illegal immigration and foreign criminals, some of which are contained within this legislation. However, if the Government are to be successful in this objective, but do not tackle the issue relating to Northern Ireland, they leave their position fatally undermined.
This is not simply a constitutional affront and an outrage; it is a very real practical difficulty. If we are left with a situation in which this cannot be applied in Northern Ireland, or if a defence is offered by foreign national criminals to avoid deportation, this not only creates a situation in which Northern Ireland is treated as a second-class citizen but it leaves the whole of the UK vulnerable on this issue. Northern Ireland then becomes simply a back door to those criminals—a safe haven to either come in from or return to, with a perceived greater level of protection for those criminals than would be the case elsewhere. Wherever we set the boundaries on the issue of deportation, we need something that applies across the whole of the United Kingdom.
As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in particular, this is a real and practical issue. We have seen on a number of occasions, in particular in the three court rulings that the noble Baroness outlined, that this is not simply a theoretical debating issue but a practical issue in which rulings have been made. For instance, there are many in this House who would see deep flaws with the Rwanda Act, but the important thing about the ruling on that was that the courts said that EU law was supreme on this issue and therefore overruled the position in Northern Ireland, which meant that it could not be applied there. That renders the entire legislative process a nonsense. If we do not fix this, we will be left in exactly the same position.
So there is a challenge for the Government: they need to embrace what I think is a common-sense solution, to make their own legislation work better. I look forward to the response from the Minister. I hope that he will not simply say that this is not necessary and that they have given an assurance, because we have been down this road time and time again. With previous legislation, we have had reassurances, in this House and the other place, that the Government were completely confident that it would all be watertight and there would be no problem. However, on each occasion, the courts overruled the Government’s position, which was found to be wrong. I look forward to the Government responding and—I hope—adopting this amendment, because something of this nature is clearly needed if we are to solve that practical problem.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s Amendment 146, which was supported so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
One measure of a Government’s sovereignty is that they make the law for their citizens—the whole country and their whole territory—and they uphold that law. However, as we have heard this evening, Northern Ireland will not necessarily be included in proposals to deport foreign criminals, as Northern Ireland will be subject to the Windsor Framework arrangements.
We may hold different views about the Windsor Framework. I feel that it was a bad mistake by the Conservative Administration to move from the temporary arrangements of the withdrawal agreement to the permanent acceptance of arrangements that were regarded by both sides—the EU and the UK Government—as transient, pending the best endeavours of both parties to get it right. I am sorry that that did not happen and that we are left with the Windsor Framework, but that is no reason for the arrangements to promote economic EU law in Northern Ireland to apply now to criminal law.
It is a mark of the UK’s sovereignty that it upholds the law for the whole country, and I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, so that the citizens of Northern Ireland can rest assured that foreign criminals will be deported, no matter from where they come. The amendment would also ensure—as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, mentioned—that Northern Ireland will not become a haven for a disproportionate number of foreign criminals fleeing there because they know they will not be deported. For all these reasons, I heartily support the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I will very briefly go back to a point about Amendment 122A that I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to explain the pressure on prisons and the need for places, but I have already suggested earlier today a far better solution to that.
I will make two points. First, if someone comes here to commit a crime—for example, a drug dealer or a contract criminal—it is no punishment to be sent back. In fact, it is a bonus for them, because they do not have to pay for the return trip. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the most rigorous examination will take place before people are deported.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I think that a very valid point has been made. I immediately think of the situation—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
It is Committee, so I am entitled to speak in relation to that point.
The case that comes to my mind would highlight the absurdity of the position of simply having an immediate deportation: namely, the Russian agents involved in the Salisbury attempted murder. Had they been captured and convicted, they could have been immediately sent back to Russia on that basis, possibly to a hero’s welcome, rather than any level of punishment. It shows the absurdity, and I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Perhaps I could just finish my second point very quickly. It is simply that, even if the public do not think there is any harm in just deporting someone who has committed a crime, I would caution Government not to rely on public opinion. It does not always stay constant, but I can be sure that, if a serious crime is committed and someone is deported without being punished, this provision will come back to haunt the Government, and I do not want that to happen.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the principle of deportation of foreign national offenders attracts almost universal support. I say “almost” because the cohort of foreign national offenders may not entirely embrace the idea. However, if we introduce a system whereby they are deported without custody or punishment, I suspect that they will come on board with the idea as well.
It occurs to me that the Government are going to approach this with considerable and conspicuous care and take on board the very considered amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. It will, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, come back to bite us if it is discovered by very professional criminals that you can come here, execute your robbery, contract killing or whatever else and then, when you are caught, we pay your air fare home. It does not make an awful lot of sense.
With regard to Northern Ireland, I would take Amendment 146 as a probing amendment inviting the Minister to explore the impact of the Windsor Framework on this proposal.
I note that, if a foreign national offender in Northern Ireland is offered the option of deportation or lengthy custody in Northern Ireland, he might well be inclined to the former, but that is just a practical proposal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I start by thanking noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord for tabling their amendments, their interest in this topic and their considered words. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that prisoner transfer agreements are very important. A few weeks ago, I went to Albania and met the Justice Minister and consulate colleagues to reiterate how important it is and to see what more we can do.
Our priority is to protect victims in the UK and ensure that these offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, offenders will be barred from ever returning to the UK, protecting victims and the wider public.
I will address the amendments in turn. Amendment 122A, limiting the early removal scheme to those in receipt of a sentence of less than three years, would mean a more restrictive early removal scheme than we currently operate. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on foreign national offenders, there are more than 3,200 FNOs who would not be eligible for removal under Section 260 because they are serving a fixed-term sentence greater than three years. The impact on our ability to manage prison capacity would be substantial. We already transfer prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentence in their home country under prisoner transfer agreements, where they are in place.
However, these are not suitable in all cases, and it is important that we retain multiple paths for removal to reduce prison capacity and speed up removals, especially when you consider that it costs an average of £54,000 a year to house these offenders. Once removed, FNOs are barred from ever returning to the UK, keeping victims and the wider British public safe.
The early removal scheme remains a discretionary scheme that will not be suitable for all foreign national offenders, and we are reviewing the existing guidance that includes a range of reasons it can be refused.
The “stop the clock” provision means that those who re-enter the UK in breach of their deportation order, following an ERS removal, are liable to serve the remainder of their sentence here.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that we are working with the Home Office to revise the policy framework that underpins the scheme and ensure that clear operational guidance is in place before the measure is commenced. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on his detailed questions. The eligibility of those who have returned after a previous removal is one consideration, as is the commitment made in the other place to consider those convicted of stalking offences.
Amendment 142, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to introduce immediate deportation for foreign nationals given sentences of at least six months. This would require the Government to make an immediate deportation order in respect of persons who have committed less serious offences. In the Bill, we are extending automatic deportation to persons given a suspended sentence of 12 months or more.
We will also increase the deportation consideration threshold to include anyone given a suspended sentence of any length. In this, the Government are going further than any previous Government in tackling foreign criminality. We have ramped up the removals of foreign criminals, with almost 5,200 deported since July 2024—an increase of 14% compared with the same 12 months previous.
However, just as we no longer transport convicts to the other side of the world for stealing a loaf of bread, we do not think it appropriate to have immediate deportation for less serious crimes in the way proposed by the noble Lord. Lowering the threshold in the way that his amendment does would result in a disproportionate duty to deport for low-level offending. It would lead to significantly more appeals being made against such decisions, arguing exceptionality. It would increase the operational burden to pursue deportation in cases where it was unlikely to be successful because the offending was relatively minor.
On Amendment 146, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for their understanding of my lack of knowledge on the intricate details of the Windsor Framework. In fact, I think that when the Windsor Framework was going through Parliament, I was very happily running a shoe repair business.
This amendment seeks to disapply parts of the withdrawal agreement and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework in relation to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007. I think that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that deportation decisions in Northern Ireland can be taken on the same basis as deportation decisions in the rest of the UK.
It is the Government’s view that Clause 42 is compatible with Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework. Therefore, we do not agree that there is a need for this amendment. To reiterate, it is the Government’s view that the deportation of foreign national offenders is not prohibited by these provisions. It is our view that immigration is a reserved matter, and we apply the same immigration laws across the whole of the UK.
I want to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that foreign national offenders, regardless of where they are in the UK, should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.
I note that the stated purpose of Amendment 141A as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to probe the effect of Clause 42 on survivors of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic abuse. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government take their responsibilities towards vulnerable people very seriously. The Home Office has published guidance on how to identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Where removal of a person would breach the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, deportation must not proceed. Victims of domestic abuse whose relationship has broken down can apply for permission to settle in the UK permanently. Victims of domestic abuse who meet the threshold for deportation will be considered for deportation in the same way as other persons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position regarding the impact of Clause 42 on people who have a reasonable claim to be a victim and survivor of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic violence. Such a claim does not amount to immunity from deportation for people convicted of an offence, although in some circumstances temporary permission to stay may be granted to victims of human trafficking or slavery. The changes brought about by Clause 42 will not alter this.
I thank noble Lords and Baronesses for this debate and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Just briefly, on the point of my amendment, one problem is that people simply do not know what their rights are and find it very hard to find out. However, I wanted to ask the Minister about prisoner transfer agreements—I was wondering whether to raise this earlier in the debate. Is he able to tell the Committee how many are in place, or could he perhaps write to us to give us information about that? I am slightly ashamed to ask this because I am sure that a quick search on the internet would tell me, but I think the noble Lord will be more authoritative.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will write to the noble Baroness with exact details. I have quite a few details in my head, but I want to get it right, so I will write.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Very briefly, my Lords, I want to thank the Minister for his very helpful, illuminating and quite reassuring answer, which those of us who spoke to Amendment 146 are grateful for.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I too would like to hear more about prisoner transfer agreements. They are the best policy solution in this area, so I am glad to hear that the Government are still pursuing that route. On whether the three-year limit is more or less restrictive, it is true that it does not feature in the legislation currently, but the key element of the current regime is that foreign offenders have to serve 50% of the custodial part of their sentence. That 50% has been reduced to 30% following the statutory instrument a few weeks ago, but Clause 32 would reduce the 30% to zero. In that context, the three-year limit would not be more restrictive.
However, with that in mind, I very much look forward to the Minister’s letter dealing with the other questions that I raised. I hope that he will be able in due course to meet me and others who are interested in this amendment to discuss what to do on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Timpson
“(d) in paragraph 13(1)(a) of Schedule 23 (power to amend maximum number of hours of unpaid work), for “paragraph 2(1)” substitute “paragraph 2(1A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment updates a cross reference and is consequential on the amendment made by clause 34(2) (limits on the number of hours in an unpaid work requirement in a community order or suspended sentence order).
“(ba) in paragraph 6, for “paragraph 3(5)” substitute “paragraph 3(5A)”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment updates a cross reference and is consequential on the amendment made by clause 34(5)(b)(ii) (limits on the number of hours in an unpaid work requirement in a supervision default order).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulescoomb, seeks to remove the power of providers of probation services to publish photographs of the offender.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 124A tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I shall speak also to Amendments 124B to 124F. I note that there is also a Clause 35 stand part notice in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which has the same aims—we have just taken different routes to the same intended outcome.
These amendments are linked with one aim. If we are serious about reducing reoffending and rebuilding lives, we cannot allow public humiliation to be smuggled into the justice system through the back door—but that is exactly what Clause 35 does. It proposes giving Probation Service providers the power to publish the names and photographs of people carrying out unpaid work as part of their sentence. What could be the purpose of this measure? What problem is it solving? It does not support rehabilitation. It is not going to reduce reoffending. It appears to make humiliation part of the sentence given to the offender, and not just the offender but the people around them—their family and friends, potentially. This is a significant departure from evidence-based practice and threatens to undermine the goals that we claim to be pursuing.
I note that the Chief Inspector of Probation has warned that naming and shaming offenders is likely to act as a disincentive to rehabilitation and that, instead of encouraging compliance, it risks pushing people away from engagement entirely. If someone is planning to turn up, do the work and meet the terms of the order, why on earth would we introduce a measure that is likely to be an active discouragement for that? The evidence tells us that reintegration into their community, into employment, is what prevents reoffending. Public exposure will have the opposite effect. Probation officers, through their union, have raised alarm about the outcome for families, especially for children, who can bear the weight of a sentence for a crime that they did not commit. We know of cases where children have been bullied, harassed and even forced to change schools because a parent’s offending has been publicly exposed.
This is not just the view of a few organisations; 24 charities and experts, people who are working day in and day out with children and families affected by the justice system, have put out a joint letter opposing this clause. They warn about photographing people on unpaid work and publishing the images online, where they may remain indefinitely. We now have photo recognition software, so we can expect this only to get worse in future, and that will follow people for life. It risks making it harder to get a job or secure housing; it risks vigilantism and violence, and it risks damaging the children. We have international obligations to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should consider the best interests of a child in every policy decision, yet this clause very clearly does not.
I can see that some other noble Lords wish to speak, so I will stop now, but I think there are very strong and unanimous feelings on this clause and the wrong direction that it is heading in.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Parliamentary draftsmen have been appropriately euphemistic in the title of Clause 35, but they could have drafted it: “Naming and shaming of offenders in the community”. I oppose Clause 35, and therefore support the amendments in that vein, because it is contrary to the ambitions of the Bill as a whole, undermines rehabilitation and therefore the prevention of further crimes and is outwith the philosophy of the Bill. I hope and believe that the Government are better than Clause 35, and I know that my noble friend the Minister is better than this. With his characteristic humility, he described himself as a simple entrepreneur who ran a business to mend shoes, but he also ran a business to mend humans—in both cases attempting to save “soles”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sorry. It is nearly Christmas, and it is late.
There are policies that sit on shelves in Westminster and Whitehall for many years, and over the years and the decades people reach for the shelf and pull them off. It is very easy to blame civil servants, but the special adviser class—a cross-party class—have their files on the shelves too, and this naming and shaming thing has been doing the rounds for decades. Our lovely friends the special advisers are not here in the Chamber at this time; they are at the Spectator party or the New Statesman party or whatever it happens to be this evening, but naming and shaming of offenders is a really bad idea.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The one point of difference is that, if one were to be charitable, one would say it is really important that the public have faith and confidence in community orders. I agree with that, so I would support a slight alternative to this approach, so that we are not naming and shaming particular offenders but taking other steps to make very clear in the community that this was built, cleaned or done by offenders serving sentences in the community. That would achieve the best ambitions of this policy without the cruelty and humiliation that the noble Baroness rightly identifies. That is what I ask my noble friends the Ministers to take back to the department and reflect upon. I think that would be something the Government could think about before Report.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I oppose this clause standing part of the Bill. It seems to me that everything that has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Chakrabarti, is right. I also agree with the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing at all wrong with saying that work of a particular kind was done by offenders as part of their community order. What I object to is, as she says, the naming and shaming.
But it goes further than that—it is, by definition, naming and shaming of offenders under supervision, because it is only offenders who are undertaking an unpaid work requirement who will be subject to this clause. I suggest that the compulsory photographing of such offenders—by probation officers, if you please—and the publication of those photographs and the offenders’ names, would be profoundly damaging. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, regard this clause as likely to damage relationships between probation officers and their clients, undermine offenders within their communities and make it more difficult for those offenders to integrate within those communities. The clause is overwhelmingly unlikely to do anything to rehabilitate offenders or reduce reoffending. It is, in short, largely vindictive only. Since one can expect the publication of names and photographs mostly to be by local media outlets, such publication is likely to fuel hostility to offenders whom we are trying to rehabilitate among their community and likely to encourage what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester earlier today called “penal populism”, with what, I suggest, could be only damaging effects.
We completely accept the position put by the noble Lord that community sentences are punishment and are intended to be punishment. They are punitive in the sense of restricting an offender’s liberty and imposing requirements that may be onerous on offenders, but they are also primarily directed at enabling rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. For such sentences to work, friendly and constructive relationships between probation officers and offenders, their clients, under their supervision and efforts to enable those offenders to be settled in their communities are vital. These proposals are, frankly, inimical to those ends. I have come across no evidence whatever that this kind of naming and shaming will do any good or reduce reoffending in any way. I believe it can only do harm. For that reason, I oppose this clause, and I invite the Government to abandon it.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I also believe in tough community sentences. I think they are essential if we are to keep people out of prison. But I have to say that on this issue I do not see any positive point arising out of this clause. In my experience of working with probation officers—a long time ago, but I dare say they are not that different now than they were when I was in practice—I cannot see the likelihood of any probation officer wanting to do this and thinking that it was helpful in terms of making sure that his or her clients behave themselves in future. I think this is an excellent Bill, but I do not think this clause should be part of it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The powers in this Bill currently propose that probation officers will have the power to publish offenders’ names and photographs alongside details of their unpaid work. The Government rightly argue that there is a need to increase the public visibility of sentences being carried out and allow people to see that justice is being done. I would go further and say that it is vital that those who are responsible for sentencing have greater confidence in community sentences.
I am currently chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but before I took over, my noble friend Lady Hamwee was the chair of that committee, and her committee produced an excellent report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. That made it very clear that over a long period of time community sentences had declined, not least during the upheaval, as we might call it, of the Probation Service; nevertheless, there was a continued decline. When it tried to analyse why that was, it found that it was in part because sentencers had lost confidence in community sentences. The mood was, “We simply don’t think that the orders we’re imposing will actually be enforced”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend said he thought I would agree. I agree.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Government have stated that the aim of this measure is to increase public confidence that justice is seen to be done as more individuals are diverted into the community. They claim that if individuals are seen to be giving back to their community then this will act as a deterrent against committing crime. I wonder whether there is an element of wishful thinking from the Government about this. The ability to take photos of offenders picking up litter is hardly a substitute for the prospect of time in custody.
If the Government intend to enact the substance of the Bill then perhaps any efforts to act as a deterrent are welcome, even a measure as small as this one. However, we would have to ensure that it is exercised properly and with a clear framework around it. Probation officers are already operating under extraordinary strain; they should not be required to improvise policy on a ground such as this, particularly when it has obvious implications for privacy, data protection and public confidence. There would have to be clear statutory guidance on when a photograph may be taken, the safeguards that exist against misuse and the redress that is available if things go wrong. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, we must also guard against a drift towards humiliation or the selective publication of images in a way that would stigmatise individuals or particular communities.
If the purpose of Clause 35 is to demonstrate that unpaid work is both visible and constructive then the Government would have to ensure that the practice reflects those aims. Perhaps with proper regulation this might be possible, but without that it risks becoming another ill-defined power handed to an already overstretched Probation Service. We urge the Minister to commit to setting out clearly the safeguards and practical requirements that will clearly be required if a clause such as Clause 35 is ever implemented.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith, for tabling these amendments and raising their concerns about Clause 35. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Bach, for raising their concerns.
I am sure we can agree that people who commit crimes should show that they are giving back to society. This clause is about building public confidence in community sentences. Local communities should know that those who harm them are paying back and be able to see the positive work being done. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti pointed out, it is important that they can clearly see the benefits of community payback and have their say on the work undertaken by nominating projects in their area.
I understand there may be concerns about the potential impacts of this measure and I reassure noble Lords that careful consideration is being given to how it is implemented. I have listened to noble Lords’ comments and will take them away to thoroughly consider. I also reassure noble Lords that publication will not apply in all cases. Exemption criteria will be set out in secondary legislation. This will be used alongside clear operational guidance on the circumstances where publishing would not be appropriate. The criteria are to be determined but may include factors such as specific offence types or personal circumstances which present heightened risks to the offender, their families or others. Probation practitioners will use this guidance and their professional assessment to determine the right course of action. We should have confidence that they will use the power only where appropriate. I confirm to noble Lords that I have heard the points they have made and reiterate that we will reflect carefully before Report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and take encouragement from the phrase “thoroughly consider”. I hope, speaking as a former newspaper editor, that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is right that yes, sometimes newspapers are right. We can live in hope.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The hour is late, but we have had a very clear and engaged debate and a very clear direction of travel, even from the Conservative Front Bench. I think a fair characterisation would be that there is a great degree of scepticism about Clause 35.
I have just a couple of things to pick out. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made a very important point about the relationship between probation officers and their clients. That really deserves extra consideration. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing their experience and knowledge and bravely delivering a clear message from the Government Benches.
Finally, I note that we have heard from both the current chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and its former chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The messages are coming to the Government from all angles. We reserve the right to bring this back on Report, but I very much hope that will not be necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 130 cannot be called as it is an amendment to Amendment 129.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“Management of offenders on probation: devolution to Wales(1) In paragraph 175 (prisons and offender management) of Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), omit “probation”;(b) under the “Exceptions” insert “Probation in relation to offender management”.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make further provision under this section to facilitate the transfer of the provision of the probation service in Wales from the Secretary of State to Senedd Cymru and Welsh Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to devolve probation services to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move an amendment that, at this hour of the night, might seem one that could have been moved on another occasion—but that is timing. This is a probing amendment to deal with a matter that is becoming important across many areas of justice, and Wales will return on a lot of Bills that are currently going through Parliament. I raised this issue at Second Reading and the Minister was kind enough to explain to me roughly where the problem is.
I think the problem can basically be described in this way: there are extremely good reasons, to which I shall come in a moment, for the devolution of probation to Wales. But the Government in Wales are anxious to have devolution to Wales, while the Government in London do not regard that as something they want to do—it is certainly not a priority—as they see their job as putting the Probation Service right first, whenever that may happen. What is very important is that what is happening is the subject of public debate, particularly because the elections are coming in Wales in May, and the various aspects of devolution are being highlighted by what one might call “friendly family discussions” between two different parts of the Labour Party: the Labour Party in Wales and the parliamentary party in London. It is so topical that, in fact, yesterday the research unit of the Senedd Cymru published a paper on this matter.
There are three options. The first is what I would call the Manchester model, which is a sort of dual commissioning for devolution to Wales. The second is passing executive responsibility to Welsh Ministers but maintaining control over policy in London; and the third is the devolution of both services and policy. There is a lot of information so, rather than trying to go through and explain it all, I will say that an extremely good paper by the Wales Centre for Public Policy and another paper by the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice, through the Probation Development Group, set out many of the complex considerations.
The devolution of probation services was the solution when a commission that I chaired, which reported under the title Justice in Wales for the People of Wales, concluded in its chapter 4 that all penal services, including probation, should be devolved. This was an entirely non-political group. It included people well known in this area, such as Juliet Lyon, Sarah Payne and Peter Vaughan, the former chief constable of South Wales.
Why was it that we all came to the view that there should be devolution? First, and critically, justice in Wales is, for some reason, the one area of domestic policy that is not devolved. This is entirely irrational and is derived from the history of the way in which devolution emerged. In no other country in the world would you think that justice was so unimportant that you could leave it to one side and not devolve it with other services. In Wales, it is important that justice, and particular aspects of it, including the Probation Service, are devolved, so that they can work alongside the other parts of government.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for bringing this issue to the Committee. Effective probation practice depends fundamentally on local knowledge, local accountability and integration with wider services, including housing, health, substance misuse, skills and so on. In Wales, these services, in contrast to probation, are largely devolved. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the current arrangement or settlement best serves the people of Wales and whether the structures we have today genuinely allow probation to work in partnership effectively with the devolved landscape.
The noble and learned Lord has raised an important point. We on these Benches do not commit ourselves today to the specific mechanism set out in the amendment. Devolution of an important plank of the criminal justice function requires proper consideration, planning and, above all, collaboration—I emphasise that word in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said—between the United Kingdom Government and Welsh Ministers. We agree that that conversation cannot be avoided. It must be approached constructively with regard to the Welsh perspective.
Probation in Wales faces real pressures and deserves a stable and effective framework within which to operate. If the Minister believes that the current reserved model remains the right one, the Committee would expect him to set out clearly how it delivers coherence, integration and accountability, and how it is effective not in theory but in practice. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for initiating this debate, and we look forward to the Government’s response, probably not for just the one time.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his amendment and his thoughtful engagement on this issue and others. I know he has met my noble friend the Minister outside the Chamber to discuss these things.
The Government committed to undertake a strategic review of probation in their manifesto, and it is still our plan to review the governance of the Probation Service, looking at partnerships across England and Wales. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the Manchester model. I hesitate to agree with the suggestion that it is being imposed on Wales, but I have to say that I am rather a fan of the Manchester model. In fact, I regard myself as the progenitor of it—or one of them—when I was at HMPPS as its lead non-executive director. That is part of what is on offer, as it were.
It is important that the recommendations in this Bill are first implemented and that we bring stability to the Probation Service in England and Wales as it currently is before undertaking any structural review. The Government believe that this would not be the right time to consider factoring structural changes into the many changes to probation that will arise as a result of this legislation. I understand that the doctrine of unripe time is often a fairly feeble excuse for inaction, but I am sure that everyone in the Committee recognises that—if I can put it like this—the capacity for change in the Probation Service, with this Bill and the current situation, is pretty much maxed out.
The amendment proposes devolving the Probation Service, but not the equivalent in relation to sentencing or prisons. Devolving parts of the criminal justice system in this way would create a divergence between the management of offenders and the wider criminal justice, sentencing and prison framework across England and Wales. We know that poor handovers, weak communication or gaps in support during the transition from custody to the community are among the greatest barriers to successful resettlement, so we are concerned that some of the changes that might arise as a result of this would create friction in the way that I have suggested. Therefore, any framework in which prisons and probation are separately owned, funded or designed carries a real risk that the two halves of the process might fail to connect, particularly at a time of strain. When that happens, people leaving prison can all too easily fall through the gaps.
That is the heart of the Government’s view at the moment—that this is not a good time to impose structural change on the Probation Service. We want to be sure that we do not create the sort of risks and frictions that I discussed. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to support the local delivery of services by devolved and reserved partners in Wales. I hope that I have given the noble and learned Lord some reassurance, at least sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord who has responded. It is obviously sensible to devolve prisons and probation together—that is what we recommended—but the political reality of the way in which the Governments in Cardiff and London relate, particularly when they are of the same party, made me think at this stage not to put down prisons and probation. I shall rethink that for the next time.
I wish that people here would realise that there will be no effective change to the Probation Service until we can take some of the money out of prisons and put it into probation. I am sure that most people who think about it realise that the Government do not have any money and realise it has got to come from somewhere, and that imprisoning people for sensible and shorter times is a much better policy. I would like to see that done in Wales, and I am convinced it could be done, so I will think about the suggestion from the Minister that we should put down both on the next occasion.
I said that the Manchester model was being imposed, but it is really a Hobson’s choice. That is what I mean about it being imposed—“You want something, so we will give you a little bit to keep you quiet”. But it is not the right model, because Manchester is not a country; it is a city in England where people here make decisions on policy. Wales is a different country, a proud and ancient nation. That is the difference, and that is why the Manchester model is good for Manchester but not good for Wales.
In the light of all that has been said, I hope that I may return to this issue, maybe in a slightly different and wider form of amendment, as suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of sentence following a change in law(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—(a) the offence has been abolished, or(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.(2) On such an application, the court may—(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the law as so changed, or(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group of two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee addresses the position of the effect of changes in the law.
Amendment 138 would give a right of review to an offender serving a sentence for an offence that has been abolished, or where the change in the law has altered the sentence that might be imposed. The offender in such a case would be entitled to apply to the court to give them the benefit of the change in the law and seek a decision that the sentence should be quashed, or a resentencing on the basis of the law as changed, or an alternative order that was in the interests of justice. It is a simple amendment that would entitle an offender serving a sentence to say that the law has changed and that if they were sentenced today or tomorrow, they would not be suffering the sentence that they are now serving, so please change it.
Amendment 139 addresses changes in the law more generally. It would require the Secretary of State to review and report every three years on changes in the law that would affect those already sentenced, where their sentences would be different as a result of changes in the law. So we move from the particular in Amendment 138 to the general in Amendment 139. The report would cover the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing perceived injustice arising from such changes in the law. The report would be bound to include recommendations for change to address such injustices and also data on the numbers of offenders involved and the numbers of those still in prison.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments may appear useful in a time where sentencing laws are revised with increasing frequency, as illustrated by this Bill. A call for transparency and data is also generally welcome. Both amendments reflect a desire to ensure that justice keeps pace with changes in law and society. I am sure that anyone can support that general intention. We would invite the Government to address constructively the concerns that lie behind these amendments.
However, it appears that there may be very real practical issues and difficulties about any such amendment to the Bill. To take one simple example, the Bill, when it becomes law in its present form, will determine that someone who is sentenced to 12 months or less should have a suspended sentence. At the point when the Bill becomes law, is everyone then serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or less going to seek review on the grounds that the sentence should now be suspended? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of practical difficulties around that possibility.
Then, of course, we are going to have people reviewing the Sentencing Council recommendations from time to time who will say, “Wait a minute: they used to recommend three years for what I did, but they are now recommending two. Could I please have a review?” While the amendments are well intentioned, it occurs that there could be an immense number of practical difficulties, putting aside even the imposition upon the courts to review sentences at regular levels.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for these amendments, which I understand are seeking to ensure fairness in sentencing outcomes and are clearly rooted in the commitment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, to ensure that justice keeps pace with society.
That said, it is important to recognise that mechanisms already exist to address perceived injustices, including criminal appeals and sentence reviews, and mandating a formal review every three years with accompanying data and recommendations therefore risks duplicating existing oversight functions and placing additional burdens on the justice system. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there are already pressures in our justice system and it is especially important that we ensure that any reforms that create additional burdens are proportionate, targeted and deliverable.
I note, however, that the recent Leveson review calls for a full review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to modernise how criminal records are disclosed. The Government are considering this recommendation and will update the House in due course. In addition to that, the Law Commission was invited by the Government to consider the law on criminal appeals. Its consultation closed earlier this year and the responses are currently being analysed. We can expect the Law Commission to report to the Government with recommendations next year. Given that those pieces of work are in train, I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance that those recommendations will be carefully considered. While we are sympathetic to the principle that fairness underpins these amendments, for the reasons I set out, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, but it is on the basis that I do not accept the criticisms of the detail of Amendment 138 made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. The fact that a sentence has to be suspended under the requirements of the Bill does not mean that it is necessarily a lesser sentence that would not have been passed. In relation to other sentences that would not exist or offences that have been abolished, it seems to me that Amendment 138 ought to be accepted.
I accept that there are considerations of spent convictions that may have a bearing on this, but I am not sure that we are in the same ballpark when we are talking about spent convictions and either quashing a conviction or resentencing as a result of a change in the law. As for the review and report on recommendations and data, I understand that the Government’s position is that such review is carried out. It would be helpful to know what the publicity for that exercise is and how far the public and everyone else is going to be made aware of the reviews that are carried out, but that is something that we can discuss informally, I dare say. In the meantime, I will withdraw the amendment, if leave is given.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Removal of power to remand in custody for a person’s own protection or welfare(1) Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 (persons entitled to bail: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows.(2) In Part 1 of that Schedule omit paragraph 3.(3) In Part 1A of that Schedule omit paragraph 5.(4) In Part 2 of that Schedule omit paragraph 3.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would repeal the power of the courts to remand a person in custody for their own protection or, if they are a child or young person, for their welfare.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I wish I could offer every Member of the Committee who is still here an espresso at this point. Instead, I will try to be short and lively.
This amendment is the only amendment that I have tabled to a Bill that I broadly support, for reasons that need little explanation at this point, but Amendment 140 in my name—by the way, I also support Amendment 147 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—has been on my conscience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for signing it. Of course, she was the first and distinguished chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home and Affairs Committee.
This amendment concerns a provision in the Bail Act 1976 that, to my shame, I was unaware of until relatively few weeks ago, notwithstanding working in this area of law and policy for over 30 years. It really is on my conscience, and I think it should be on the conscience of the Government and the Committee. The provision states that vulnerable people may be remanded in custody for their own protection, even when they are charged with non-custodial offences. I would like to know from my noble friend the Minister’s reply, among other things, how this is conscionable and how it squares with the Government’s commitment to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets very tight criteria for detaining people.
I was extremely grateful, as always, for a conversation about this with my noble friend the Minister and his officials two weeks ago. However, as a former government lawyer, I am always concerned about the danger of resistance to amendments because they “weren’t invented here”. I plead with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee to engage with a scandal. It is not a scandal on the scale of IPP. I did not speak in that debate to spare the Committee’s time, but I associate myself with all those who spoke on the IPP amendment. This is not indefinite detention, with all the lost hope, but it is about detaining vulnerable people who should not be detained for their own protection on remand in the criminal justice system.
I am advised by a coalition of NGOs—noble Lords in the Committee will have received their joint briefing—and Justice in particular. I am grateful to Emma Snell, a brilliant young lawyer at Justice, who has educated me about this provision. The coalition is broad; it includes Nacro, Inquest, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League and so on.
Most of the people who appear to be detained for their own protection, including when charged with a non-custodial offence, are being detained because they have an acute mental health crisis, are suffering from addiction or are homeless. Some of them are at risk from others; that could be reprisals in the community or it could be from criminal gangs, and so on. However, none of that is justification for taking someone’s liberty, as opposed to keeping them safe and helping them. This is not something that we would do to witnesses. We would surely put a witness in a safe house rather than detain them for their own protection. I am incredibly concerned that we persist with this.
Furthermore, the Labour Party spoke against this in opposition only a couple of years ago, and it has been criticised by all the experts in the sector: the independent non-governmental bodies, the chief inspectors, et cetera. To my mind, it is unconscionable that we should detain somebody for their vulnerability and not for a danger that they pose to others. The classic and other grounds for remanding in custody, rather than on bail, are, “You will reoffend”, or, “You will interfere with witnesses”, and so on, but the idea that you should be detained for your own protection or, in the case of children, for your welfare is something that needs to be addressed.
To be fair to the Government, they are already proposing in the Mental Health Bill that this should not be on mental health grounds alone. That is progress, necessary and to be commended. But necessary is not sufficient, because there are other vulnerable people who will not be diagnosed as being vulnerable because of a mental health condition. That could include vulnerable women, homeless people and people who fear reprisals from criminal gangs. They should be made safe, and there are provisions to make them safe in other ways. I think the Committee would want to move away from the idea that we as a political community and a society can only care for and protect people through detention and coercion, and certainly the Bill, in its general thrust, is attempting to do that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was very glad to sign this amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness both for having spotted it and for introducing it so clearly.
A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, used a phrase about justice not keeping pace with society. This is an example of that. It seems to me to be a hangover almost from the Victorian age. It is a cruelty to keep people in detention when they are actually vulnerable and need support. They are very often people among whose problems are mental ill-health; they just happen to have more vulnerabilities and problems than people who will fall within the Mental Health Bill.
“For their own protection” seems to me to be a misnomer. The reality is that this can make their condition worse. Some years ago, the Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted an inquiry on detention, which in part covered this issue. The stories we heard were frankly horrifying. This is not the time of night to go into them—but this is an area where we should really ensure that justice keeps up with and leads society.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 147. Noble Lords will be well aware that, in earlier debates, I have argued that what we do—whether it is for a custodial or non-custodial sentence—is of course about punishment but should also be about taking steps to reduce reoffending. I have therefore argued that either the police or the Probation Service must put in place measures to help with that, which would include things such as education, skills, and also measures to help people with drug, alcohol, and—as I have added—gambling disorders. We have had those debates already.
However, in today’s debate, I have mentioned the fact that something like 20% of people in prison are on remand, awaiting sentencing. As a result of the huge backlog in the Crown Courts, which I have also mentioned, it is a fact that many of those on remand will be in prison awaiting sentencing for quite a long time. So, it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that, while they are in prison, there should be opportunities that might help them in later life anyway, in terms of the same sorts of measures. This amendment very simply says that those who are in prison on remand should have made available to them the same level of provision that is provided for prisoners after sentencing. It is as simple as that, it seems to be common sense and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I must say from the outset that we on these Benches cannot support it. The power to remand a person in custody for their own protection—or, in the case of a child or young person, for their own welfare—is not one that the courts use lightly. It is already tightly circumscribed and deployed only where the alternative would expose an extremely vulnerable individual to serious harm.
To remove that safeguard entirely would be a mistake. There are rare, but very real, occasions when a defendant’s personal circumstances, exploitation by criminal gangs or acute safeguarding concerns mean that the only safe option, in the immediate term, is to keep them in secure accommodation. That judgment, made by a court on evidence and subject to challenge, is not one that we believe Parliament should now deprive them of. Where children are concerned, the imperative is even stronger. The court’s paramount concern must be people’s welfare, and removing this power risks leaving young people unprotected in precisely those situations where intervention is most vital. For these reasons, we cannot support Amendment 140.
We strongly support the principle underlying Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Far too many people spend far too long in remand—months and, sometimes, well over a year—awaiting trial or sentence. For all practical purposes, they experience incarceration in the same way as sentenced prisoners. They are deprived of liberty, separated from their families and often held in conditions indistinguishable from the sentenced estate. Yet those in remand do not have the same access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other forms of support that are routinely offered post sentence.
That is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly given that time spent on remand is overwhelmingly treated as time served for the purposes of the ultimate custodial sentence. If we accept that remand can form a significant part of an individual’s total period in custody, it cannot be right that this is, in effect, dead time, in which they are able neither to progress their rehabilitation nor to address the issues that may have contributed to their offending behaviour.
Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is a valuable contribution to a discussion that is long overdue. It does not prejudge the precise mechanisms or impose unworkable obligations on overstretched services, but it rightly challenges us to consider whether the current disparity is effective or conducive to reducing reoffending. The Government should engage seriously with the spirit of these proposals.
Taken together, the amendments highlight two themes that run throughout our debates on the Bill: the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to ensure that custody, whether pre or post sentence, serves a constructive purpose. I hope that the Minister will commit to further work in this area, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her amendment and for taking the time to discuss her related concerns with my noble friend Lord Timpson. I also thank her for her support for the Bill and its overall intentions—that is very much appreciated coming from someone with her track record.
Amendment 140 would remove an important safeguard which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, is very rarely used but remains an option for the courts as a measure of last resort and out of concern for the defendant. Eliminating this provision could leave vulnerable individuals without any viable protection, particularly where alternative care arrangements were simply unavailable or could not be implemented swiftly enough. We fear that those may be the consequences. Examples where it may be used include where it is the only option available to the court to keep someone safe, such as in cases where the defendant is a member of a gang and could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected.
I hope it will also reassure your Lordships that the Mental Health Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to, is now in the other place. It includes a reform to end the use of remand for one’s own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. This reform should ensure that remand for one’s own protection is, therefore, used only as a last resort in the circumstances I have outlined.
At this stage, repeal would leave a gap in the available provision. Courts must retain the flexibility to act decisively in safeguarding individuals when no other option exists. The amendment would risk unintended consequences for vulnerable defendants and undermine the protective function of the justice system.
Amendment 147, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for tabling, seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary, given that remand prisoners can already access those programmes where prisons run them.
There is also an important legal distinction here that I should highlight to your Lordships. Remand prisoners are held in custody pending trial or sentencing, and some have not yet been convicted. Of course, we recognise that people are spending more time on remand; therefore, as I have said, where these services are available and in the right circumstances, they should be able to access them. However, remand prisoners are legally distinct from sentenced prisoners, and we have to reflect that in the priorities for resources.
There are already mechanisms in place to support remand prisoners, including access to healthcare. At the moment, the Government have no plans to expand all rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support to remand prisoners. This would require substantial changes to prison operations and resourcing, and could divert resources from those already convicted and serving sentences. We recognise, however, some of the changes in the remand population. My noble friend the Minister and I would be very happy to continue to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about these matters but, given what I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful once more to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, I have to say, I am disappointed in the responses from both Front Benches on this occasion. They were uncharacteristic, knee-jerk responses that do not display a broader understanding of the other laws of England and Wales that deal—or should deal—with vulnerable people.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, mentioned children. There are ample measures for protecting children under the Children Act 1989 and looking after them in more appropriate circumstances than in criminal justice detention. I remind the Committee that we are talking about defendants who are being detained not for the classic justifications that they would commit further offences, interfere with witnesses and so on, but for their own protection. Of course, the criminal justice estate is not a place of safety or protection for anyone.
I did not hear a reply to my question about how this can be justified under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister could drop a note on that and offer it to other Members of the Committee. There will not be too many to send it to because there are not many Members here, but I would be hugely grateful for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had it right when she talked about a Victorian hangover. There are too many Victorian hangovers in this area of law and policy, and I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson is well aware of that. The thrust of the Bill, in general, is about departing from such Victorian hangovers, such as social death and locking people up and throwing away the key. I urge further reflection.
If I am a member of a criminal gang who wants to turn King’s evidence but I am not charged with a minor offence, I will have to be put in a safe house, and there are schemes and measures to do that. But if I happen to be charged with a low-level offence that does not attract a custodial penalty, I am told that it is a last resort and that I am going to be locked up in a prison system where I will be more at danger from the criminal gang than I ever would be in a safe house. These are rather disappointing arguments from members of the Committee who, on reflection, may think again. I shall certainly return to this on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—(a) an offence under section 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZD or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(b) an offence under section 4, 5 or 5A of the Road Traffic 1998.(2) The court may, as a condition of bail, suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, in the final group of what has been a very long afternoon and evening, would give the power to a court when granting bail to a defendant charged with the most serious driving offences to suspend that defendant’s driving licence pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.
To recap fast, the offences covered by the amendment are: causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving; causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured or when disqualified, or by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs; driving or being in charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs; and driving or being in charge of a vehicle while unfit through having alcohol over the limit or controlled drugs over the limit.
The reason for this amendment is obvious. When a court grants bail, it is carrying out an exercise of balancing the public interest in not prejudging the guilt of a defendant before that defendant is tried against the other public interest of keeping the public safe. I contend that the balance is clear when a power formally to suspend the driving licences of defendants charged with these offences is under consideration. These are life-threatening driving offences, and suspending a licence as a condition of bail for such a defendant is entirely appropriate. The suspension may not always be imposed but for the power to be there seems quite clearly desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for bringing forward this amendment. It proposes as a condition of bail to allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of individuals charged for certain driving offences. The offences in question include causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving or by careless or inconsiderate driving, or by unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified drivers. In addition, it includes those charges relating to driving when under the influence of drink or drugs or above the prescribed limits.
Safety on our roads is of prime importance, and the police have the ability to impose driving bans as a condition of bail under the Bail Act 1976 to ensure that further driving-related offences are not committed by those charged while criminal proceedings are ongoing. Indeed, driving offences committed while on bail are rightly treated as a serious matter. None the less, the potential benefits of public safety must, in a country where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty, be balanced with the rights of an as yet unconvicted defendant. Individuals who are granted bail may be on bail for extended periods of time, during which they may, assuming that other conditions on work have not been put in place, still have to drive to their place of work, for example.
So far, the powers to impose a driving ban as a condition of bail have been operational matters for the police. That said, allowing the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual as a condition of bail pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings would be a preventative step to reduce the risk of further driving-related offences being committed. We thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate and look forward to the Government’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for this amendment, which seeks to give courts an express power to suspend the driving licence of individuals charged with specified driving offences as a condition of bail. We recognise that driving offences can have devastating consequences for victims and for their families and friends. Driving while under the influence of alcohol and drugs is a serious offence with potentially life-changing consequences.
There are already robust powers available to the police and the courts to impose bail conditions where there is a risk to public safety. This includes restrictions on driving where appropriate. In certain cases, courts may also impose an interim driving disqualification before sentencing. Road safety remains an absolute priority for this Government. The Department for Transport will shortly publish a new road safety strategy, and the Secretary of State for Transport has indicated that this will include a review of motoring offences. While I appreciate the importance of the issue raised by the noble Lord, given the forthcoming strategy and existing powers available I urge him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I ask the Minister to consider this. The power to suspend that is sought by this amendment would be a power exercisable by the court and therefore reportable to the DVLA, as a result of which the driving licence would be formally withdrawn. I am not sure that is true of a ban on driving imposed by the police as a part of bail. That is the importance of the suspension that I suggest.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and will very happily meet with him next week to discuss that, as I suspect that there may be other matters that we wish to discuss on this Bill. I would be very appreciative of that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Pending those discussions, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Women’s Justice Board: annual reportThe Secretary of State must lay a report annually before Parliament reporting on the work of the Women’s Justice Board including in particular actions taken in response to its recommendations.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on the work of the Women’s Justice Board.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is the last amendment this evening. I am sorry to have to detain noble Lords, but I regard women’s justice as important. I know that the Minister does too, as he chairs the Women’s Justice Board, which is the subject of this amendment. It is quite new and is an important innovation with an impressive membership. I will not detain noble Lords by, as I had intended to do, reading through its purpose as set out in the terms of reference. However, its focus on early intervention and diversion, community solutions, issues specific to pregnant women and mothers with dependent children and reducing the number of young adult women entering the criminal justice system is not something that I have heard expressed before. These are all very important.
I am not suggesting that the board is not transparent. Its minutes are online, and the terms of reference include publication of an annual report as well as ad hoc reports. However, publication effectively by the Secretary of State would give its work the weight that it deserves. That is probably the best way of describing it. Even though this is the last amendment, it was one that I thought of early on. We cannot go through a Bill such as this without highlighting the needs of women offenders. We have referred to them, but it has felt a little as if they have been rather an add-on.
I will take the time to say that very often women who are offenders are victims before they are offenders: in particular victims of domestic abuse but also victims of circumstances. The MoJ data from 2023 estimated that 10% of cases that result in sentences of 12 months or less are related to domestic violence and, in a further 10% of cases, the offender is flagged by probation for domestic violence—so I am told by Refuge. I should declare an interest there, having a very long time ago chaired Refuge for a very long time.
The offences are often small, but they can be persistent. So we, the Liberal Democrats, were very pleased to see the creation of the Women’s Justice Board. It has for a long time been party policy. In fact, I discovered that my noble friend Lord Marks summed up the amendment that went to our party conference, including this. We would like to entrench its position as solidly as possible and give it the appropriate publicity. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, on the Conservative Benches, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, which, although the last tonight, is certainly not the least important. It rightly draws our attention to the work of the Women’s Justice Board and the special needs of many women offenders. The case for transparency and for this report being published is well made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendment and her continued interest in the Women’s Justice Board. I am very proud to chair it and drive its work forward. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that it is going well and I am very fortunate to be working alongside so many talented experts.
This amendment seeks to ensure parliamentary oversight of the board’s activities and outcomes, which would have the effect of subjecting the board to parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Baroness knows, like her, I have a great interest in women’s justice and fully recognise the importance of transparency in this area. But Parliament already has well-established mechanisms to hold the Government to account, including through parliamentary Questions and Select Committee inquiries.
Reforming the way women are treated in the criminal justice system remains a keen ambition for this Government and for me personally. The expertise provided by the Women’s Justice Board is an important part of shaping our approach to the wider justice system. Although we cannot accept this amendment today, I assure the House that we are committed to keeping Parliament informed and will consider how best to provide periodic updates on the work of the board through appropriate channels. I suspect that one of the best ways we can update noble Lords is through the work we do and the results we get. I hope that this reassurance will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, indeed, the results are what matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.