Lords Chamber

Wednesday 12th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:09
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
required to have effective arrangements in place to ensure women's safety and to obtain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

informed consent. Before I before I ask my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I before I ask my supplementary, may I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Baroness Newlove, who was so brave and effective in all that she did in this House and in her work for victims after the in her work for victims after the murder of her beloved husband, Gary. Helen had such compassion, such courage, and she really was such a courage, and she really was such a very lovely person that she will be sorely missed, not only by her family, to whom I'm sure we all send great sympathy, but also by so many of us in this House and in the many of us in this House and in the world beyond.

We were indeed blessed by her presence among us blessed by her presence among us here. My Lord, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for her reply. My Lords, is not possible on the My Lords, is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman's privacy, to ensure that she is not being coerced, nor to verify that being coerced, nor to verify that the woman seeking the medication is actually the person who is going to take it, particularly in cases take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking, and government.

Stats show that since 2020, 54,000 people have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from abortion bills. complications from abortion bills. Last year alone, some 12,000 over 6% of women taking such medication required hospital treatment to safeguard women and girls. Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, take action to restore the requirement for face to face consultations, and will she also assure the House that there will be no no extension of the time limits for access to medical abortions?
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Needs-based funding in Wales
-

Second question Lord Wigley.
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
None Portrait Oral questions: US military action in the Caribbean
-

My Lords.
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

squatters from the Venezuelan embassy on the Cromwell Road. I don't know the answer to some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know the answer to some of what the noble Lords just there, and I don't think I even understand and I don't think I even understand part of it, so. I'll review it and get back to him. I have no idea if the road he's talked about. So, for example, let me just say, because I think it's an important point to raise, let me just lay out what the UK UK's Venezuela policy is, because I think it's I'm going to read this because I think it's important to put this on the record.

Nicolas Maduro's claim to power is fraudulent. The UK continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to publish the results of the 2024 presidential election in full. This government announced sanctions against 15 members of Maduro regime last year, and the UK will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a negotiated transition in Venezuela as the only solution which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected. That's the position of the government. I hope that in part explains to the noble Lord what our position is.

And more generally informs the House as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that concludes oral questions for today. And any member wishing to leave the chamber may do wishing to leave the chamber may do Lord, Lord, we Lord, we now Lord, we now come Lord, we now come to Lord, we now come to an instrument previously debated in Grand Committee. National Health Grand Committee.

National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 Baroness Wheeler. Baroness Wheeler.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

on BBC leadership. My Lords. We need a trusted. Respected and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respected and. Newsworthy BBC more than ever poll after poll shows that our poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics, but by geography, by generation, by race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics, and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with the preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments, algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news we don't want to hear or opinions which differ from our own.

That is why the BBC's founding mission to inform, educate and entertain, which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It's also why serious and and avoidable errors like the ones which have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC's journalistic reputation. At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly.

When mistakes are made on all those fronts. They have fallen short in recent days. Now, not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, about the wisdom of the American electorate, about the application of sex based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society would we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether? Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country. But each year, three quarters of a million fewer people are choosing to pay the licence fee.

Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom's most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused. So the process, which begins shortly, and perhaps the Minister will be able to set out some more detail about it, to renew the BBC's Royal Charter, and to try and anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting, as well as working out how the BBC can remain a light on the Hill.

As the Secretary of State puts it in this statement, we will need to chart a course for all of our public service broadcasters. Does the noble Lady, the Minister, think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decades time as we do today? Channel five is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its own future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters.

What is the government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape? On the BBC itself, what discussions has the government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the president of the United States, because of the errors it's made in the absence of an ambassador in Washington? Has the government raised this matter with the US administration directly? And if the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out of court settlement, who will bear the cost, the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions does the government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode, and that it is changing the way in the ways that it needs to change in order to avoid a recurrence.

I'd like to put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation's 17th director general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he has referred to the, I quote, very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role and I don't underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint his successor, does the government have a view on whether the role of director general should be reconsidered? Mr.

Davie himself has said that it is not an impossible job, but as the noble Lady think, that it's striking breath in effect, asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor in chief is as practical now as it was in 1922. In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of the Celebrity Traitors. Perhaps I, perhaps I tear up too easily today. In yesterday, I've listened with pride and admiration to radio two, as people from across Northumberland and County Durham have lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago.

That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise it or express our frustrations in weeks like this, it is because we care so much about the BBC and what it represents, while respecting its vital independence. I would urge the government, and indeed everybody from across this House and another place to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British now and long into the future. into the future.
15:58
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Portrait Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank my Lords. We welcome the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the BBC. But let us not mince words. It. Is under attack as never before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation. Stone of freedom and democracy, and Stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. Highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and their findings should remind us all of the BBC's importance, not just of the BBC's importance, not just for the UK, but the world. In an era of disinformation and social era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy.

As the beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her statement, it projects British values, creativity and integrity to values, creativity and integrity to the world. My Lord, the BBC is not just the news. I think it is important to remind people of this. important to remind people of this. Its radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC bitesize, BBC orchestras, BBC bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, sounds, the world service it develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV.

It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world. Soft power, both through the Soft power, both through the programmes IT exports and the World Service. Ever more important now, President Trump has cut off funds to the Voice of America and through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, it has made culture news, other people's experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who so, so in so many ways exemplifies the BBC David Attenborough.

It is that miraculous advance that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself. The origin of the word broadcast, my Lords, is to sow seeds widely. And that is what the BBC does. Of course, the BBC isn't perfect, and it's right that we hold it to the highest standards. The Panorama editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC's apology. However, it is obvious that this issue is being weaponised, weaponized by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

profit from its demise. Yeah. Without the BBC, we are more vulnerable to dangerous vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories. So as the government theories. So as the government navigates President Trump's latest tantrum, threatening to sue the BBC tantrum, threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us what the government is doing to stand up for the BBC? Britain's BBC and speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns may remain over the conduct of Sir Robin Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board.

We need to have absolute confidence We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the government truly believes in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb as the BBC charter Robbie Gibb as the BBC charter permits? My Lords, the new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the noble Baroness, the board.

Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, listen to calls from this bench that both the chair and non-executive members of the board should be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the government? My Lords, the BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly. But it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique.

Unique. Remember, my Lords, the words of Joni Mitchell, or is it my noble friend Lord McNally? You don't know what you've got till it's gone. Please, let's not be in that place. And can I add my word? Sorry, echo. Lord Parkinson's words in in my adding my gratitude to Tim Davies services.
16:02
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
DG yeah. and noble Lady for their points and questions on this matter. I'm sure the BBC agrees with the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay in his aspiration for it not to be newsworthy, as the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards when standards are not met. Firm, swift and transparent action must follow. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have both taken responsibility for the mistakes they admit the BBC has made.

It is right that the government now continues to support the BBC as an important national institution, and supports the BBC board in managing the transition. Before I go further, like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter, I would like to place on record my thanks to the outgoing Director General for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years, and I'd like to thank the CEO of news for leading the BBC news operation through turbulent times.

As the Secretary of State made clear, we do not underestimate the challenges that these roles pose and the pressure that they put on those who hold them. However, I also agree with the noble Lady that the BBC is about more than news. This government supports a strong independent BBC in an age of disinformation. The argument for a robust, impartial British news service is stronger than ever. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country. It has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.

Each of us has our own personal connection to the BBC. We can all point to the programmes that we watched growing up and the deep impact they had on us. My own addiction to BBC news probably started with Newsround, and the BBC continues to be an integral part of the life of almost every single person in this country, and undoubtedly every person in your Lordships' House. It is not possible to talk about the BBC without acknowledging the people at the heart of it, in particular in relation to BBC news, the incredible work of BBC journalists across the country and across the world, whose tireless work enables stories to be told that would otherwise not be heard.

Many BBC staff put themselves in danger in order to report fearlessly from across the world, in particular, as the Secretary of State said yesterday. In the other place, and as the noble Lord referenced in his remarks, the World Service is a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. We undervalue the BBC at our peril. That is why this government will ensure the BBC remains fiercely independent and is also genuinely accountable to the public and people it serves. I'll now endeavour to raise the points raised by the noble Lord and noble Lady.

Lady. I wanted to start by welcoming the tone of the speech to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his clear commitment to to both preserving the BBC, but also to holding it to account. In relation to his question about the appointment of the Director General. It is a matter for the board, and I am sure they are considering whether they should keep the role as it stands as is, but it can also be part of the governance consideration that will be looked at in the charter review, which I will come on to in a moment.

With respect to the lawsuit threatened by the president of the United States, the BBC has confirmed that they have received a letter from President Trump's legal team. Lawyers for the BBC are now dealing with this. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on this point. The chair's letter on Monday made very clear that the Panorama edit of President Trump's speech did give the impression of a direct call for violent action, and it included an apology for that error of judgement.

As a government, our commitment to an independent, impartial and empowered BBC is unwavering. The noble Lord raised a point around the potential consolidation of public service broadcasters. It is clear that the TV market is transforming. We're asking the CMA and Ofcom to look at how this could impact their work. At the heart of our views on this, though, we support public service broadcaster. Particularly, which, because we believe they benefit audiences and their sustainability.

I can't, however, read my own writing, which I'm scribbling, so apologies. That was a bit garbled in relation to other topics raised by the noble Lady. The noble Lady raised and named Robbie Gibb. I've no doubt that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individuals. The culture sector has been speaking regularly to the chair of the BBC board to ensure he and the board as a whole, are in the best possible place to lead the BBC going forward.

And as the Culture Secretary was clear yesterday. In the other place, the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, and so she is unable to pursue that course of action in relation to questions around the timing and content of the charter review raised by both the noble Lord noble and the Charter Review will consider how best to ensure the public, the BBC, continues to deliver the high standards of reporting that the public expects.

And it doesn't just survive, but it actually thrives for decades to come. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, we will publish a green paper and consultation shortly. I'm not going to go further than that, as I'm sure your Lordships' House might anticipate, but I, I do understand that shortly does indeed mean shortly, and I look forward to future debates on this in your Lordships' House. I'd like to thank both the noble Lord, noble Lady, for the points that they have raised this afternoon.

I want to conclude by reiterating the government's view on the BBC, which is that it is an institution of national importance and one that we will protect, and we fail to protect it at our collective peril.
16:09
Lord Fowler Portrait Lord Fowler (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I have been a journalist for 60 years. Leaving aside rather lively period in which I served with the late Lord Lady Thatcher. But apart from that, I have been a journalist in that time, and also in time as a journalist. I've chaired two regional newspaper groups. Of course, BBC have made mistakes and we have heard of one this afternoon and I would be the last to to deny that, and I hope that we will put that right.

But in my experience, my general experience, the gold standard in fair reporting has consistently been set by the BBC, both in reporting home news. And also, let me say, in reporting news overseas. So what we should do, I think, is to have a position in which we maintain and strengthen the position of an independent BBC. That should be our goal. No other. And surely what we do not want is the is the position of of the partisan news and the none too accurate news of Fox News being put down our throats by some of the people who are now seeking to imitate it.

So, my Lords, I think that although the BBC has gone through a very difficult stage, we've taken a long time in this House to come to this issue, incidentally. But although we've got we have now come to it, I think that there is a very wide public support for the BBC, much wider than people like Lord Pickles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are. Keep going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keep going. So what I would ask is that the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what I would ask is that the. The noble Lady should say and should support the gold standard of
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
In relation to the noble Lords, point as to whether this government believes that the BBC is institutionally biased. No, we do not believe that to be the case. The BBC provides trusted news and high quality programming. It's really important they maintain that trust and rebuild the trust by correcting mistakes quickly when they occur. And I would agree that for any public service broadcaster, accountability is important to maintain trust, I would I would say that arguably the charter review process comes at a good point in the BBC's history because it will enable us to have a national conversation, including voices from across the political spectrum and across the country, to make sure we get the right outcome, both for the BBC but more importantly for the country conservatives.

80 80 out 80 out of 80 out of London, 80 out of London, but 80 out of London, but I'm 80 out of London, but I'm sure 80 out of London, but I'm sure the noble Lady knows that actually, BBC noble Lady knows that actually, BBC Scotland is is in crisis at the moment. We have a long standing presenter who has been suspended. presenter who has been suspended. We have our flagship radio news programme under review, and we have programme under review, and we have an election to the Scottish Parliament in May.

So it is extremely important that that BBC Scotland as a as a characterful Scotland as a as a characterful voice for that is respected across the different genres, is is put in the different genres, is is put in order in time for that election. So what is the government doing and what can the noble Lady do to what can the noble Lady do to ensure that the voices of the nations and the regions are heard through our BBC? Yeah.

concerns about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry being from one background and in one region, and the noble Lady makes a a valid point, and I will feed that back to the Secretary of State and to Minister Murray as well. What I would like to do, however, is to highlight the work that the BBC has done over the years in this area, albeit from a English regional perspective, not least in Mediacity in Salford and through the work they're doing at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, we're clear that this is important to make sure that the BBC doesn't just represent the views of one part of the country or one demographic, and we're clear that that will also be part of the charter review, albeit the issues that the noble Lady raises do need to be addressed before the elections next year.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This may be a moment for noble Lords who wish to leave, to leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quite Quite frankly Quite frankly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quite frankly.
16:31
None Portrait Legislation: Sentencing Bill - second reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Second Reading Second Reading of Second Reading of the Second Reading of the Sentencing
16:31
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Lord Timpson. I beg to move that this bill now be read a second time. My Lords, it's my pleasure to bring this bill for its Second Reading. I want to start by thanking the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his team for his Independent Sentencing Review. This has informed many measures in this bill. I want to thank another former Lord Chancellor to the now Home Secretary for all her work in getting us to this point.

I also want to thank the many noble Lords who have engaged with me on this bill. The input I have received has been a great value and generally very positive as we take this legislation forward. And of course, I want to pay tribute to our incredible prison and probation staff who have worked, often unseen and underappreciated, through an incredibly difficult time. I see and appreciate what they do every day, and I'm proud to call every one of them a colleague. And I also want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Newlove, whose sad passing I learned of today as both victims Commissioner and Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness Newlove brought unparalleled experience and dedication to her roles.

She championed the rights of victims and witnesses, and held agencies to account. Her leadership shaped the victims code, strengthened victims voices in the criminal justice system, and ensured that the Victims and Prisoners Act progress with victims interests. At its heart, she was an extraordinary public servant who I was fortunate to know well and admired immensely, whose life's work and legacy are defined by courage, compassion and an unwavering commitment to justice. My Lords, before I turn to specific measures in this Bill, it is important to understand the context of why it is needed.

When the new government came to power in July last year, we inherited a crisis in our prisons and probation service. We were days away from running out of places entirely, days away from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, the courts having to make impossible decisions, and the criminal justice system buckling under insurmountable pressure, days away from our criminal justice system failing to deliver the one thing it was for delivering justice, we took urgent steps to prevent that catastrophe, and we've embarked on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, delivering 14,000 new places by 2031.

But if we don't take further action, it is only a matter of time before we'll be back here again. In a few months we will again be facing prisons on the brink and having to take emergency measures and again asking, how did we get here? My Lords? That's why this bill is vital. It doesn't kick the can further down the road, and it doesn't shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.

It will build a justice system that victims can have confidence in, and it will bring stability and sustainability to our prisons and our justice system. More than that, it will restore purpose to sentencing. It will deliver punishment that works by following the evidence of what works, that works for victims, delivering them the justice they deserve that works for society. We want better citizens, not better criminals. And what works for the public, delivering safer streets and protection from crime.

Of course, my Lords, that means that we must always be able to lock up the most dangerous offenders prisoners serving extended determinate sentences, those the court has deemed to be dangerous will not be affected by anything in this bill. They will still need the approval of the Independent Parole Board, if they're to be released at the two thirds point of their custodial term. The IPP sentence is also not included in the new progression model. The Parole Board will continue to review IPP cases at least every two years, and in many cases, more regularly.

My Lords will know that this is an area of incredible importance to me. I'm determined to support those in prison to progress towards a safe and sustainable release, but not in a way that undermines public protection. And for completeness, my Lords, nothing in this bill affects those who receive life sentences. Having been been convicted of the most horrendous crimes. But we need to be smarter. We need to follow the evidence. For many offenders sentenced to less than a year in prison, prison sets us up a revolving door of repeat offending.

Over 60% of those on prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. Offenders have limited time to engage in rehabilitation. Instead, they're exposed to hardened criminals and shown a path that can lead to more crime. And when they get out, they may have lost their home, their job, their relationships and everything that anchors them to society. They're being asked to make a U-turn on a one way street, but evidence shows community orders and suspended sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending.

So clause one of this bill introduces a presumption to suspend short sentences. We're not abolishing short sentences. Judges will still have the power to impose them in particular circumstances. If there is a significant risk of harm to an individual like a victim of domestic abuse, or if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a suspended sentence or re-offends, then prison will still be available. We will break the cycle of reoffending. That means fewer victims and more offenders getting their lives back on track.

And as many noble Lords know, I believe in second chances and clause two widens the scope for suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three. Of course, for many offenders, prison is the right answer. But if you want them to turn their lives around, we must make sure that serving time is not just what they do in between crimes. This bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences, inspired by the Texas reforms that helped to end their capacity crisis.

We will ensure that prisoners who don't behave in prison can be kept in for longer. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose in Texas, following a settling in period, crime fell by 30% and they have closed 16 prisons. Clauses 20 and 21 of this bill amend the release points. Those serving standard determinate sentences must serve at least one third of their time for more serious crimes. Given a standard determinate sentence, offenders must serve at least half.

But those are minimums prisoners who misbehave, who are violent, who are caught with an illicit mobile phone, can stay inside for longer, and we will double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84, so that the worst behaved will serve longer in custody. It's the same as in our communities. If you break our rules, you can pay the price with your liberty and punishment doesn't end when a spell inside does. Nor does release mean an end to rehabilitation.

So offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision by the probation service. They will still face consequences for their actions. My Lords, clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period. Offenders will be subject to strict conditions tailored to risk and offence. These clauses mean probation can set new restrictive licence conditions, for example stopping them going to the pub, banning them from football matches or preventing them from driving. This mirrors the new community requirement set out in clauses 13 to 15, and we will incentivise better behaviour from offenders.

Clauses 36 and 37 allow community orders and the supervision period of suspended sentence orders to be terminated. Once an offender has completed their sentence plan, including all court ordered requirements, the Probation Service will be able to incentivise compliance and encourage early engagement and completion of rehabilitative activities. But anyone who doesn't do this will serve their sentence in full and could face further penalties. We will also expand community payback. Clause three will introduce income reduction orders so offenders with high incomes are penalised more effectively when serving their suspended sentence in a community setting.

We'll make sure crime doesn't pay. And alongside the changes in this bill, we will address the root causes of crime by expanding the use of intensive supervision courts to break the cycles that lead to ever more re-offending. These courts are inspired by their success in Texas, which has seen a 33% fall in arrests compared to those serving prison sentences. They target offenders, often highly prolific offenders who suffer from addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those drivers.

Over three quarters of offenders are meeting the conditions the court set, and we will tag many more offenders to ensure compliance and restrict their freedom, their freedom outside of prison. What is more, all offenders release into the community will remain on licence for the duration of their sentence. This goes further than the approach the review recommended. Those at the highest risk will continue to be supervised by probation. To the very end. All offenders will be expected to comply with their licence conditions and remain liable for recall to prison at any time.

Any further offence, even even something that would normally attract a custodial sentence, will potentially lead to a recall. Offenders will know that any backsliding or regression could land them right back in a cell. They will obey our laws and they will be punishment if they don't. That's why clauses 26 and 30 will introduce a standard 56 day recall, replacing the existing 14 and 28 day terms. Real consequences for returning to crime and punishment that works, my Lords. More punishment in the community, more intensive supervision, more monitoring and restrictions.

These will all put more pressure on our already stretched probation service. That's why the recent spending review announced up to £700 million extra for probation. That's a 45% uplift by the final year, the largest in history, because we're investing in what makes a difference, investing in what cuts crime and rehabilitates offenders, and investing to support the staff. My Lords, we're also making sure our justice system operates on the principles of putting victims first, fairness and accountability. Clause four amends the statutory purpose of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection.

The bill will also go further than ever before to restrict offenders movements in order to protect victims. Victims of the most serious sexual or violent offenders should not have to worry at all who they will run into when they go somewhere new. That is why clause 24 allows probation to be able to impose new restriction zones on the most serious offenders on licence. Clause 16 will allow courts to impose these new zones on offenders serving community or suspended sentence orders. They will be required to stay in a specific area so that their victims can move freely or move freely elsewhere.

The victim should have the freedom, not the perpetrator. Clause six also introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing. Probation will be able to identify abusers more easily, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. This will improve risk management and further protect victims, and it is welcomed by victims groups. My Lords, these principles are also why we're progressing reforms to the Sensing Council. Through this bill, the Council has undertaken valuable work and helped bring greater consistency and transparency to the sentencing process.

It also plays an important constitutional role balancing interests across Parliament, government and the judiciary in sentencing policy and practice. We are keen to support the Council with its work following events in recent months. We're introducing a pair of measures that aim to maintain public confidence in its guidelines. Clause 18 introduces a requirement on the Council to obtain the Lord Chancellor's approval of its annual business plan before it can be published, and clause 19 requires the council to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines.

My officials will be working closely with their counterparts at the council to agree, underpinning detail on the practicalities of both approval processes. My Lords, I took this role to help reform a system that I've been passionate about for most of my life. My colleagues and I have looked across the world for what works. These learnings are contained in this bill. Brought together. These measures will bring stability and sustainability to our justice system. In that regard, there is no alternative, but they do more than that.

This bill will make sure that we have prisons that work, a probation service that reforms offenders and fewer victims. It will put our justice system on a footing fit for the future, one that prioritises victims fairness and accountability and one that prioritises punishment that works. I urge noble Lords to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill and the principles behind it. I beg to move here. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. My Lords,
16:47
16:48
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
that 12 month threshold. Those offenders will now walk free to offenders will now walk free to allow. This will be a profound failure of the state's duty to protect its citizens, unless it has protect its citizens, unless it has the unintended effect, of course, that courts increase nominal that courts increase nominal sentences to override the presumption. Will we, in fact see an increase in the number of an increase in the number of immediate sentences of 15 to 18 months? An unintended and perhaps unfortunate consequence? But we know how human behaviour reacts.

The bill also reduces the time to The bill also reduces the time to be served in custody. For most offenders, automatic release will offenders, automatic release will come after just 33% of the sentence. Five months of a 15 month term. The rest will be served in the community, supervised in theory by the hard pressed probation service. the hard pressed probation service. It has been predicted that there will in fact be an immediate 6% will in fact be an immediate 6% rise in crime.

As Cicero said, to what good that is not sentencing reform. It is a policy of early release. With rising crime. The consequence, we are told, this is about rehabilitation. I ask, are those who make up that six to be 6% to be treated as rehabilitated? Worse, what new money is to be invested in probation, in treatment or community infrastructure? There will simply be a prison system operating at 98% capacity and Ministers desperate to empty it. The probation service will bear the weight of these charges.

It is already, we know, overstretched, understaffed and struggling to manage risk. The government's own impact assessment concedes that an additional 580 officers will be required each year. That is at a cost of £30 million a year, funding that simply does not exist in the current settlement. As the Home Affairs and Justice Committee on which I served as demonstrated, reducing numbers in prison does not mean a saving. The running costs of prisons remain the same. So will the Minister.

Please explain where in the ministry's budget will this money come from? Will it be from defence legal aid fees? Will it be from the budgets for our crumbling courts? Can we have answers, please? My Lords, clause 11 goes further still. It removes from the courts key aspects of sentencing. It transfers them to probation officers. They are not judges, they are not judicially trained. And they are already work beyond capacity. Yet they will now bear responsibility for deciding how much rehabilitative activity an offender must complete.

That is a big shift in responsibility sentencing. That is, the determination of punishment is and should remain a judicial function. It is a matter for judges applying the law in open court. How can we have a sentencing bill that in fact removes an important plank of sentencing from the courts and the public eye? How will the public know that punishment is being imposed consistently and in proportion to the offence in question? What safeguards will prevent political or managerial pressure? And I emphasise that last bit, managerial pressure from influencing those decisions, policy will be made and put into effect behind closed doors, an important part of a sentence in a given case will not be given in public.

My Lords, that is not reform. It is a dismantling or a start of the dismantling of the separation of powers. It hands quasi judicial authority to an exhausted service, and it does so without additional resources, without oversight and without accountability. If the noble Lord, the Minister, believes probation officers should exercise the functions of judges, he should say so openly to Parliament to make such a change under the guise of efficiency is constitutionally wrong. The bill introduces a host of new community restrictions on offenders, bans on entering pubs, sporting events or defined geographical areas.

On paper it may sound straightforward, but how is it to work? Who is to be responsible for their enforcement? Will it be the licensed trade? Will it be the police? Will it be venue owners themselves who will be told in a big city pub who is to know? The bill gives no clarity, indicates no resourcing and gives no framework of accountability. It simply assumes it appears that someone somehow will make it happen. Probation officers, already overstretched and under-resourced, are expected to monitor compliance, to enforce restrictions and manage breaches.

The bill provides no guidance. How this is to operate. I ask, how is this to work? My Lords, this bill was not in the manifesto that referred simply to sentences. That, and I quote, make sense to victims and the wider public. These proposals do neither. They will undermine public confidence in the justice system. Confidence already eroded by early release schemes, court delays and prison overcrowding and prison escapes. My Lords, every element of this bill points in one direction leniency driven by necessity.

That is not, we suggest, how to develop important policy. The prisons are overcrowded and certainly previous governments have failed to manage this successfully. But the public expects those who break the law to be dealt with properly, to be punished, and that those who pose a threat to be detained. But henceforth an offender can serve one third of a sentence, breach licence conditions, be recalled and still be rereleased earlier, only yesterday or the day before, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner sounded the alarm and raped the Lord Chancellor.

Under part two of the bill. As the Domestic Abuse Commissioner pointed out, offenders recalled to custody will now be automatically reloaded. Rereleased after just 56 days with no review by the parole board. This will include convicted abusers after recall for contacting or stalking their victims. They will yet go back into the community with no fresh assessment of danger. This is complacency. It places victims at avoidable risk. My Lords, this bill requires rigorous scrutiny. It blurs the line between rehabilitation and release.

It has judicial powers to the probation service, and it places public protection second to administrative convenience. We are not told how it will be funded. We are told it is modernisation. In truth, it is a risky experiment with public safety. We on this side will examine every clause carefully in committee, but our position is clear. Sentencing exists to protect the public, to deter crime and to deliver justice to victims. And it is for judges

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill fails on all those counts. What I had hoped that a more favourable reception might have
16:57
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
been accorded by the conservative frontbench to this Bill, given the respect that many of us have for David Gauke and the work he did on the Independent review, and the respect we have for the Minister with his own practical experience in this area, I entirely share the view that there are parts of the bill which need careful scrutiny in committee, but I think the bill is an attempt to deal with an appalling situation. The farcical situation of releases by an overworked and understaffed prison service and probation service trying to deal with a with overcrowded prisons.

The the the state that the the figures which demonstrate that we reached the point where we had almost 100% usage of prison cells and no scope, therefore, for sensible use of them, we are in an appalling situation which has been driven by many years of trying to talk tough on sentencing, what that actually involves, and I'm afraid it came from both Labour and Conservative parties at different times. What that involved was asserting that it was better to spend money badly on imprisoning the wrong people for longer, and to spend the money effectively on using rehabilitation, to which the Minister has rightly devoted much of his life.

There are good things in this bill the identification of domestic abuse by the court, which was the Minister has pointed out, will then be seen by probation staff and others who have reason to be concerned where this arises. That is very welcome. The presumption against short custodial sentences is very welcome. The direct reference to the protection of victims in the purposes of sentencing is a welcome inclusion, and particularly in the light of the death of Baroness Newlove, who campaigned so vigorously for victims.

I think it's particularly good that it appears in the bill that we're discussing today, robust community sentences are a feature of the bill, facilitating providing more means by which they can be made robust is extremely important. Unless we achieve wide acceptance by the public of robust community sentences, led by some acceptance in the media, that they may be the most sensible solution for some offenders, we will not change the upward drift of the prison population. This is extremely important and I'm glad that it's there in the bill.

There are things that are less welcome having to release prisoners, as has been happening for several years now, not as a result of careful judgement of individual cases and because of the need to reduce the numbers. It's something we've got to get away from. The earned progressive model is something I'm pleased to see in the bill for that very reason. Now let's look at some more controversial aspects of the bill the sentencing provisions, the Sentencing Council provisions. This is the second bill about the Sentencing Council in this Parliament.

This is ridiculous. State of affairs. So what do we have now? We have the Sentencing Council required to submit a business plan, which the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, may or may not approve of. And who knows what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan? Do they carry on doing it, or do they just stop work altogether and produce another one and wait until they get an approval for it? Sentencing guidelines themselves. There's a veto for the for the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for justice on the actual guidelines.

Where's the trust? Sentencing Council is a body of extremely experienced people who are used to dealing independently and without bias and prejudice with the issues that come before them. The government does not trust them at all and is creating a series of obstacles to doing their job properly. I'm very unhappy about that. The income reduction orders, I'm not against them in principle. They seem perhaps as a punitive element in the sentence, but they involve a fair bit of bureaucracy to which the Law Society has addressed some of its comments, and they could be a disincentive to work.

And the last thing I'm sure the Minister would agree you want to have is a disincentive to prisoners working when they're released, because work is well known to be one of the the main factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend, having a job and carrying out that job. Photos of offenders. I'm pretty doubtful about that as a provision in the legislation. And of course, all the guidance and all the rules under which they become possible are the subject of delegated legislation, Statutory Instruments.

We won't know, as we pass that part of the bill, precisely how this photo, opportunity or photo system will work. That is all yet to be settled. Then there are things that are missing from the bill as a real reform of IPP sentences. We are still waiting for that. In 2500 people and families are still waiting for it. And the bill doesn't really nothing. As the Minister conceded in his opening remarks, the bill does nothing about that except to allow the limited arrangements currently operating to continue the certainty that prison and probation services will have adequate resources to implement the release programme, something one would have liked with the bill.

I don't think we've got it, and I hope the Minister can make further efforts to demonstrate to us that the capacity will be there, making a success of the reforms in this legislation depends on both prison and probation services being adequate in numbers, adequate in training, and adequate in the amount of time they've got to do with the numbers of people they're dealing with. We need more assurance on that. I'd like to mention that despite the pessimistic picture I've painted of the state of some of our prisons, and it is truly appalling in many cases.

There are good things going on. I want to reference the Oswin Project associated with HMP Northumberland, which involves a cafe in the prison, a farm shop associated with the prison, a cafe in Newcastle Cathedral all involving offenders and much supported and maintained made possible by volunteers. There's a lot of good work going on in prison and a lot of people who want to see good things happen so that reoffending is reduced, and I think any further encouragement the government can give to that kind of work is desirable.

Prison is expensive, and if not properly managed and resourced, sends people out into the community who are very likely to re-offend. So when we contemplate what we do with our resources, we should not be deluded by the long held practice of seeing prisoners some kind of free good. That's something the state has to provide in whatever quantity we decide. We should be looking at how we spend money in the criminal justice system, what works and what doesn't. And I commend Ministers who have been prepared to look at what was going on in Texas.

We looked at that in the Justice Committee in the House of Commons a decade ago, or more probably nearly 20 years ago, when they started work on it. And it was really quite encouraging to see right wing Republicans say, we have to back this because we're wasting the taxpayer's dollar. That was in the days when the Republican Party didn't believe in wasting money. These things have changed a bit under President Trump, but it was realistic demonstration that when you start to look at what you what are you using your money for? Are you making the public safer? Then you must look at whether the measures you are using do in fact make the public safer.

And I commend the commend the government for doing that. And I look forward to my noble friends to ensuring that this bill, where it can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improved, is improved. My Lords, I must start by
17:04
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
declaring some interests. I was on the independent panel chaired by David Gauke, which produced a preliminary short report entitled History and Trends in Sentencing in February this year. I shall return to that, if I may. It then produced a final report in May, many of the recommendations of which underpin the proposals in this bill. I was also president of the Sentencing Council for six years while serving as Lord Chief Justice. The bill has two clauses relating to the Sentencing Council.

Now, My Lords, I broadly welcome the proposals relating to sentencing, although no doubt 1 or 2 of them might be tidied up. But it will come as no surprise to your lordships that I regard the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council as misconceived as is well known. The impetus for this sentencing legislation flows from our prisons being full. There is no prospect of capacity being expanded sufficiently to cope with the demand in the coming years, urgent steps have to be taken, otherwise the system will simply fall over.

There are a number of reasons why the prison population has doubled between 1993 and today, to now, over 87,000 people at the heart of them has been sentenced. Inflation. In 1993, the average custodial sentence for indictable offences was 16 months. By June 2024, it was 22.5 months. There has been substantial increases in the minimum terms that those subject to life sentences must serve, driven by legislative change in 2003 by schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act, which governed murder, that pulled up all sentences for violent offending, which in turn fed over into sentences.

More generally, the number of life sentences has substantially increased, as have sentences over ten years. Despite serious crime having fallen. My Lords, the detail is in the History and Trends report to which I referred. Parliament has also repeatedly legislated to increase maximum sentences. This has all happened at a time when political and much public discourse has focussed on the punitive element of sentencing, while marginalising other important purposes of sentencing, which include reducing re-offending and rehabilitating offenders.

With respect to my good friend Lord Sandhurst, we've heard a little of that this afternoon. The impact of sentencing of different types is studied around the world, and thus rich data are available on the impact of different sentences on reducing crime. There is compelling evidence that non-custodial sentencing, of course, with a proper punitive element, reduces re-offending when short prison sentences do not, and also that lengthening sentence does not reduce reoffending. Countries across Europe and also Texas, of which we've heard already have shown that reduced sentences and less use of immediate custody not only reduce prison populations, but also reduce crime.

So I particularly welcome the measures in the bill to restrict further the use of short, immediate terms of imprisonment, subject, of course, to necessary exceptions and those to enable sentences to be deferred for 12 rather than six months, and to increase to three years rather than two. The period of imprisonment that may be suspended. My Lords, it's important that both community sentences and suspended sentences should be seen to include a proper element of punishment. The expansion of the list of requirements that may be imposed as a punishment is a positive step.

Perhaps the government would immediately also consider adding a foreign travel ban to that list. These are steps in the right direction, my Lords, to reduce the unnecessary and frankly, counterproductive use of custody. They don't tackle sentence inflation, which I earnestly hope but doubt that our political class will have the courage to confront collectively before too long. My Lords, the government has broadly adopted our recommendations for rationalising release dates and introducing incentives to earn release, and also measures to contain the explosion in the recall population in prisons.

It's gone further than we recommended with removing foreign national offenders. All three should reduce the prison population. There may be room for some debate about whether foreign national offenders should be deported immediately, or at least serve part of their sentence to ensure that there is a punitive element. And whilst some may be concerned about allowing release on licence of fixed term prisoners who have behaved well after serving a third of their sentences, those of you Lordships with a longer memory than mine will recall that the 1967 Criminal Justice Act provided for release after a third, and it was that way for very many years.

Now it is clear that the changes proposed in the bill will work only if the Probation Service can undertake the additional work required of it. That will require increased numbers and funding. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, but it also depends on technology, especially tagging technology. That must work and it's necessary that any breaches are enforced, so there will be much work to be done on delivery work, which the noble Lord, the Minister, is especially well equipped to oversee.

As the former chief executive of a substantial business, I wish him well in that task. My Lords, in the relatively short time left to me. May I make some observations on the clauses relating to the Sentencing Council, which echo those already made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. Clause 19 requires the Sentencing Council to seek the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, before publishing a guideline. All publishing amendments to a guideline if both do not consent, publication is blocked, the guideline will not come into force.

Amendments to an existing guideline will not take effect. This is, My Lords, no more and no less than a political veto in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. No Lord Chief Justice would want a power of veto, nor, frankly, any exercise it. This power would enable the Lord Chancellor, and possibly a less benign Lord Chancellor than we have today to stop some or all of the work of the Sentencing Council. That cannot be right. Moreover, to fail to consent would be extraordinary, given the careful construction of the scheme under which the Sentencing Council operates.

Having undertaken deep research and wide consultation, it publishes a draft of its proposals. It calls for Commons comments from anybody who wishes to provide them, and consults further widely. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee of the House of Commons are statutory consultees. The Lord Chancellor has a representative who attends all meetings of the Sentencing Council to convey the governmental view, and the membership of the Council is carefully balanced by statute to reflect a broad range of interests.

The DPP is there. So too is a Chief Constable and a voice for the victims. For example, I'm puzzled that it said that there needs to be a political override. There has never been one before in this area, and that's for very good reason. Before the Sentencing Council, there was a non-statutory body that worked as its precursor, and before that, the exclusive jurisdiction for setting guidelines for different offences rested with the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

So to the extent that the Sentencing Council and its predecessor are non-statutory body which were established at the instigation and with the full consent of the judiciary, impacts upon anybody's constitutional responsibilities. It's that of the judiciary, not the executive. I hope, my Lord, you might bear with me for another 30s or so I believe this bill would be better without clause 19. If something has to stay, it would be better inverted so that the Sentencing Council may publish.

Unless both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice object. And what can one say about clause 18? Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, can explain what it's all about. It's silent on what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan. This looks to be a controlling mechanism, although how it would work is opaque. The explanatory notes are coy on the subject. That might be the best way of putting it. And the noble Lord, the Minister, only touched on it.

Glancingly in his open, my Lords, I finished on a slightly sour note, but I wish to emphasise that I wouldn't want that to distract from the facts that I support the aspects of the sentencing bill that deal with sentencing rather than the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentencing Council. I apologise for overrunning. My Lords as I speak today. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords as I speak today. I declare an interest as Anglican Bishop to His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales, and may I to pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not least in her role as
17:15
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-
Newlove, not least in her role as victims Commissioner. As I begin, I want to echo so much of what the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Burnett have just said, which has lifted my spirits. There is much to welcome in this bill. For example, as has been said, we know in general a short custodial sentences do more harm than good. So I'm delighted that we're now seeing some evidence based policy making rather than policy shaped by media headlines.

But we do also need to clarify our long term vision and aims. As a Christian, I believe every human being is made in the image of God and is created to live in interdependent relationship. And broken relationship sits at the heart of all brokenness. Strong relationship sits at the heart of all that is good and transformative. And I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his introduction. But I am dismayed that we're setting the context of this bill as overcrowded prisons and a current crisis.

Surely our long term vision and big picture is not simply about more prisons or even decent prisons, but ultimately about strengthening communities so that people flourish in a network of healthy and safe relationships. I'm therefore hugely concerned by the piecemeal selection of David Gauke recommendations from his independent sentencing review, and our failure to look at that big long term picture, for example, including victims in the statutory purpose of sentencing is welcome. But if we want to respond well to victims and reduce the number of victims in the future, then we need to pay attention to where relationship has been broken in people's lives, as well as in their offending.

When sentencing, the place of trauma needs to be addressed for offender as well as victim. And it's interesting that many people are both. And I wonder where that leaves us when we talk about putting victims first, there needs to be scope to be attentive to the underlying reasons for people's behaviour, not least in an endeavour to break the cycle of re-offending and fractured communities, which is costly physically, emotionally and financially. Among wider society. There has increasingly been a push, as we've heard, for longer sentences and more punishment.

The review found, and I quote, punishment has been given disproportionate weight and there has been insufficient focus on reducing crime. And it's stated that custody should be a last resort. The bill does not address these criticisms. We are failing to ask what will enable a reduction in re-offending in the individual and bring transformation not only for them, but for those who are impacted by their choices. We must include reduction of crime in the purpose statement, as recommended by David Gauke.

Creativity with community sentencing could be so life changing, but sadly, even the proposed changes are set within such a punitive framework and tone. This is pandering to public opinion, not changing it. On that note, measures to name and shame people completing unpaid work as part of their community sentence needs greater scrutiny. I'm sure the last thing the government would intend is harmful consequences for thousands of children and young people whose parents are completing their sentence.

I applaud the skills and professionalism of our probation officers, and I'm glad to see the rehabilitation activity requirement replaced by probation requirement. But to be effective, resource must continue to be increased such that money currently wasted on inappropriate prison sentences is redirected to the recruitment, training and retention of dedicated probation staff and indeed prison staff. If prison sentences are going to be restorative, then the recruitment, training, valuing and retention of prison and probation staff is vital, and all of this is set against a backdrop of severe financial challenge.

We need to spend financial resources differently. Which brings me back to the need for clarity about vision and aims, and what long term good looks like. Although HMP HMPPS has mission and purpose statements, I urge us to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. This would bring much needed clarity to all parts of the criminal justice system and wider stakeholders, and reduce confusion if we're truly committed to reimagining and building an effective, well-functioning prison system.

If we truly are, I will be seeking amends to this bill to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. In recent days, we have seen yet again intense media and political attention on prisons. But we need to reduce the political heat and seek cross-party solutions. And I say I am dismayed by much of what I heard from the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. We must shape public opinion rather than follow. It. Is the noble Lord, the Minister, prepared to face down the media on matters of principle and evidence.

Sadly, we saw the exact opposite of this earlier this year. My Lords, when we had before us the sentencing guidelines, pre-sentence reports bill, there was bluster and kneejerk reaction and we saw the independence of the Sentencing Council put at risk. And we've heard more about that this afternoon. The government refers to the position of the Sentencing Council as a democratic deficit. Yet the Independent Sentencing Review makes plain that politics has been a driver of the current misuse of prison.

I am deeply disappointed that the government has not addressed this charge, and has notably ignored the recommendation to introduce an external advisory body to help Ministers make sentencing policy, plan prison capacity and invest the money needed wisely. There is nothing in this bill to give assurance that our planning and management of the overall prison population is going to be significantly better than it is now, or that we have grasped the significant changes needed because we have failed to articulate the big aim and clarify what good would look like for victims, offenders, families and wider society in the long term.

As I draw to a close, let me say, if if we had a well-functioning prison system with good headroom and capacity, low rates of violence and self-harm, and people coming out of prison less likely to offend than when they went in, this bill might have been sufficient. Instead, it's a long way from the radical and bold thinking that is necessary to reset the appropriate use of prison. Beyond these doors is a statue of Queen Victoria, positioned between the figures of justice and mercy to attributes, I believe, of God who is in the business of reconciliation and transformation.

If we allow mercy and justice to truly dialogue, this bill could be transformed. We need a joined up public health approach to the criminal justice system, which puts relationship front and centre. This bill does contain some good elements, but I would urge the government to listen more carefully to the Gauke Sentencing Review in the round as many, as well as to the many who call the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

go further. My Lords, may I declare an
17:24
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I declare an interest as the non-executive chair interest as the non-executive chair chairman of Leicester Law Centre, and I am privileged to serve on your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Committee. My first speech in your Lordships' House was on the subject of sentencing. It was a pretty standard maiden speech, I'm afraid. The late noble Lord, Lord Longford, was nice enough to say a few kind words. That was 27 years ago now in November 19th, 2025, I'm speaking on sentencing again.

And while I have to admit that although there have been many changes to sentencing policy, some good, some not so good, it's not until now that the approach that prevailed in 1998 has really changed. Now, at long last, we have a bill that thoughtfully and sensibly tackles the fundamental problems of an almost broken system, and one that can fairly be said to have failed. Examples. One fault is that there are just too many people in prison.

Women as well as men. Another is that they are there for far too long. And the third even more depressing in some ways than the first two, is that rehabilitation is too often an aspiration rather than a reality. The results are all around us. Our prisons are absolutely full, and too many ex-prisoners re-offend and find themselves straight back in jail. So the house will probably not be surprised to hear that I warmly welcome this bill.

The principles behind it and the tone it sets. I'm also proud of the government that's brought it forward. I want it to become a new chapter in our sentencing policy, one which is of our time, up to date and isn't a victim of what's already been said, or in the House today of a long standing and often phoney war between the political parties. How much time have we lost in the last 30 years by this putting up the ante between governments and oppositions? Mirror, mirror on the wall.

Who is the toughest of us all? And the irony is that until 30 years ago, there wasn't this battle to be the hard man. There were, of course, different opinions and debates, but basically, and at heart, there was an agreement, an understanding, the going for the lowest common denominator was not in anybody's interests. This bill, it seems to me, is a serious attempt to find an approach that can be supported by all people of good will and intelligence.

Is that too much to ask? Of course I accept. The bill is not perfect. The successful implementation of its proposals will not come close to success in letters unless it is given the backing, including the financial backing it needs for that success and for that success to happen to the probation service is absolutely key. As many speakers from around the House have already said, my Lords, probation has been to hell and back again over the last 15 years or so.

Experiments that Doctor Frankenstein would have been proud of have been tried on it. In a way, it's a bit of a miracle that it's still with us, but it is, and its role is absolutely essential to the success or failure of this new sentencing policy as set out in this bill. We are asking the probation service to play the leading role in both changing people's lives around, while at the same time satisfying the public that they are being protected.

The service needs sustaining. Both and strengthening in numbers and in funding and in funding. If more is to be maintained. I have to say that my concern is that the money pledged and it is generous up until 2029, is frankly not going to be enough if we are to make a success of this bill and the excellent independent review that, in fact, was its parent and government must recognise this. I feel as early as possible.

The Lords before finishing, I want to mention just one aspect of the bill in a tiny bit more detail, and I refer here to an amendment moved in the other place by my hon. Friend Lindsay Farnsworth, the Member of Parliament for Amber Valley, when she argued that as far as the earned model is concerned, there should be reward for positive behaviour by prisoners as well as, of course, reward for behaving yourself in prison and obeying the rules and other criteria.

As I understand it, the Texas model does contain some reward for positive behaviour in prison as well as merely neutral behaviour. The minister's reply in the other place was was not discouraging, and I look forward to if there is an amendment put down on this matter, the issue being debated and discussed here, and look forward to what the Minister will have to say. And I end my Lords, by emphasising once again my support for this bill. The facts.

It's here today, so soon is a huge compliment to David Gauke for his independent inquiry that he completed so speedily, so quickly. And of course, to the Minister himself, who with his experience and commitment has been responsible for this legislation. My Lords, I hope it's not. I hope it's in order to say that the Minister has been a breath of fresh air in this area and given us the chance to be proud once again of our sentencing system.

Let's make sure that we pass this bill and take that chance.
17:32
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I hope that I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be forgiven if I concentrate more on what is should be in the more on what is should be in the bill rather than what is in the bill. For the purposes of today's bill. For the purposes of today's debate, I intend to focus primarily on sentences of imprisonment for on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. IPPS. But before I do so, I would like to make some brief remarks about other aspects that relate to sentencing and also to the prison system.

First, my Lords, as regards deportation orders, something we debated last week, something we voted on last week, something we voted on last night. Most people in this country not, I think, the majority of this House favour deportation orders, House favour deportation orders, but I think subject to two important provisos. The first Lords, important provisos. The first Lords, I think, is this it is highly I think, is this it is highly desirable that a foreign national sentenced to a serious period of sentenced to a serious period of imprisonment should be required to serve a substantial part of that sentence in the United Kingdom before deportation.

And the reason for that is that there is too great a chance that on deportation, the receiving country, unless there is an appropriate agreement in place, will simply let him walk free. And that, in fact, is, I think, what has happened to Mr. Kabuto on his release to Ethiopia. And the second point I would make, my Lords, is this that in order to satisfy the principle of deep of proportionality, I think that a deportation order, an automatic one, should arise only in the event of serious offences.

And by serious offences I mean marking that by a significant period of imprisonment it will be a matter for debate what the threshold period should be. Now, the next point I want to mention in general terms relates to non-custodial sentences, something of which I am a very strong supporter. However, in order to reassure the public, the non-custodial sentence must serve the public interest in a very obvious way and must also be enforced with rigour. And that means, apart from other things, a properly financed and resourced probation service.

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was saying about the probation service, and I do welcome the fact that financing has been significantly increased. My next point is this I would like to emphasise the importance of purposeful out of cell activity for prisoners while in custody. And I know the noble Lord, the Minister agrees with this. There should be very much more concentration on remedial education and training for employment for far too many prisoners are spending far too long locked up in their cells.

And that is quite, quite wrong. And my next general point relates to what happens on this. It is essential that there is a proper package of support for discharged prisoners and most important of all, the prospect of employment. And again, I give credit to the Minister in respect of his ministerial career in this matter. Your lordships will have noticed in respect of quite a lot of the recently released prisoners, that they were simply shown the door. So far as I could see, they had no proper support.

And that is quite, quite wrong. And again, it reverts to the point of the noble Lord, Lord. But what we require is a properly resourced and funded probation service. And the last of my general points before I come to the IPPS, I would like to mention independent monitoring boards. I was a prisons Minister under my noble friend Lord heard of Westwell many years ago. I must say he was our most distinguished Home Secretary, as he was a most distinguished Foreign Secretary, and I served under him and became very familiar with monitoring boards.

And indeed, when I retired from the House of Commons, I became a member of the monitoring board of our local prison, along with the inspectorate. The monitoring boards are a vital means of scrutinising what goes on in individual establishments. And I would like to say to the Minister that I hope he will encourage boards to be as candid and as critical as the facts justify. And also, this does really lie to him to encourage prison governors to enable the boards to fulfil the functions which I think they should.

My Lords, I now want to turn, if I might, to the IPPS rightly characterise as an enduring stain on our judicial system. Now I'm not going to repeat the relevant facts in any detail. Your lordships will in fact find all the detail that your lordships require in excellent briefing notes by the library of the House of Lords. There is also, my Lords, a very helpful report published in 2022 by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and most recently in June 25th, a very important report produced by the Howard League for Penal Reform.

It's a report in which the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, was intimately involved. And also my noble friend Lord Garnier as well. Now I acknowledge, my Lord, that there has been some progress in the action plan now in place. But alas, the progress has been too slow. On the 31st of December 2024, there were still 695 unreleased prisoners who had been in prison for more than their tariff and indeed for more than ten years.

And unsurprisingly, my Lords, self-harm and suicide are much higher for this category of prisoner than for any other. As at March 2025, 94 people on IPPS had taken their own lives whilst in prison, and this is deplorable. And so, my Lords, one has to ask oneself, what do we do about this enduring crisis? Bearing in mind that there is an action plan already in place? But as I have said, it is an action plan proceeding too slowly.

And that indeed is not surprising. Many prisons do not, in fact, provide the courses that are required to enable a prisoner to proceed towards release. Now, the Committee of the House of Commons in 2022 recommended recommended resentencing of individual IPP prisoners. That is a proposal that I probably did support, and I certainly would support. However, that recommendation was refused by the last government and indeed has been refused by the present government. And I don't imagine that a change of mind is going to occur in the near future.

And consequently, the Howard League has come forward with seven interlocking and mutually supporting recommendations. The most important of these is the proposal for a two year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The recommendation is that in IPP cases, the Parole Board should be asked to set a date when a person will be released with a two year window, together with what has to be done in order to achieve public safety. And the report quite rightly sets out a range of safeguards, together with a mechanism for setting aside the release date.

If there is a requirement for that decision. My Lord, the recommendation for a conditional release date, together with the other recommendations in the report, seems to me to be a very sensible way forward. But in this debate, I don't want to be unduly prescriptive. What I suggest is essential is early progress to mitigate and hopefully resolve what is an undoubted scandal. And so I hope that in the context of this Bill, there will be cross-party discussions which will result in serious amendments to this bill, which are of a kind likely to commend themselves to this government, and that thereby we can reasonably hope to see an early resolution to what is a very serious injustice.
17:42
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
That was one. to declare two interests. One is I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Lords, so admirably chaired by Lord foster. And I'm also an office holder of the All-Party parliamentary Group on Penal Reform. My Lords, this Bill sets out an important reforms to reduce unnecessary use of custodial sentences to tackle overcrowding, reduce offending and protect victims. And I welcome all of that. But this afternoon, I just want to highlight some of my concerns, which I hope we can deal with during the course of the Committee stage.

This bill quite rightly bolsters suspended sentences. But, my Lords, we must guard against more use of suspended sentences instead of community orders, because evidence shows that suspended sentences are imposed on those who should have actually received community orders. Community orders. My Lords, are not a soft option. With the right investment intensive community sentences can succeed where short sentences fail. Community orders, we know, are flexible and allow individuals to tackle root causes of offending by engaging with mental health alcohol drug treatment while retaining their work, home and community ties.

And we know that community sentences have more than halved in the recent years. We need to encourage greater use of community orders and not less, and we know that female offenders in particular, benefit from community orders. The committee on which I sit published a report, Cutting Crime and Better Community Sentences, and highlighted a number of best practices area which I will not repeat. Given given the time, my Lords, if we do not use this, it will simply defeat the objective of the Bill by simply delaying custodial sentences.

While greater use of community orders is is desirable. But we also know that the full potential will not be maximised until the probation service is fully functional. As others have said, government's commitment to invest £700 million is welcome, but there will be a shortfall of staff and there will be a time lag. Getting staff levels and training up to speed to to to meet the expectations of this bill. Furthermore, probation service needs community based voluntary organisations to be effective while services are provided locally, various agencies can co-operate effectively.

And again, in our report we argued that co-location and co-commissioning are gold standard. So investment in the probation service and community based organisations is crucial if we are to maintain public trust in community sentences. Let me now turn to the question of earned progression model in the bill, which differs from that recommended by the Independent Sentencing Review. This bill does not include incentives to engage in purposeful activity within the the prison before release. There are, however, challenges to the implementation of an earned progress in this framework, particularly while in prison.

Issues of concern some of them have been highlighted is, of course, the current overcrowding, lack of purposeful activity, unequal progression within the prison estate, unfair adjudication system and problem of added days. These need to be tackled because without these the progression model will be ineffective in easing the prison capacity crisis and reducing offending. The second part of the progression model will see those released entering intensive supervision and increased use of electronic monitoring or tagging, and the government has confirmed that tagging will be automatically applied to offenders at the point of release into the second part of the progression model.

It is estimated that this would double the number of those tagged tagging I know can be effective part of community supervision, but at present there is no clear strategy, clarity or guidelines on how the expansion of the use of tagging should be used and monitored, and its impact on the probation service. Disproportionate use of tagging can be counterproductive, in particular on women. Furthermore, small technical breaches which do not amount to reoffending could result in incarceration, thus defeating the objective of the bill.

Earlier this month, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice on the use of electronic monitoring, to which I'm sure Lord foster will refer. So to succeed, this bill requires investment in the probation service and promotion of benefits of community orders and a clear strategy on tagging. My final concern is, of course, about the sentencing bill, and I have already been referred to by Lord Beith and Lord Moulton and Lord Burnett, and I really would not go into it.

But all I would say that while I recognise the importance of Parliament's role in overseeing sentencing policy and enforcing accountability and monitoring its effectiveness, this measure risks that the executive curtailing the independence of the Sentencing Council and, if I may say so, the reaction to what happened before, when we had the other bill was rather over the top. And I think this particular measure, in my view, is unnecessary. And I think we should be concentrating on sentencing and supporting the Sentencing Council's independence in the way we can.
17:48
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I must add to tributes to the great, brave and humane soul Baroness Newlove. My Lords, it's now, as we've heard, over 30 years since two political pugilists faced off from opposite despatch boxes in the other place and triggered a law and order arms race from which our criminal justice system and and the society it's supposed to serve have yet to recover. For decades, this excited expectations that governments could legislate their way to headlines and re-election by diminished due process and tougher sentencing.

They purported to do this even when imposing economic austerity in the form of cuts to living standards and the justice system in particular, as well as youth, mental health and addiction services. Today, we reap the bitter harvest in both the human and financial costs of the justice and penal system on its knees, in which few members of the public have faith. By contrast, and with no disrespect to the elected chamber, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a perfect example of some of the finest government Ministers sitting in your Lordships' House, bringing a wealth of experience, expertise and vocation for genuine reform.

Not, perhaps, since the fictional progressive prison warden Henry Brubaker, played by the late Robert Redford in the 1980 Hollywood film. Went Inside disguised as a convict, has one man attempted such a brave reforming challenge? Of course, my noble friend comes disguised not as an inmate, but a politician. Nonetheless, I pay tribute to him, and indeed to the much respected conservative Lord Chancellor David Gauke, who Sentencing Review has inspired so much of the bill before us.

In particular, I commend a focus on preventing and reducing crime and diverting people away from prison so far as possible. Such aims, my Lords, are nothing short of a sea change from decades of crime and sentencing legislation drafted, if not quite on the back of a cigarette packet on the back of rainforests, of press releases full of punitive talk and sentence inflation. Talk is cheap and legislation not much more expensive. The exorbitant cost comes later in failed sentences in overstuffed prisons, where rehabilitation programmes are all but impossible.

The continuing cost is of reoffending and the revolving door, and I don't mean the one outside your Lordships' House. So the bill must, of course, come with sufficient funds to implement it. Adequate funds for our crumbling courts, demoralised probation, third sector and prison services. Otherwise, this once in a generation possibility of reversing the vicious cycle will be set up to fail. I wholeheartedly welcome the presumption against short sentences and the discretion to suspend short custodial sentences in the light of decades of data on reoffending.

How hollow were those slogans about short, sharp shocks and how prison works of yesteryear? However, it's vital that suspended sentences translate into less custody, not fewer community orders. As we heard from the noble Lady. Investment training, monitoring and constant evaluation in every part of the system will be key. By contrast, the new consent process for the Sentencing Council smacks a little more of the press release than sound policy. The will of the people, my Lords, on matters of sentencing, is properly expressed by Parliament's role in scrutinising and enacting sentencing legislation.

The Sentencing Council exists to help the independent judiciary achieve consistency within the realm of their discretion. The Lord Chancellor of the day is, in practice, the initiator of sentencing legislation. They need and should not be signing off on the Sentencing Council's business plan and guidance documents. It's an encroachment on the independent judiciary, worthy of some of the political judge bashing of the past. If the new process isn't to be dropped at the very least, perhaps the Justice Committee rather than the Lord Chancellor should co-sign with the Lady Chief Justice.

In any event, that committee is more reflective of Parliament than a senior member of the executive. In the context of standard custodial sentences. The new progression model will need careful consideration. I urge my noble friends in government carefully to read the concerns of both justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform. I know many noble Lords are appreciative of their work in general and in providing detailed written briefings on this bill in particular. Only adequate, purposeful activity in prison can ensure progression rather than regression there.

There must be clear guidance on how the model should be implemented. The prison adjudication system must be reviewed as to fairness and potential discrimination, not least against disabled and otherwise vulnerable prisoners. The increase in the possibility of added days for bad behaviour must be carefully monitored and reviewed. There is risk of some prisoners not being released until the very end of their sentences, with no subsequent probation requirements in the community. My Lords, greater public faith and government investment in community orders is at the heart of this bill.

Care must be taken over the fairness, proportionality and unintended consequences of intensive supervision, restriction zones and electronic tagging offenders must be supported as well as supervised and not set up to fail. Clause 35 is of serious concern with its powers to publish the names and photographs of those serving orders in the community. I'm reminded, my Lords, of an informal meeting I had when Director of Liberty with a Home Office political adviser around 20 years ago.

During the encounter, the adviser's phone rang when they realised who the call was. They turned very pale and left the table for a few minutes. On their return, they asked me what I thought of an idea to force those on community orders to wear striped uniforms whilst performing unpaid manual work in the community. What do you think I'll say? I replied. What do you really think in terms of safety, decency, rehabilitation and public order? The adviser nodded silently, but looked very anxious.

The call had come from the editor of a national newspaper demanding the policy as a story for the next day. Lord Dubs journalism is currently under fire. I will withhold the name of the editor and the paper concerned. My Lords, I believe the pillory was abolished in 1837, and the stocks fell out of use in around the 1870s. Let's not perhaps revive them in time for the 2030s. Finally, my Lords, I welcome the bill's amendment. Amendments to the Bail Act of 1976, in particular, adding to court considerations a defendant's pregnancy, primary care giving or situation as a victim of domestic abuse.

I urge the department to go further and build on reforms in the Mental Health Bill to abolish remand in custody of people, including children, for their own welfare or protection, even for non-custodial offences. This is surely one of the most obvious symbols and examples of our criminal justice system being used as a dumping ground for social problems and vulnerable people who would be far better cared for and protected elsewhere, and at far less financial and human cost.

Overall, my Lords, I congratulate the government for creating such an opportunity for enlightened and effective reform because it's in his nature. I know that my noble friend, the Lord Timpson will seek to collaborate across the house on ensuring this opportunity is taken to the best of our shared ability, including, I hope, perhaps on IPPS. I wish him well in his task and look forward to playing my own small part.
17:58
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. But I should add that my points here are mostly my own. I wholeheartedly support the government's ambition to rehabilitate more prisoners, so that we move away from the endless cycle of successive governments, ramping up the length of sentences so as to be seen to be tough on crime. For far too long, sentencing law has been focussed exclusively on punishment, and insufficient attention has been paid to the other statutory purposes of sentencing, especially reduction in crime and rehabilitation.

We all know that 80% of offending is reoffending. A really shocking statistic. So I welcome the recommendations of the sentencing review, and there are many good things in this bill which build on that review. However, the bill has not implemented all the recommendations, even though the review considered them to be a holistic package of measures which would work best in conjunction with each other. There are many points that can be made, but for the purposes of Second Reading, I will focus on what I consider to be the most important area, namely the way the bill provides for so-called earned early release.

At the one third point of the sentence, and the likely consequences of that. My comments were echoed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Pressure, and indeed just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept which originated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That act provided for parole board release a fixed term prisoners at the one third point of the sentence, if they had satisfied the board that they had been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to make it safe to release them.

But it was a big if. A prisoner could only be released on licence, with a two thirds reduction in time served in prison, if they could show they had taken steps to rehabilitate. My Lords, that is not this bill. The bill provides that a prisoner will earn early release at the one third point, merely by behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of the prison rules. For example, offences against discipline, threatening abusive or violent behaviour or possessing unauthorised articles.

Immediately, one sees the likely adverse consequences of that approach. First, it's going to lead to a concentration of vulnerable and challenging prisoners within the prison environment. Individuals who struggle with multiple and complex needs like mental health, neurodiversity and substance dependence are most likely to break prison rules and get placed on report and adjudications over time. Therefore, and we must look at the long term, since this bill will probably remain the law for years to come. The prison population will comprise a disproportionate number of people who haven't accessed early release due to this factor.

Secondly, who's going to award additional days and on what basis? This becomes a critical issue if early release at the one third point is to depend on avoiding such adjudications, if it's prison officers, then it could clearly be open to abuse, and it could also negatively impact on staff prisoner relationships. Thirdly, is avoiding additional days for things like threatening, abusive or violent behaviour so as to gain early release, really earning it in a meaningful sense. The 1967 act experienced the 1976 act.

Experience teaches us that release is only truly earned 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. In an ideal world, therefore, release at the one third point should not be automatic. Merely by avoiding punishment. It should be properly earned, as was recommended by the sentencing review, so as to demonstrate that the prisoner is less likely to re-offend or breach licence conditions when in the community, and end up being recalled to prison.

But I recognise that clause 20 is partly an emergency mechanism to alleviate current capacity pressures, to provide that relief. That release at the one third point must depend on engagement in purposeful activity. Might deprive clause 20 of its utility, since the state of capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to such activity is severely limited. However, this means the burden of rehabilitating prisons will fall exclusively on the probation service, who are already going to be on their knees with the upsurge in community sentences.

And there's a massive danger that in trying to create more prison capacity with one third release, the measure might actually diminish it because of the number of recalls. This is not fanciful. Take the number of prisoners who were released early last autumn under the government's emergency release scheme. STS 40 MoJ figures published on the 30th of October this year show that between April and June 2025, there were more than 11,500 releases under the STS 40 scheme and over 10,000 recalls, which is 15% higher than in the same quarter in 2024 and a record high.

Although some of these recalls may have been unrelated to the scheme. The department acknowledges that the unprecedented increase was likely driven partly by the implementation of STS 40. If there has been such an increase in recalls following early release of the 40% point, then how much worse might it be if prisoners are released at the one third point under this bill? Meaningful, purposeful activity in prison before release would surely have reduced the number of such recalls. But I recognise the government is between a rock and a hard place here.

On the one hand, they need to release more prisoners early so as to create more capacity, and on the other, they risk putting so much pressure on the probation service that a large number of released prisoners will be recalled to prison, thereby defeating the whole point of clause 20. I do not know the answer to this in the short term, which must surely depend partly on a vast injection of new probation resources, the like of which we've never seen. But even then, you can't wave a magic wand to produce overnight significantly more trained probation officers with the experience to deal with the increased burden.

Whatever the answer in the short term, it still leaves the long term problem of how purposeful activity in prison can at some future point, when capacity issues have subsided, be made a requirement before release of the one third point? Otherwise, prisoners will have no incentive to participate in such activity. Since clause 20 will guarantee their release at one third point anyway, something needs to be done now, since otherwise clause 20 will continue unless amended by a future bill to require release of the one third point, irrespective of whether or not prisoners have taken steps to rehabilitate.

The burden of rehabilitating prisoners would then, for foreseeable future, fall exclusively on probation service. One suggestion so as to build some flexibility into the system now, would be to insert an enabling power in clause 20 for regulations to be made, which at a future point, when capacity and resources allow, would enable clause 20 to be modified so as to incorporate a requirement for purposeful activity. This would give the department the option of modifying clause 20 in the future, without the need for a fresh bill.

It would keep their options open, which is never a bad idea. Where prisons and probation are concerned.
18:06
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, this is obviously a bill with good aims to reduce the prison population and put more resources into probation and rehabilitation. However, the problem is that the prison population is going up in the long term because governments keep coming up with new reasons to lock people up. We've had a lot of briefings on this particular bill, and a recurring theme across them is the issue of resourcing and capacity within the probation and rehabilitation system. Several organisations, notably justice, stressed that without significant investment in probation services and community based interventions, the proposed reforms risk placing unrealistic demands on an already overstretched system.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust cautions that while the bill may provide short term relief to the prison estate, it will not be sufficient to address the long term growth in the prison population, which is driven by sentence inflation and systemic pressures. For example, the government estimates that the sentencing bill will reduce demand for prison places by 7500 places by 2028. This reduction is achieved through a combination of reforms including changes to sentencing release points, legal processes and remand measures.

Despite this, the prison population is still projected to increase by 2000 people by 2029. Concerns that the proposed earned progression model risks becoming a mechanism that punishes poor behaviour is certainly valid, rather than genuinely rewarding good conduct. And and there's the danger that adding additional days through prison adjudication system would result in a prisoner reaching the end of their sentence without a the licence period. In addition, increasing the use of fixed term recourse prison isn't going to improve the situation for victims or offenders.

I've heard from those working with victims of domestic abuse about their fears for offenders being released without any assessment at all, to the risk they pose to the people they have offended against. And of course, they're being put back on the streets and could commit crimes against other people. It certainly doesn't improve the lives of those being recalled. Sending somebody back to prison for 56 days doesn't allow them access to any offending behaviour, work or reduce risks, but simply holds them in an overcrowded prison before they come back out often.

And having lost their accommodation and any progress they made before the recall on the probation resources. There is a broad support across organisations for the presumption against short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, and for extending the courts powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years. The justice briefing underlines the need for adequate resourcing of various services, alongside guidance and training for practitioners. The Howard League Justice and the Prison Reform Trust stress that the implementation implementation of these provisions must ensure a genuine reduction in the use of custody rather than the reconfiguration of existing penalties and reforms.

Refuge urges government to ensure that domestic abuse offenders are exempted from the presumption against short custodial sentences, and that appropriate monitoring arrangements are established. Now, while I welcome using rehabilitation measures in the community as opposed to in prisons, a clear theme runs through many of the briefings. We've we've received that without the serious investment, the proposed reforms risked collapsing under their own weight. And I would be very interested to hear the noble Lord, the Minister, actually reassure us on that because we could spend endless amounts about amounts of money, but if it's not spent in the right way, then it's a terrible waste.

There are many issues that I wish I could pick up. The Howard League supports amendments to the Bail Act of 1976, designed to reduce unnecessary remand, particularly for pregnant women, primary caregivers and the victims of domestic abuse. Justice further advocates for the removal of the court's powers to remand individuals for their own protection, including children remanded on welfare grounds now not included in the bill. For example, the Law Society highlights the opportunity for the government to revisit the sentencing of individuals serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, as previously recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022.

As the noble Lord, the Minister knows well, IPP prisoners have been languishing in prison for petty crimes. IPP releases. In August, there were 172 freed for the first time. While it will take an estimated decade to free 2544 prisoners still trapped in their sentences, I would like a commitment from the government about if the government is keen on bringing down the number of prisoners, then please don't release men charged with domestic abuse and stalking who are repeatedly harassing women.

And here are three things that the government could do instead. Abolish the draconian anti-protest laws that result in five year prison sentences for hanging a banner over a bridge. Reverse the proscription of Palestine action, which has led to hundreds of arrests for sitting down peacefully and holding up signs. And personally, I want the Home Office focussed on keeping violent prisoners in prison and letting peaceful protesters out on the streets, trying to make the world a better place.
18:13
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness. My Lords, I. Find myself speaking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the company of very distinguished and knowledgeable noble Lords with a great deal of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords with a great deal of judicial experience. And knowledge. Of the sentencing system in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the sentencing system in its widest sense. I am not in that company. I would like. I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

company. I would like. I would. Venture to say, though, that I do have considerable sympathy. With what the government is trying to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to. Achieve here. I do. Not understand the efficacy. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not understand the efficacy. I have doubts about the efficacy of ever. Longer prison sentences, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ever. Longer prison sentences, and indeed about their purpose. And listening to the right reverend Prelate, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reverend Prelate, the. Bishop of Gloucester, I allowed myself also a measure of doubt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

myself also a measure of doubt about whether we had a clear notion of the purpose of prison. After all, prisoners, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After all, prisoners, we understand it is. Is a relatively. Modern idea. It only goes back to. Jeremy Bentham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a sort. Of 200. Year experiment. And and if the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Year experiment. And and if the right reverend Prelate is going to give us an opportunity in the course of this bill to give some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration to what we are and. Whether we are. Succeeding, that might actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Succeeding, that might actually be of some general benefit. But I be of some general benefit. But I really rise to speak, to follow the the speech so eloquently made by my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the speech so eloquently made by my noble friend Viscount Hailsham, when he spoke about IP prisoners. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Subject also referred to in her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My Lords, this scandal continues to fester at the height of the IPPS. Regime in 2012, there were 6000 prisoners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to the to. The IPP regime. That figure has now. According to the. Latest figures

**** Possible New Speaker ****

According to the. Latest figures supplied by. The Ministry of. Justice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justice. That figure has now come down to 2422 in custody. That's 14 years 2422 in custody. That's 14 years later, 1476 of those are on recall, 946. Nearly 1000 have never been released. That's 14 years after the sentence was abolished, and many of them, I think, I think nearly all of them now are beyond the tariff that they deserved and were given at the time of their original sentencing. Many of them years and as much as a decade beyond the tariff that they were given.

One has to. Acknowledge progress and goodwill. Undoubtedly the noble Lord, the Minister, but also his predecessors, I must say, from. From a previous government, have come to this task with great. Goodwill and with a wish, a recognition of the injustice and a. Wish to bring.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It to. An end. But the furthest that they have been able to go when dealing with those prisoners who are in prison is an action plan are in prison is an action plan which has not materially changed with the change of government. The with the change of government. The last government, as we know in the Victims and Prisoners Bill, made Victims and Prisoners Bill, made considerable progress in alleviating the position of prisoners who are out on licence. prisoners who are out on licence.

But my focus is on those who are not out on licence, but still in not out on licence, but still in prison. For one of the two reasons I've mentioned either never I've mentioned either never released or on recall. The action plan has certainly seen a reduction plan has certainly seen a reduction in numbers, and even in the last year numbers have been reduced. But year numbers have been reduced. But if one focuses briefly on those who've never been released, the who've never been released, the action plan is losing its effectiveness because one is effectiveness because one is getting to that smaller, that number, that number of prisoners who will always be a challenge for the probation system to approve for release.

Many of them, because of mental health difficulties. Many of them because of mental health difficulties acquired as a result of their experiences while serving the sentence. And so the challenge, I think, to the noble Lord, the Minister, is to recognise that there needs to be something over and above the action plan to help deal with these people and find some path back to bringing them, to giving them justice. Simply. That is justice. Being that you serve your sentence, you serve the sentence that arises as a result of the crime you've committed.

And we see very little sign of that. But this bill, officers, offers us opportunities to do it. We have seen ideas. The Justice Committee and the Commons in the last government, late in the last government had a proposal for resentencing. The noble Lord Lord Woodley has a live private member's bill which would give put that into effect. And we have great hopes, I think, in the report of the Howard League more recently, in a report chaired and supported by the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I'm glad to see in his place, and due to speak later in this debate, which was described by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

Its effect. Its essential effects were described by my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Hailsham. And so the question for the Minister is whether he intends, with vigour, to take up some of these ideas that are being offered to him. Whether he will use this bill as a means of doing so, whether he will enter into urgent. I mean, I can't criticise the Minister for failing to talk to noble Lords. He has been very good about holding cross-party roundtables.

In fact, he's in the his secretary is in the process of organising another one for for next month. He's been very good in that respect. But whether he will now sit down, as my noble friend suggested, in the course of this bill and engage in cross-party discussions as to how this bill can become a vehicle for addressing, in particular those who have no hope of release, whether it be the recommendations of the Howard League or some other means. That would be a huge advance.

And so I leave those thoughts with with noble Lords as something which I think it is a huge omission that so far the government has not has not included them in this bill. The noble Lord, the Minister, began by by saying that they were not included. But I think there are elements enough of us across the House to see amendments tabled, perhaps with some effect that would bring them back into the bill, because this is the opportunity in this parliamentary session to do that.

And if this opportunity passes, then more time will be lost and more suffering, unjustified suffering will be endured as a result of our lack of dispatch and engagement with this issue.
18:21
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble Lord Lord Moylan, who I think makes some very important points. But can I begin by joining the tributes that have been made to the noble Lady Baroness Newlove, who was a doughty supporter for the victims of crime and would be much missed to David Gauke for his excellent report, and indeed also to the noble Lord, the Minister who's the noble Lord, Lord Bach said, is a breath of fresh air and certainly could never be accused of kicking the can down the road.

But my noble friend Lord Beith pointed out that on these benches we're very supportive of much of this bill, but we do have some concerns. However, rather than addressing the many concerns that others have raised, I would like to concentrate on a more general concern that I have got, and that is that we simply will not achieve the ends intended by the bill unless we supply the means to do so. And frankly, I am concerned that that currently is not the case, and I intend to illustrate it by reference to three recent reports by your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I have the great privilege to chair.

I will illustrate that in particular, the way in which all three reports have made absolutely clear that whenever a sentence is imposed on an offender, it should provide punishment, but also measures that reduce re-offending as a key means of keeping the public safe and reducing the prison population is the noble Lord. Lord Carter was demonstrating very well earlier. The bill provides measures to replace short term prison sentences. This was called for in the committee's report, Cutting Crime Better Community Sentences.

Under the then chairmanship of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee. After all, re-offending rates of prisoners released from short sentences is a staggering 61.2%, and that is after it has cost £53,000 for each prisoner. That is 13 times more expensive than the cost of community sentences. And as the noble Lady Baroness Prashar made very clear earlier on, while community sentences do have a much lower re-offending rate, the committee was clear that much needs to change if they are to reach their full potential of turning around the lives of offenders and supporting them to avoid re-offending.

For example, many offenders have a key problem in relation to drug, alcohol and gambling addiction, or with mental health issues. And yet currently the provision of support for addiction services has fallen, and indeed fewer than 2% of those with mental health issues even start treatment. So the bill can propose an increase in non-custodial sentences, but that won't help reduce re-offending and so reduce the number of people in prison unless measures are in place to boost mental health and addiction support services.

So I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, when he winds up, will explain how that is going to be done and how it will be funded. But, my Lords, the greatest concern is in relation, as others have said, to the probation Service, now, the bill will require the probation services to manage many more issues, including a large increase in the number of community orders and a nearly doubling of the people being tagged. And yet the probation service is already facing significant shortfalls in staffing, and so is unable to do all of what is already being asked of them.

The community sentence order is rarely given without a pre-sentence report. Yet because of staff shortages, the number of such reports has actually fallen very dramatically. So how can the bill expect a significant increase in the preparation of such reports if the service can't even cope with the current demand? So there is an urgent need to address staffing and retention in the probation service to cope with more Pre-sentencing reports, more supervision of those on community orders, and more supervision of those who are going to be tagged.

And without it, frankly, my Lords, the probation service is being set up to fail now. The government did, of course, increase the number by 1000 last year and has promised a further 1300 this year. But these numbers, even with better use of new technology, is unlikely to meet the demand, which some estimates suggest may be as many as 10,000. Now, the Minister may well point out, and he did, in his opening remarks, to the promised £70 million £700 million over four years.

But we still, my Lords, have no clarity about how much of that is actually going to be spent on additional staff and their training, and I hope the Minister will provide clarity at the end of this debate. But it's likely that much of that money is going to be spent on housing, and therefore unlikely there will be enough to boost the staffing to the necessary levels required by the bill's proposals. And in that respect, my Lords, the financial impact assessment for the Bill is deeply worrying.

It says, and I quote, across all the bill's measures, the impact on probation is estimated to lead to a modest increase in average annual costs of £4.5 million. Surely, my Lords, complete nonsense. But it does, of course, go on to say that there will be additional costs for increased tagging and supervision of prisoners released early through the progression model, but it goes on and says these costs are not provided. Rather, it says the costs of this expansion are being considered by the department as part of the funding allocations.

My Lords, being considered, what confidence can we have that the means will be provided to achieve the bill's aims? But additional funding for the probation service is not all that is needed for the expansion of the tagging work, not least to reduce reoffending. And the committee is made as the noble Baroness Prashar has said, a number of recommendations, including the need for a new electronic monitoring strategy and given the lamentable performance of the current private contractors, we suggested that consideration should be given to bringing the management and operation of e m services under the control of the Probation Service, and if not that, at least there should be an increase in the number of private providers to increase competition.

My Lords, without these and other recommendations, alongside more funding and many more well-trained probation staff, there won't be a successful electronic monitoring expansion. There won't be a successful expansion of truly effective community services, and the probation service really will be being set up to fail. Now, my Lords, the bill also aims to reduce the size of the prison population. But many offenders will, of course, still end up in prison. Whereas recent media reports show the Prison Service is frankly already failing.

But, my Lords, this isn't surprising. As was clear from the committee's report, better prisons, less crime, much of the blame must lie with successive governments who have increased the level of sentences and failed to provide the service with staffing numbers and the support it needs. As prisoner numbers have risen, staffing levels have fallen. There are fewer prison officers now than even a year ago. We now know that 13% leave every year, half of them having spent less than a year in the service.

Nor has the judiciary been given adequate support. So we now have a staggering 20% of the prison population, comprising people in remand awaiting trial. But, my Lords, a crucial way of reducing overcrowding is by reducing re-offending. And as the committee report reminds us, in addition to overcrowding, prisoners are often in bad and unsanitary conditions, with a maintenance backlog of nearly £2 billion. And they face issues such as shortages of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security and an alarming availability of drugs, an overstretched, inexperienced and demoralised staff in a service faced with a severe recruitment and retention crisis.

So it's hardly surprising that prison staff have inadequate time and resources to provide prisoners with the support they need for mental health problems and addictions, or providing for them secure training and educational opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. In the absence of such support, it's no surprising that the committee pointed out that 80% of offending is re-offending and that it is estimated, costs £18 billion a year. And, of course, is a major contribution to the size of the prison population.

So one of the best ways of reducing the prison population is through wider prison report forms, not least to reduce reoffending. Such reforms don't feature at all, of course, in the sentencing bill, but must be implemented alongside it. And the committee has reported the committee report provides many details about the reforms needed. But, my Lords, despite a fairly positive response to those recommendations, it is not entirely clear how well they will be implemented. After all, the government agreed with the committee's recommendation that there should be a wider access to more diverse range of educational opportunities in prisons.

And then, just a few weeks later, announced plans to cut spending on prison education by 50%. My Lords, the bill contains some controversial but many welcome proposals. But it would be difficult to support them unless there is evidence that the means to implement them will be in place. At present, I believe that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is open to question. Yeah. My Lords, I do so want to be
18:32
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
able to welcome this sentencing bill instead. I feel rather despondent, but I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, who I am something of a fan of, not to take that personally. The issue of sentencing matters. It matters to me. It matters to all of us here, and it matters to the public. And it's been rightly agitating the public of late. Recent debates have raged over controversial sentencing decisions. Should someone like Lucy Connolly, whose social media posts saw her sentenced to prison for longer than actual rioters who use violence against asylum hotels? Is that the right kind of sentencing? Then there's the regular rows about whether some crime should be punished, too.

Lightly. Mitigating circumstances used too liberally about whether sentencing for serious offences such as sexual assaults or child abuse adequately reflect those heinous crimes. Conversely, many are concerned that some crimes are punished too heavily. Should activists be locked up for protesting after too many young people, too many women being locked up when better alternatives exist? Other worries. Others worry about all the laws being pushed through Parliament that criminalise ever more activities. Over in the Crime and Policing Bill, we are seeing the creation of a plethora of new offences such as respect orders, the breach of which can lead to two years in prison.

So there is plenty for us to discuss and debate in relation to sentencing. In that spirit, I welcome the Bill's attempt to clip the wings of the Sentencing Council. Debating sentencing is our responsibility, not a quangos, and I agree with the Lady Chief Justice's point that any sentencing framework needs greater democratic oversight and, quote, policy must be set by parliamentarians who answer to the people. Well, let's be frank, the people are tearing their hair out about the mess that parliamentarians are making of sentencing and of prisons as we speak.

The now weekly revelations of prisoners being freed from jail by mistake makes a mockery of our deliberations here. I mean, what is the point of hours and hours pondering sentencing if one sentence the system is going to let them go by accident and there aren't these aren't harmless lags. Of the 262 released by accident in the year March 20th 4 to 25, 87 were convicted of violence against a person and three for sexual offences. And never mind the accidental releases, we have also witnessed the travesty of emergency release scheme that has seen 38,000 prisoners released early, for no other reason than official mismanagement of prisons.

And then there is another anomaly. Too many criminals aren't being caught to be sentenced. Not because they're criminal masterminds, but because the forces of criminal justice seem to have abandoned swathes of the country to lawlessness. All of us will know friends, family, colleagues who stolen phones, laptop bikes are fitted with tracker devices. But when reported to the police receiver and say I know where it is and who has it, the police shrug and do nothing. And don't mention those many instances of mass shoplifting.

Such a scourge in so many communities, yet ignored by the authorities. These are criminals missing from our sentencing consideration because of state negligence, and the public would be well or inevitably frustrated. So with this backdrop, it sounds it just feels a bit surreal and demoralising to be asked to have a meaningful debate about sentencing policy, but ever hopeful. I am hoping that we can try to dig deeper, as this Second Reading has done, to consider all sides philosophically, as it were, our longest prison sentence is the key to tackling crime.

Or is prison itself, as the Minister implies, creating more criminals than it is rehabilitating? But I am worried that those proper debates that this bill itself avoids them. And despite what the Minister says, this bill will hem us in because the government's justification for the bill is all hooked on the problem of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are told we cannot build our way out of a crisis without significant reform. Demand for places will outstrip supply by early 2028.

It is posited as a technical problem, and what's demoralising is we are basically being told that we have got no choice but to reform by reducing sentences and regardless of what we think or if we disagree, we are met with. The retort is the overcrowding crisis stupid? And so the proposals in the bill are all about reducing sentences not based on principle, but for technocratic ends with contested evidence, with a contested evidence base, and without the resources, as we've heard, one of the key proposals is to reduce by a further 10% early releases of fixed term sentences.

So the public are already bewildered about why it is so routine to release prisoners after only 50% of their time inside. Then the government's recent emergency release scheme lopped off another 10%, which has meant that tens of thousands have been freed after serving 40%. And now this bill suggests a further 10% reduction to 30%. How can this do anything but make a mockery of sentencing? If someone is given a sentence of 15 years and will be out in five, what's the point of the original 15 year sentence in the first place? Then clause one introduces a presumption against the use of short sentences.

Short custodial sentences of 12 months or less. So you get sentenced to a year in prison, but you won't go to prison. And meanwhile, suspended sentences will be expanded from 2 to 3 years. Listen, I'm often on the prison reform side of such policies, and there may well be merit to bringing in either of these measures, or even the leaked revelations that the majority of women prisoners should not be incarcerated. But the government's emphasis on freeing up space in prisons to justify such moves is likely to sideline the need to persuade the public, who might well query if these policies will weaken deterrence or threaten public safety.

Hiding behind the Damocles sword of an overcrowding crisis seems to be an evasion of political accountability and could well fuel public cynicism. The choice of sentence has a real world consequence. Take the case of Brahim al-Sharif, the Algerian sex offender mistakenly released from HMP Wandsworth, a repeat offender and Visa Overstayer when he was convicted in November 24th for indecent exposure. He was then put on the sex offenders register for five years. Fair enough, but his sentence was only an 18 month community order.

That non-custodial sentence does not meet the threshold for automatic deportation. So when people ask why was he even in the country to offend? The answer is sentencing choices. I have some worries that community orders and suspended sentences forced through not based on efficacy, but because we are told there is no room to lock people up, will create even more problems. The Secretary of State, David Lammy, talks of expanding effective sentencing outside of prison. What does that mean? Expanding effective sentencing outside of prison? It sounds as though communities are now expected to accommodate quasi militarised security and surveillance regimes, and it seems that convicts in the community who can now be banned from certain pubs, attending sports and other public events, confined to restricted geographical zones, and, of course, more use of electronic monitoring.

That sounds to me more like prison than freedom. And as the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst has asked, who is going to monitor all these provisions and supervise a huge influx of prisoners into our communities? It seems delusional to rely on an already overstretched probation services, as we have heard so eloquently expressed by so many people, particularly, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, just summed up what the problems were. The problem of probation gaps is one reason why we should not fool ourselves or the public.

That by saying that we are going to use community resources and and sentences as an alternative to incarceration is always humane, progressive or effective. This was the presumption of the mental health bill. But as we debated that bill earlier this year, the review of the Valdo case was published. Catastrophic errors in his medical treatment in the community led to schizophrenic Mr. Halcomb stabbing three innocent people to death. So we should not romanticise what punishment in the community means.

Finally, and the Minister won't be surprised to hear that I can't finish the speech without noting that when sentencing policy goes wrong, it can wreck the lives of so many people, including prisoners, and discredit criminal justice. The imprisonment for public protection. The IPP was a sentence brought in in 2003. So wrong headed and such a stain on our justice system that it was abolished. And yet here we are, 13 years later after that abolition with, as we've heard, 2500 prisoners still languishing on a sentence that went wrong.

If I could just finish by quoting that even the prison officers union has hit out at the government for clinging on to this grossly unjust sentence, and the National Association of Prison Officers representing probation probation officers, has called on the government to finish the job. I really hope that we should use this bill to finish the job. When it comes to IPPS prison overcrowding. You say surely the state can let out some obvious candidates. That is at least some or quite a lot of the IPP prisoners.
18:43
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise as co-chair of the Justice Union parliamentary group to very broadly welcome this Bill as a logical and rational response to the serious problems of prison overcrowding and of years, even decades of sentence inflation. I'll focus my remarks on two areas, if I may, on concerns with the bill expressed to me by the justice unions, especially Napo, the National Association of Probation Officers, and also on something seriously lacking from the bill as which has already been pointed out, namely, a viable way to wipe away the vile, vile stain of IPPS sentences.

First, I wish to echo the concerns raised in the other place on probation capacity, unpaid work and electronic monitoring follow following warnings by Napo, which led to three amendments to table. As the Minister knows, a committee and report stages. The first of these gave the Chief Inspector the power to delay any aspect of this bill that places extra pressure on probation until the service is indeed ready. The second stop, the private sector profiting from the expansion of unpaid work orders or community sentences, which should only be run by probation charities, local authorities or other non-profit organisations.

And the third aim to bring tagging operations into the public sector probation service and out of the hands of the failing and corrupt privateers like Serco and GPS. On this point, my Lords, I note last week's letter to Ministers from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee warning that probation is being, quote, set up to fail with electronic monitoring. It also called for an independent review on tagging, with a view to operating parallel contracts managed by a fully funded and supported probation service, something staff would very much agree with.

I have no doubt about that, my Lords, I raise these points today because unfortunately, none of the concerns were addressed during the debate in the other place. Nor has the promised union meeting with Commons Ministers materialised. That is why I believe, Minister, I hope that by putting all this on record, the noble Lord, the Minister, will appreciate the depth of feeling amongst front line staff on these issues and seek to reassure them appropriately. Turning, if I may please, to IPPS the contributions I have listened to in here from Lord Hailsham talking about progress, but and a big but but giving a tremendous overview of IPV in this potential way forward was tremendous.

My noble friend Lord Moylan and Baroness Symons contributions, as always on this subject, was outstanding, and I thank them on behalf of prisoners and their relatives. Your lordships, you will know I am currently sponsoring a private Member's Bill. As has been mentioned to Resentence everyone still saving these torture sentences and IPPS sentencing was debated when the bill that we are discussing today passed through the Commons with different amendments proposed by wait for it, the Liberal Democrats and by the chair of the Justice Select Committee.

Although the power of the whip meant these initiatives were unsuccessful. I believe it is important to continue to use this bill to highlight the plight of IPPs, both to pressure the government and to continue to raise public awareness, and that is why I do intend to table my amendment on IPP sentencing based on the text of my bill and incorporating the helpful amendments proposed by noble members of the committee. These include the secure hospital backstop proposed by my noble friend Lady Fox, so that anyone who presents in court considers to be mentally ill, to be released into the community, yet can be moved to a secure hospital to receive badly needed therapeutic resources.

I wish to table this amendment because I want the government to put their objections to it on the record for them to be judged fully and fairly in the future by action on IPPs, not just warm words and slow actions, which unfortunately is still the case at the moment. My Lords, it genuinely pains me to say this, but I'm starting to lose a little bit of faith the Parliament will fix this appalling injustice. The Parliament themselves created well over 20 years ago.

That doesn't mean we should give up fighting. No, not at all. We must fight harder for fairness and for justice. But until we see knife docu drama made about this scandal, like Mr. Bates, or until MPs mailboxes are full of messages from constituents. Until then, I believe our best hope lies with the courts, and for them to show the justice and mercy that successive governments have failed to do so. And that's why it's so important for the noble Lord to Minister to explain the government's position fully, fully and fairly on why it won't support resentencing with with the secure hospital backstop.

And as a perverse as it might sound, the more stubborn and unreasonable the government sounds, the more likely, I believe, that it is that the judiciary will side with those of us who are desperate to end this injustice. And indeed, so will the United Nations, who are currently considering a complaint brought about by IPP campaigners against our own government. Shameful, shameful. My Lords, people and IPPS and their families know there are a growing number of us in this house and any other place.

It will not give up until this stain is wiped clean. And you'd better believe that in finishing. Are you really what Baroness Chakrabarti said? Compliments to our Minister who deserves praise. We praise you for. I look forward to the Minister's response and to a further debate on these issues as the bill progresses. At our next update on 10th December.
18:49
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, in the Second Reading debate, I will open by speaking about women who can't speak for themselves and highlight what I think are two significant omissions. But first, may I associate myself with the comments on IPP sentences made by the noble Lord Woodley who I've had the pleasure to follow, and others. I'd never heard of these until I held my first MP surgery and I was visited by a prisoner's mother. She told me the whole sorry story. I was totally shocked and I never understood why.

The last government, which I served in as a junior Minister, didn't fix this. It's a matter of deep regret to me, and I wish we had done something about it while we had the chance. But I want to pay tribute to the campaigners and families that I had the privilege of working alongside while I served as Safeguarding Minister Poppy Devey. Waterhouse was just 24 when she was stabbed over 100 times by her ex-boyfriend in her own home. Her killer, who had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, received a minimum term of 16 years.

Joanna Simpson was bludgeoned to death by her estranged husband in front of their children, and he received 13. And these aren't isolated tragedies, my Lords. They are the visible tip of a system that still treats domestic homicide as less grave than other murders. And the families of these women, particularly Carol Gould and Julie Devi, who lead the Killed Women campaign, have fought for years to expose this injustice and I thank them for briefing me ahead of this debate.

Their campaign has attracted support from across the House and in the other place, and it's revealed how many domestic murders involved, what forensic experts call overkill. That's multiple stab wounds, strangulation, bludgeoning and coercive control. And yet those killings, which are often triggered when the victim tries to end a relationship, attract lower starting points than murders of strangers in the streets. A man who takes a knife out of his house, intending to use it in public starts the penalty for that. The murder starts from 25 years, but if that same knife is already in his kitchen drawer and he uses it to kill his partner after years of coercive control, the starting point is still just 15 years.

The Killed Women campaign asks that murders murders following a history of coercive or controlling abuse attract the same 25 year starting point as other aggravated murders, and that the justice system collects and publishes data on domestic homicides to track patterns and ensure consistency. And we did begin looking at this issue. My Lords, in the last government, and I do understand how many factors are at play in the sentencing framework, as, of course, we've heard from many members of your Lordships' House.

But this bill is precisely the place to act, and it is disappointing that the government hasn't used the vehicle in front of us. Now, while in opposition, I was often opposed by the the then the now safeguarding Minister, Jess Phillips. She argued passionately and repeatedly for reforms to toughen sentences for domestic homicide and to close the gap between murders committed in the home and those committed with a knife on the street. And at the time, she called these measures essential to deliver justice for victims of domestic homicide.

But, my Lords, now she sits in government. She and her ministerial colleagues are noticeable by their silence on this issue, the Killed Women campaign said last December we were told the Law Commission review will take at least three years to complete, delayed by a lack of resources, so realistically we won't see significant change until the next decade. So much for the current government's pledge to halve violence against women and girls, so I hope the government will reconsider their approach to this and come back to this at Committee stage.

Let us now turn to the second omission in this bill, and that's the absence of explicit recognition of what is, in my view, the egregiously named honour based abuse in our sentencing regime. Let us just take one example. 20 year old Sumaya Beegam was murdered by her uncle in Bradford. The judge said it was impossible to identify a motive, even though she'd be. She'd been under a forced marriage protection order and without honour recognised in law. The very reason for her death was absent from the courtroom.

There are many, many more such cases, my Lords, and we usually prefix this term on a base abuse by saying so called because of course there's nothing honourable about such abuse. It's often family orchestrated, community endorsed and underpinned by the appalling logic that a woman who asserts her independence has brought shame on her family, shame that must be cleansed through violence. And according to Karma Nirvana, who run the national helpline, around 80 to 85% of callers identify with the South Asian heritage.

Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi, and around 90% are from Muslim, Sikh or Hindu backgrounds combined. There are also victims that include white, British, Eastern European, Christian and Traveller women, but data is very scant and patchy. My Lords, what we know is that this form of abuse is found wherever patriarchal or collectivist values override individual rights. These are values alien to the freedoms we hold dear in Britain. But we must not shy away from these facts for fear of offending people, because we saw in the context of grooming gangs how the denial of cultural and communal drivers allowed abuse to persist for years in plain sight.

An estimated 12 women a year are murdered in the UK to defend so-called honour, but these cases are too often hidden in wider domestic homicide statistics. And I had the privilege of being the Minister who took the Marriage and Civil Partnership Act through the Other place outlaw outlawing forced child marriage, and I know we can legislate when the will exists. And again, back in 2024, then Labour shadow Ministers proposed new clauses to make honour based violence an explicit aggravating factor in sentencing for murder, ensuring courts recognise its motive and the community pressures behind it.

Jess Phillips again described it as essential to deliver justice and again the government now have not acted. Furthermore, the promised violence against women and girls strategy, due in so-called summer or autumn we're now in November, has still not been published, the domestic abuse commissioner said in September. Halving violence against women and girls within a decade is an ambitious and laudable target, but this strategy is still delayed. No major funding is announced for specialist domestic abuse services, and I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from.

So can I finish by asking the government when will it fulfil its commitment to ensuring honour based abuse is an aggravating factor in sentencing, if not in this bill? When? When will it fulfil its commitment to levelling up domestic homicide sentencing again, if not in this bill, when and when will it finally publish the long promised Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, which of course is not directly in the sentencing bill, but of course must include many elements connected to sentencing policy.

My Lords, these reforms are overdue. The women whose names I've mentioned this evening deserve not just to be remembered, but to have the law changed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I begin with some declarations of interest, notably as the founder
18:57
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick Portrait Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (Crossbench)
-
-
of interest, notably as the founder and vice president of catch 22, which is the largest community preventative agency for those young potential offenders. And before that, the chairman and founder of Crime Concern, which I served for 21 years before creating catch 22. And now, as the Minister knows, because he came to see it, the founder of My Brother's Keeper, particularly working in 14 prisons across the UK in the last year, and especially in HMP ISIS, where for the last two and a half years our team has seen a 30% reduction in violence in what was one of the most despairing prisons.

Now one of the most positive. I spent 37 years visiting prisons and intensely over the last 11 years encountered hundreds of men who tell me their very personal and very deep and serious stories. And I have to say that I don't see in this bill yet any substantial vision for what reform should look like, or the value of sentencing to change a culture of fear about crime. Now, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his very engaging efforts with so many of us about issues of concern that we feel very deeply.

He's open, he's effective, he communicates with us well, and I realise we all do, that he's doing a really good job against what seems to be a lack of government vision on the subject. What we see from his second boss, his new boss, is a lot of excuse making about what is not working, and from his previous boss, a growing enthusiasm for 130,000 prison places. So I want to ask the Minister, does he still now believe that we need 130,000 prison places? And are we proud of that fact? Surely we should be ashamed of wanting to grow our prison estate unless we're replacing old, antiquated, rat filled prisons.

Why do we want to become the most incarcerating state after the United States in the world? That cannot be a good outcome. The reason I raise this is because I don't feel that after all the hype, the last government gave us the promise of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice promised in 2019. In the conservative manifesto declared in the Queen's Speech in 2019, repeated six times in questions in this House, but never done so. Here we are all these years on, with no royal commission, and what I would only best describe in this bill as a migraine making management role of measures.

In other words. AD. AD. AD. AD. Change change change change. But don't substantially transform. Of course, it is better to have more effective, shorter sentences and to have a more brilliant, engaged Probation Service. No one is going to dispute that. That will improve things. But the real problem identified by so many already in this debate is the pressure on repeat offending and that pressure on repeat offending. And besides IPPS, which I shall come back to on repeat offending, where we're turning people back into a system where change has not substantially happened.

The Minister rightly quoted, and let's be grateful for it, that there are mechanisms in Texas for which we can see good outcomes. And let's copy the best of all of those mechanisms. But I went as a Minister nose to Colombia last year, to Medellin, to Pablo Escobar's former prison, and to many other prisons in Colombia. And I saw a major difference between government prisons with a repeat offender rate at around 70%, slightly higher than our own. But prisons run by the Prison Fellowship Network, both in Brazil and in Colombia and in Nigeria, where I visited them as well, with a repeat offender rate of 17%.

And if charities and organisations that recognise that dignity changes people's outcomes and how people are reformed means they don't come back. We must ask the question why are we building more prison places to keep people in, rather than investing in better second chances processes, as well as relationships that will be that will lead to an effective culture of reform, rehabilitation, positive, affirmed relationships and set people free to become citizens again in a positive culture of renewal. And here I identify so closely with the Bishop Bishop of Gloucester's speech, in which he recognised that the relationships needed is what will fulfil that transformation.

My own experience in the 37 years of prison visiting and the last intense ten years of weekly prison engagement, is that I've seen fantastic individuals who were the worst of people, completely changed in some of the best of friends. And it is possible, deliverable and cheap to do. Confidence building does not require millions and billions, but it does require us to stop and the government to stop panicking the public constantly about those who come out of prison. Regular prison releases are all the time a weekly experience.

But when the government set about releasing larger numbers, it was as though this was had never been done before, and we were led to believe that this was a crisis measure. Yes, in some ways a crisis measure. But what about suggesting that actually we don't need to panic the public severely? We need to build a better process of renewal and reform. I want to touch on two other three other areas, if I may, in the time. Firstly, recalls back and probation as the bill sets out being expanded.

Yes, we're grateful for that. More money for probation? Yes, of course, better training, etc. but as the Minister knows, it is so easy and too easy for probation officers to press the panic button when they're not coping well, when they don't feel they're getting compliance from a former offender, and to go bang them, send them back to court. I won't reveal the full name, but let me just say his name. First name is Jordan. Finally finding out yesterday that after 63 days recalled to prison on completely ridiculous, non verifiable information, back to a prison in Oxford from having been a decade prisoner, having done 16 years of effective change, banged back up by probation officers.

Bad misjudgement now recognised nine weeks later, only told yesterday he'll finally be out on Friday. People like that constantly because of probation officer panics, fears and doesn't engage relationally with the individual, drives them back. Overreach is not dealt with in this bill. I want to urge the Minister, please, to not just consider how to get more probation officers or how to train probation officers, but how to prevent probation officers being the ones who have the absolute control. Many of us in this debate have already mentioned there is a real need that recall to prison should be up to the courts.

It shouldn't be up to individuals who are under high stress. See too many back inside. Remand is an area. Thirdly, that is absolutely driving our prisons round the twist. I understand from information that was on radio four yesterday that 40% of the youth estate is entirely based on remand. We used to have the principle in the United Kingdom that we believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. We now have multitudes of young men, largely, who are guilty and possibly may never be seen as innocent, hard trials taking years to arise.

I want to say, fourthly, about the possibility mentioned in the Bill of the shaming by photograph and name identification of people on community sentences. That can never be right. Any one of us who has worked with people who have had a community sentence, who are working through it to change and improve their lives, who are doing their duty fairly, to shame them in public is to destroy their relationships, their community place, to see them at high risk, and also to put their children at severe risk.

That is just bad politics and needs to be taken out of this bill. And may I say lastly on IPPS was so much has been said. We all believe that Lord Woodley's bill in an amendment should be fully supported. We should see a re sentencing exercise. It is the worst gross injustice. Yes, by the last Labour government, but not corrected properly by the last conservative government and now left as a literally a big black hole of fearsome and painful places for individuals, we need a Nightingale courts process.

If we could do it for the postmasters who rightly deserve fairness and justice, let's do it for IPPS people who are still on the sentence and still in prison. And based on the calculations given by the Ministry of Justice, it will take eight years, eight more years to see everyone out who should be out. That is way beyond this government's turn. Please, Minister, let's settle it. Resolve it, bring it to an end. Keep the public safe by admitting honestly that not everybody who's been to prison is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an awful person. Some are great, Michael. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I want to start on the sentencing Council, and I want to say how sad and unfortunate it is say how sad and unfortunate it is that we have lost the Lord. Justice, Sir William Davis, who sadly died Sir William Davis, who sadly died on the 7th of June. I believe that William Davis was a very fine public servant, and if anybody public servant, and if anybody wants to assess what might be thought about him and his legacy, I thought about him and his legacy, I think they should read his letter.

think they should read his letter. Five page letter of the 27th of March, written to the Lord March, written to the Lord Chancellor, which sets out the Sentencing Council's position in relation to the demands which were relation to the demands which were at that time being made by the Lord Chancellor. It's not any part of my intention to go into the details of that disagreement, but just simply to say both how sad it is and what an unfortunate loss it is that Sir William is no longer with us.

In talking about the Sentencing Council. I must say, I admire both the council and the scheme that was set up in the act of 2009 and the work which has been done subsequent to the setting up of that scheme. I think the council has done a fine job in. Its 15 year history. Now, I won't go into my reasons for saying that, because your lordships only need to read Lord Burnett's speech in order to have a full description of why, but I would like to go on by saying in the opening speeches, the Minister seemed to me to be making some sort of a move from what I have identified as a sort of panic stations response of the government to the circumstances which have taken place since last March.

And I hope I'm right, and I will read what he said very carefully. And also, of course, what he said in his response to the debate. But then I have to say, with some trepidation, it's difficult for a backbench member of the Conservative Party who has been a speaking member of the Conservative Party for 75 years, to make a speech. When my noble friend on the frontbench has said nothing whatever about clauses 18 and 19, and these are the two clauses which have been slipped into this bill, as the civil service can advise Ministers to do in order to to warn us about what it may be intended to do about the status of the Sentencing Council, which is a statutory non-departmental public body.

And so the rest of what I was going to say is some interpretation that you might put on what the intention is, and it may be best if I go straight to the two questions that I was going to ask the Minister anyway, and then go back and explain why these are the questions that I'm asking. My first question is, what is the democratic deficit? Which clause 19 seeks to correct, and how has it come about? And the second question is how and when is it intended to implement 19
19:11
Viscount Eccles Portrait Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
-
-
whilst keeping the confidence of whilst keeping the confidence of the judiciary and the public intact? the judiciary and the public intact? I think I was. Subject to the 1983 Heritage Act, when a considerable Heritage Act, when a considerable number of non-departmental public bodies were put into place, and I bodies were put into place, and I became the chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, when it was when it was turned into a when it was turned into a non-departmental public body.

And of course, any interpretation of of course, any interpretation of the government's position, which implies that the fact that Parliament delegates some authority Parliament delegates some authority to a non-departmental body creates a democratic deficit is a very a democratic deficit is a very serious accusation, and I believe that that that, as has been said by this government, raises a constitutional issue. I don't think that any precedent for a non-departmental public body having its purpose reversed, and that is, in effect, what would happen if the the council is no longer issuing definitive guidance.

That guidance is, in effect, being issued by Ministers. And that seems to me to be a constitutional issue. And I think if there isn't a precedent, it's very serious. And secondly, I very much hope, for example, that the Constitution Committee of this House has a look at the implications. And I think that's probably enough about the what may I think indeed be a constitutional issue. But I think the challenge to the Council, which hasn't in fact been criticised for any form of democratic deficit it has had, as I have seen it, the confidence of the judiciary.

And that's very important. It has been responsible for providing information and trying to interpret that information as a items to the people who passed sentences. And I have no comment to make on sentences as such, but simply to say that that is what the Council has done. It has provided information. And indeed, if noble Lords were to read the letter of the 27th of March, it is his the Sir William's argument which says we have never interfered with policy, and it is no part of our purpose to interfere in policy.

We are here to provide information as a form of guidance. And of course, nobody has to obey our guidance. It is guidance. It is not in any way enforceable. And I think that's a very, very important point. And so, my Lords, in conclusion, I am puzzled. I don't understand why the government is taking the position that it is taking in relation to the Sentencing Council. It seems to me that the Sentencing Council is a fine body, has done a very good job, up to date, and that there is no reason to suppose that it cannot continue.

But of course, if it is no longer to be responsible and accountable for issuing definitive guidance, then I regret to say that amounts to a death sentence. amounts to a death sentence.
19:16
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, my first paid tribute to Baroness Newlove. She brought the Office of Victims Commissioner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An enormous. Energy and she will. Be greatly missed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be greatly missed. Secondly, my follow Lord Burnett. In declaring my interest also as a president of the Sentencing Council. But and also my interest Council. But and also my interest in having been appointed by the Government of Wales to chair a Commission on Justice in Wales for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission on Justice in Wales for the people of Wales. I have also contributed to. 1 or. 2.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2. Bits of work, as. Has already been. Said this evening, in relation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said this evening, in relation to the issues in this bill. My first say I welcome the bill, but we must see it in its context. What we must see it in its context. What we really need is a reappraisal of our whole sentencing system, as so our whole sentencing system, as so many people have said, but we can't get there in one step. And so this get there in one step. And so this bill should be seen as a step.

What we need to do is to look and see we need to do is to look and see why are we now imposing sentences that are vastly greater than the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are vastly greater than the tough old judges? I remember 30 years ago, they were thought to be very tough. But obviously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These days they'd be plastered over the popular newspapers, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over the popular newspapers, the softies. Why have we done this? ourselves. But we should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we should. Ask ourselves more importantly about. The consequences, which is there aren't the resources in the there aren't the resources in the prisons to do what the prisons should be doing. And in the probation service, which is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

probation service, which is now going to have a great deal more to do. So we must see this in. Context.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome it. I pay tribute to the Minister for. Bringing it forward. And to David Gauke for the. Tremendous amount of work that he Tremendous amount of work that he has done. There is much to be welcomed. I think that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welcomed. I think that the provisions in respect of deferred. And suspended. Sentences will enable the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentences will enable the Sentencing Council, which I hope will be given its independence, to continue and the judiciary to continue and the judiciary to develop deferred sentencing and get right suspended sentences. I also welcome the reality of trying to make the public understand make the public understand community orders are a punishment, because if we don't get that right, because if we don't get that right, there is a real risk that people will, that judges and magistrates will suspend sentences under 12 months.

And of course, a suspended

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentence increases the risk of incarceration. If subsequent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If subsequent. Offences are committed. This is a very important consideration which experience has shown we must which experience has shown we must not overlook. But having said that, I think there are 1 or 2 I think there are 1 or 2 observations I'd like to make in more general terms. Judge by two principles. The first is that principles. The first is that sentencing is part of a system of justice, and we must show that this justice, and we must show that this bill is a just bill.

And secondly, I want to address the question of I want to address the question of practicality and resources. And the first question that relates to the justice of this bill obviously relates to IPPS. Now, I pay tribute relates to IPPS. Now, I pay tribute to the Minister for what he has done to try and invigorate the action plan. But the action plan will not achieve justice and will not achieve justice and remedying injustice in a period that is just. And I think there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

four short points in the light. Of. Everything that has been said that I would like to make. First, this sentence has been accepted to be wrong in principle. How can we as a nation continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle? There is no justification for that. Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about the about this sentence. I think people who write about it now simply don't understand what it did and how it worked.

It was not a sentence that punished serious, violent, or serious sexual offending. If we look back at the sentences, the tariffs that were given, you find that they are of the order in some cases of 16 or 18 months. It's absurd to say that these are serious offences. You look at the tariff and I think it's a misunderstanding also the circumstances in which it came to be imposed. Thirdly, it's now required that those who are subject to a punishment that we accept is wrong are required to prove that they're not effectively proved, they're not dangerous.

But people who commit exactly the same offences before 2005 or were sentenced after 2012 don't have to prove that. How can that be just. It fails on that score. And finally, there is the responsibility of the department. And that is continuing this sentence in a means that has made those who languish in prison without knowing when they're to be released more dangerous. And that is the responsibility of the government, and it should acknowledge that. I look forward, and I hope we will see a cross-party dialogue on this matter, because what we must do is find a solution on the question of justice.

There are three other short points I wish briefly to make. Firstly, the system of earned progression and of the way in which punishments are to be added to must be subject to detailed study and detailed dissemination before we pass this bill. It's got to be just and seen to be just. Secondly, it seems to me important we think again about deporting and deporting offenders without them being punished. We don't want this to become a nation where people can shoplift for nothing or worse still, commit serious crimes.

And return, of course, courtesy of a taxpayer funded travel without any consequence. And so much has been said about the Sentencing Council. I don't wish to add anything to that. This was a calf. I was present when it was all negotiated. It was a carefully constructed balance of the power of Parliament, of the power of Ministers, and of the duties and responsibilities of of justice, of the judges. Getting the constitutional balance right was achieved. We should not upset it by an unfortunate incident about which the least said the soonest mended.

Let's just give this up. And so those are the points I wanted to make about judging this bill by reference to justice. Two other quick points in relation to the other principle. The does it produce the realities and reflect the realities? First of all, it seems to me that we must look at IPPS through the reality of resources. They are taking up room in prison and they are taking up probation officer time. We need to adjust and look at the costs of that quite addition from the priceless attributes of justice.

Secondly, it seems to me that we must be sure that there is adequate funding for what is to be done. That point has been very strongly made in. It's no point in me repeating it. But third, can I say something about Wales? I fear at times we're back in the 19th century, and the famous entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica about Wales, see England. But Wales is different and different in the form of the way in which all other home affairs other than, for example, probation and other aspects of justice are dealt with.

It's there is a different system now. It is. I think it was the position of the last government, and it now appears to be the position of this government that you can't give consideration to what the Commission I chaired recommended and which the Welsh Government were happy with in respect of probation. There were a whole lot more. But I just want to concentrate on probation. Why can't you devolve probation? I want to raise this issue. It seems to me an important one, and I would like to know why the government won't give Wales the benefit of what England has.

I welcome the Bill. But there are things we must do to put it right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I echo the tributes made to the noble Lady Baroness made to the noble Lady Baroness Newlove. Our thoughts are with all of her family today. This bill is of her family today. This bill is important. The UK has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe, and one of the highest Europe, and one of the highest rates of reoffending. People in our prisons are not typical of people prisons are not typical of people in Britain. They are more likely to have grown up in a family facing financial hardship, more likely to financial hardship, more likely to have poor literacy and numeracy skills, more likely to not have a skills, more likely to not have a job.

They are more likely to have been homeless or in unstable housing, more likely to have housing, more likely to have suffered from a mental health issue, more likely to have had a drug or alcohol addiction problem, and they alcohol addiction problem, and they are more likely to have suffered childhood abuse or trauma. These childhood abuse or trauma. These are the differences before they enter prison. There are some
19:27
Baroness Porter of Fulwood Portrait Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)
-
-
amazing people and some amazing organisations, some of which have already been mentioned, working to help people address some of these situational factors that increase the likelihood of people offending again. Programmes such as Stand Out Clean Slate Solutions and Recruitment Junction all help transform people's lives and stand as examples of what can be done. These programmes, although significant for the lives they've turned around, are still the exception rather than the norm. David Gauke Review into sentencing rightly made three points.

I particularly want to draw out, firstly, that focusing on rehabilitation and moving to greater use of community sentences could be, in some instances, a way of reducing reoffending. There's significant evidence, as has been mentioned, that short custodial sentences in particular often do more to increase the chances of re-offending, likely for all the obvious reasons. Cutting people off from social ties, exposing them to more serious offenders and placing a stigma around them. Secondly, the efficiency matters and we should prioritise focusing expensive prison places on those most serious offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety.

Thirdly, importantly, he points out that, and I quote the overwhelming consensus from the evidence the review has gathered, is that rehabilitative support in the community is, in many cases, the most effective way to reduce reoffending. This relates to the services offenders are required to engage with when serving a sentence in the community, or released into the community on licence following a custodial sentence. In theory, the bill seeks to address these points. I am, though, concerned that good intentions are not enough.

The provisions of this bill and the government policies that sit alongside, need to go further in establishing the adequacy of supervision, providing accountability and crucially, again, as has been mentioned numerous times, guaranteeing resourcing if this is to make any real difference to reoffending and not simply to make the problem worse. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could address the following points specifically that pick up on these themes, which have been raised many times now.

Firstly, on electronic monitoring, this bill relies heavily on electronic monitoring working. Yet this is an area that historically has been rife with problems. What guarantees can he make that there will be a step change in monitoring to ensure its adequacy? Will he consider what further provisions can be set out in the bill to address this point? Secondly, on the role of community and voluntary organisations, Klink's estimate there are close to 2000 community and voluntary organisations operating in the criminal justice sector, scaling the capacity of these organisations will be crucial in delivering the reduction in re-offending.

This Bill is seeking to address. Yet the bill says nothing about them. Will the noble Lord consider introducing a suite of policies to sit alongside this bill, to ensure that voluntary and community organisations engaged in the delivery of community rehabilitation services, adequately supported and resourced to perform their functions under it. This could include policies such as a move away from short term contracting towards multi-year, unrestricted grant funding. As has been mentioned earlier, a rebalancing away from national commissioning to regional commissioning, and greater use of co commissioning, where funds can be pooled between departments.

Well, he also consider what measures could be included within the bill to hold the government accountable for the adequacy of resourcing to the sector. Thirdly, looking at assessment and accountability sentences, an area that would benefit from more of an evidence based based approach, something, again that has been discussed. Its vital resources are focussed on measures that are most effective at reducing reoffending. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, consider what more can be done, either within the Bill itself or alongside it, to ensure that robust assessment is made of the effect of different combinations of requirements and reducing reoffending? And will he commit that this assessment and any associated reporting mechanism will then have an impact on how future resources in the system are allocated? Finally, turning to the question of resourcing.

This bill is intended in part to reduce reoffending. In order to do so, it will need to dramatically transform the level of support offenders are given to turn their lives around. Tackling very entrenched and multifaceted practical challenges, from addiction to poor literacy. As the Institute for government notes, the bill shifts the weight of responsibility for much more of this into the community. The noble Lord, the Minister, has committed that alongside this bill, £700 million will be deployed into the Probation service over the spending review period.

Yet no detailed breakdown of how the £700 million will be spent has been published. Will, what reassurances can he give that this amount will be adequate? And will he commit to publish a breakdown of how this money will be spent? In closing, I would reiterate the objectives of this bill as they relate to reducing reoffending and welcome the specific provisions of this bill, though, and the policy and commitments that sit alongside it. Do not go far enough in explaining or guaranteeing how this greater focus on transformation in the community will happen.

I would urge the government to consider how it can strengthen this bill and associated policies to ensure there is proper accountability, reporting and adequate resourcing to prevent the measures contained in this bill from making a difficult situation worse. My Lords, I would like to pay tribute to to Baroness Newlove. I had the privilege of working alongside her when I was the Children's Commissioner, and she was the victims commissioner, and.
19:33
Baroness Longfield Portrait Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
-
It's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advocate and my thoughts are with her family at the moment. Well, with her family at the moment. Well, I welcome and support this. Bill and would like to thank my noble friend for his leadership in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend for his leadership in bringing this to us. But it is. A bill that's making. Changes and is designed for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changes and is designed for the adult system. Children and young. People are. Excluded from these positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excluded from these positive changes as it stands. And potentially. Have to spend longer in custody.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have to spend longer in custody. And with poorer results as a result. And this is. What often seems to happen. An

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What often seems to happen. An example of the way the rights of children in custody can often appear to be sidelined in a way appear to be sidelined in a way that is less likely in the adult secure estate, and while not secure estate, and while not included in this bill, reformed, the youth justice system is urgent and for the young people involved and for the young people involved and wider society, that is the case. And I wish to make my remarks this And I wish to make my remarks this evening about those that aren't included, but also the changes needed.

The starting point, of needed. The starting point, of course, is that there have been huge gains in the state of youth justice in this country over recent years. We should be pleased that the number of children in custody has been falling for many years, and now less than 500 young people in custody. Too many, of course, but 500. And let's make sure that we can do all we can to make sure that those numbers continue to come down. And those children who are in custody are supported to leave with options and opportunities and not end up reoffending again.

And while there are now fewer children in the security than there were those children who do receive custodial sentence are almost always in prison for a very serious crimes of violence or harm. And we need to look at why they got there, how it came about, what went wrong and could we have prevented it. And the answer is almost always yes, we could. When I've met young people in the secure estate, many have told me about the missed opportunities that could have diverted them away from becoming involved in crime or serious violence.

They talk about the experiences that made them particularly vulnerable to exploitation and put them at higher risk of harm, and many have very similar stories to tell. Over three quarters of children in the youth justice youth custody were persistently or severely absent from school, and more than half of those were out of education at least one academic year before moving into the secure estate, a quarter of children in youth justice have been permanently excluded while at school, and over a third of all children in custody grew up in the top ten poorest areas of the country.

The signs are all there. The alarm bells, neurodivergent children. Those excluded from mainstream school are disproportionately likely to be in custodial settings. And when you look at looked after children, they have long been overrepresented in the youth justice system, with more than half of looked after children born in 1994 receiving a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared to just 13% for those that had not been in care. That's 52%. That's the number that we should really take note of.

Often those young people are not getting the advice, support or the conditions that can support them to thrive and to rehabilitate. The Covid pandemic reveals a system that is frequently not child centred, with children spending very little time out of their cells, in-person visits stopped and children in custody not included in the vulnerable list. In to be eligible for face to face education. And when I was Children's Commissioner, I saw just how the justice system so often focussed on adults, with young people often seeming to be bolted on as an afterthought.

And I found that at every stage of a child's journey through the criminal justice system, opportunities were being missed to get to the root causes of offending, to put children's best interests at the heart of the response. We need to improve that significantly. We should be ambitious and impatient for that reform. There's much to do on reducing the numbers of children on remand. Nearly half the proportion of children held in custody on remand, a figure that's doubled over the last ten years.

Yet almost two thirds of children on remand do not subsequently go on to receive a custodial sentence. And this to urgent remand to needed in the wire system to reform, to rehabilitate, to educate and to reintegrate. 1 in 3 go on to reoffend with Re-offenders committing for further offences on average the highest rate in ten years and a cost to the taxpayer and the new victims of crime are, of course, high. Now, I know my noble friend and the Minister McAllister at the DfE and Minister Richards at the MoJ want to do everything they can to drive down these numbers, and I'll support them however I can.

So I hope the fact that young people aren't. The fact that young people aren't included in the bill means that there will be other opportunities to push forward on these urgent reforms that are needed in the youth justice system needs an across prevention, remand and rehabilitation. Otherwise, I think there's a risk that children will be placed at an even greater disadvantage. There are parts of the bill that could provide springboards for reforming the youth justice system if applied, for example, the new progression measures allowing people to be released after serving a third of the things that they refrain from poor behaviour should be applied.

There's no reason a child should serve more of the same sentence as an adult, and any future measures for the youth justice system should focus on rebalancing resources from crisis to intervention. A clear plan to tackle the cumulative impact of racial inequalities. The problem set out so succinctly by the current Lord Chancellor in the Lammy Review, still exist and still demand action. A comprehensive long term strategy for keeping children safe and ensuring that custody is a last resort, and that when children are in the Securitate, their rights and dignities are not forgotten, and a greater focus on preventing re-offending through boosting skills and education in the secure estate.

We can't expect young people who have committed very serious crimes to slot back into society without supporting them to succeed and tackling the root causes of their actions. After all, we are a country that believes in holding people to account for their actions while also providing most with a second chance, the possibility to thrive, and to be active citizens who contribute to society. Again, let's not miss that opportunity to do so. For those young people in the youth justice system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah. Rise to largely welcome the the what the government is attempting
19:40
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
what the government is attempting with this bill and to say to the Minister involved, I wish him all the luck in the world because this is a tough nut to crack. And I do believe he approaches it from the right point of view with a real passion and understanding and and a focus on rehabilitation. So when I come to my comments, I hope I need him to take them in that spirit. But before I get on to that, I just would like to associate myself with comments made about Baroness Newlove.

She will be sorely missed. She was a warm, welcoming and a champion for the victim. Before I go into my comments, I just want to address some of the things that I feel have come up in the chamber today. Some sentiments I think I'm picking up. I've been in youth and community work for over 35 years now, and there seems to be a notion that criminals are victims. I want to caution the Minister, particularly around poor communities, talking to those communities as if criminals are victims, because what will happen is you get a poor community that had all the challenges that those criminals have had and and displayed none of that behaviour.

So when you're at home asking yourself, why are the public so mean when it comes to rehabilitation or punishment for poorer communities? That is why they've had all those troubles, behaved the way they did properly, and don't seem to be receiving the same support as criminals. I just want you to bear that in mind. That's very important. My own youth and community work really focussed for a long time on gang work, and that's why tagging, electronic, electronic monitoring, whatever you want to call it, we really do need a strategy.

When you talk about tagging, when you talk about county lines, this could be a vital tool in keeping some young children safe. Many years ago, I joined my local gang to break it up and I wore a tag to see what it was like as an experience. I showed it to the young people I was with and they scattered. And then one boy came back to me in the morning. This was a 13 year old boy. He'd said something so profound to me, I've never forgotten it.

He said to me, crime needs privacy. The tag breaks that privacy. So we really should look at using that tactic. But it has to have some kind of meaningful plan behind it. We can't just give them out like Smarties. We've talked about the acceptance of community orders, etc. there's three sets of people who you need to accept them. Yes, the public, yes, parliamentarians and the system, but also criminals. The single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you've gotten away with it.

And if they're seen as a soft touch, they can be used as a recruitment tool. I can imagine a conversation where my local recruiter, I won't use the colloquial term. It's not polite. Language will say to young people, you're only going to get a community sentence. Don't worry about it. It's very important that we make sure criminals see it as an imposition. Not just that we've made the luvvies in comfortable parts of the country feel good about it. That is very, very important.

The last thing I want to say before I go on to some of my other comments is about responsibility. I have worked with children who have done some of the most heinous things possible for a person, and I've also worked with children, the larger number by far, who've been involved in what I would call anti-social behaviour. The key thing missing from that conversation, and for adults, particularly not just children, is the word responsibility. If you look at the minister's own work, what he and his family have done is actually given people an opportunity to take responsibility.

That has to be some of the conversation we have with people, particularly repeat offenders, about their own behaviour. They are acting irresponsibly against their own best wishes and against their community. If that's not part of the conversation, you'll never you'll never convince the public that we are doing the right thing by trying to rehabilitate people, not just punish them. Regrettably, here in London we have had a huge rise in crime overall. Met police recording of crime has gone up by almost a third.

Knife crime, something I've seen. Black communities, black and white, rich and poor, because of the fear it generates, has gone up by 86% in the capital. Yeah, something needs to be done about that. Only 5% of robberies were solved in the capital last year. That generates the idea that lawlessness is what's happening on our street. It must be nipped in the bud. I want to talk about tool theft, tool theft and the theft of expensive farm gear is very important because if you come from a community that is striving, when tools are stolen, it sends the ideas.

Those who are trying are fools. Those who are committing crime are on to something. That's why it's very important that tool theft in particular, and farm equipment as well, is really drilled down on it, sends a message that the striving, because the antidote to poverty is not welfare, it is work. So the idea that people in your community are trying to in your community are trying to work is very, very important. I want to go to shoplifting as well, because what shoplifting has, is doing in communities is sending the idea that it is there is no consequence for shoplifting.

You'll speak to people who will actually tell you that shop owners have no confidence that the police have the resources or the desire to go after shoplifters. Customer theft losses in this country have topped 2.2 billion last year. That is a record amount. And as a ripple effect, not only for our businesses but also in the communities as well. And this is compounded with the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting through the imminent sentencing bill, in which short sentences will effectively be banned.

Now, technically that might be incorrect, but I tell you on the street, that's how it's being read. I have great sympathy for what the Minister is trying to do with short sentences. I dealt with many young people who went to prison, and it basically was a college of crime, and it came back with a much better idea than the one they left with. But what is the consequence for low level crime? What is the consequence for shoplifting that really has to be brought home to the public? Again, I go back to my theme.

If we're going to convince the public that rehabilitation and community dealing with crime in the community is, is, is a worthwhile thing to pursue. Things like shoplifting are going to have to seem like they have some kind of consequence. So I'll ask the Minister again, what is the consequence? How will we be telling that to the public? There is a consequence for that. What many people consider a low level crime, the release of criminals partway through their sentences also poses a significant threat to society.

After just over a year, this government has freed 26,000 criminals. Where are they? Whose house are they living? In? What effect are they having on your community now? In my new place where I live, I don't see them. Where I come from. What effect do they have in there? You cannot just push these people out into communities. They might not be your communities, but they are mine. And they send the notion that crime is something you've got away with. Or are they committing more crime? We've got to look at the effect of putting these people into particular communities.

If we were releasing them into Belgravia, that would be one thing, but that isn't where we're releasing them to. The government's own impact assessment says that this bill will only reduce demand for prison places by 7500. Now, I know that isn't a big figure. I welcome any reduction, but we do. If we're going to say to the public, the motivation for this bill is that we want to reduce prison places we've we've lost before we begun. We need to say to the public, the motivation for this bill is to reduce street, to make you safer, to cut reoffending, not to free up prison places, because that simply does not wash.

And if you if you doubt me, go to your local chip shop, go to the pub, have a conversation, bring that up and see what the response is. In response to. Responding to the to Sentencing Bill, the Victims Commissioner for England and Wales, the my noble friend Baroness Newlove the late Baroness Newlove. She made this statement continual adjustments to sentencing through emergency release schemes have eroded public confidence. Any new sentencing framework must, above all, deliver public safety. I agree with that analysis and so will the public police.

Could the Minister tell us how he's going to display that to the public, to show that this is a worthwhile thing to pursue? The other problem, of course, is our police services, the confidence of those services to carry out their job. Many police officers feel like they're they're under a witch hunt, and if they use the powers they have, they will end up losing their job. That is devastating for poor communities who need the police to act with confidence in order to keep them safe.

It's very, very, very important. We're about to lose 1300 officers across the country. Here in London. We're about to lose 2000 police officers and police staff. That could have a detrimental effect on the Metropolitan Police's ability to just police the capital. It's very important that the bill addresses these these these issues around the finances, the resources that the police have in order to just carry this out in the first place. But I want to end on this notion.

I want to go back to it. So the Minister, really the single biggest driver to crime is the idea that people will get away with it. Whatever we decide on in this House, we must send a strong message that you're not getting away with it. We are rehabilitating the system that deals with you, but you are not getting away with it. If the government misses that trick, then we'll just be right back to where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we were in the beginning. Thank you. My Lords. It's a pleasure. To follow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To follow. Lord Bailey and I. Join others in. The House paying tribute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House paying tribute. To Baroness Newlove. Like Baroness Chakrabarti, I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like Baroness Chakrabarti, I was very taken with my noble and
19:51
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

very taken with my noble and learned friend. The sorry, I've got. Lord Burnett of Maldon saying that lengthening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentences doesn't necessarily improve re-offending. I think it's quite an interesting thought. Now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords. I'm not a lawyer. Rather like Lord Moylan. But. I have retained.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have retained. An interest. In sentencing. And imprisonment. Following many years as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Following many years as a trustee of the Koestler Trust, which puts arts into prisons. The whole purpose of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The whole purpose of. This is. To give. Prisoners access. To self-expression. Through the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Through the. Arts and music, which in turn. Enables a degree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enables a degree. Of hope. Hope. My Lords, now that's a very important word to which I'm going to return. There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I'm going to return. There are two matters which I particularly. Would like to address. And the first, perhaps not surprisingly, given what I've just said, is IPPS, which in some cases simply precludes hope. Now, though, he is making no changes to IPPS in this bill, I am. Nevertheless very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his attention to this, and I detect a genuine concern and a desire to improve the situation. And that, of course, is as it should be, because when a legal expert like the late and much missed Lord Brown of Eaton under Heywood, who Viscount Hailsham referred to when he was moved to declare IPPS as the greatest single stain on the British judicial system.

We need to sit up and take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

note. The Howard. League, as we also heard, recommended a change in Parole recommended a change in Parole Board practice so that it sets a definite date for the release of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

definite date for the release of window. And then. Specifies what the prisoner must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accomplish with professional support to achieve that. The noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble. Lord Lord Woodley convincingly advocated a resentencing policy to which I was greatly attracted, and which I was greatly attracted, and still am. Now the IPP sentence was introduced by the former Labour introduced by the former Labour government in 2003, supposedly to protect the public from dangerous protect the public from dangerous offenders. It was, in effect, a life sentence for those who have not committed serious offences like murder that would usually attract a life sentence. The sentence was life sentence.

The sentence was abolished by the former coalition government in 2012, but the government in 2012, but the abolition did not apply to those who were already serving the sentence, as we have heard. Over a sentence, as we have heard. Over a decade. After the sentences abolition, some 2422 prisoners are still shamefully languishing in custody under the sentence. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Doctor Alice Edwards, has described the IPP as an inhumane punishment that often amounts to psychological torture.

Now, if noble Lords feel that that's an overdramatic description, I invite them to imagine themselves in the same position. You're behind bars, you can make no progress, and you have no hope, no hope of getting out. That's an intolerable situation. I'd like to turn now to joint enterprise, which has not really been mentioned in the bill, but which I and many others think should be. There's been growing alarm over Crown Prosecution Service data from organisations like Liberty showing that black people are disproportionately prosecuted under joint enterprise, and that a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that the law had been wrongly implemented for more than 30 years, has had no discernible impact on the number of prosecutions.

In her report, Nisha Waller said joint enterprise is unjustifiably vague and wide in scope. Law reform will not eradicate institutional racism and broad issues with police and prosecution practice. However, the current law encourages the overcharging of suspects and allows cases to be propelled forward based on poor quality evidence. Prosecutors are then left to fill the gaps with speculative case series and often racialized narratives, from which juries are invited to infer joint responsibility. I'm sure we can all imagine a young boy under the influence and maybe in fear of older peers, feeling he must follow his comrades without fully realising the implications of what is happening.

And I would be very interested to know from the Minister if he feels there is a quality proportionate to culpability in cases of joint enterprise, and should this not form part of the sentencing bill? Finally, may I just say that I'm very sympathetic to those who've argued that prisoners convicted of domestic abuse or those from stalking and recalled, will not have thrown off that behaviour, and particularly obsession, after 56 days. I think that's a really important point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I start by. Expressing my. Sadness along with that of so many others in.
19:56
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that of so many others in. The House at the. Death of the noble Lady Baroness Newlove. Whose heartfelt commitment Newlove. Whose heartfelt commitment and hard work for victims have been quite outstanding. My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his opening and his work on this bill. It is a tribute to him that he, with the enlightened and evidence based backing of David Gauke and his team, has had the courage to champion and introduce these reforms to sentencing aimed at reducing re-offending.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The urgency. Of this. Bill has. Indeed flowed from the prison

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed flowed from the prison capacity crisis, which this government inherited from the conservative government, whose

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservative government, whose responsibility, I want to say was surprisingly not acknowledged by. The noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. In his criticisms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In his criticisms. Of the Bill and. His. Call for severity. The reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reality. Is that we imprison far too many people in this country. For far.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For far. Too long, way more than many. Other Western European nations, and there is no evidence of. A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is no evidence of. A reduction in re-offending rates. As a result. As analysed. By the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the. noble and learned Lord Lord Burnett. We've persisted in increasing sentence lengths by increasing sentence lengths by legislating both for longer overall. Sentences and for longer periods Sentences and for longer periods served, but also. By a general sentence inflation, possibly in sentence inflation, possibly in response to political, public and media pressure. The noble Lords Lord Bach, Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Carter captured this well in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their critique of the regrettable toughness. Contest between. Political parties.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble and Lord Leonard, Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, put it into a historical context. With.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With. His story of. Past severe judges being seen now. As softies. Then the number of remand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then the number of remand prisoners has increased, as Lord Hastings pointed out, and we've recently seen a record number of prisoners recalled for breach of prisoners recalled for breach of release conditions, 15% higher in the second quarter of this year the second quarter of this year than in the same quarter last year. Yet the reality is that prison often does far more harm than good. often does far more harm than good. And that's particularly true of short sentences. And where we can, we should be relying instead on we should be relying instead on effective and well-resourced community sentences as the right, relevant right reverend Prelate, relevant right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester argued in her principled speech, supported in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.

But many of our prisons have been bad at rehabilitation under-resourced, overcrowded and understaffed, with the toxic cocktail of failings rehearsed cocktail of failings rehearsed today and regularly in previous debates in this House, including too many prisoners in cell in cells filled beyond capacity, prisoners locked in their cells, often for 22 to 23 hours per day, with very little purposeful activity. Shortages of vocational and educational training and too few staff to manage the courses. There are an epidemic of drug abuse fuelled by widespread drug trading, often involving, sadly corrupt staff, prisoners, adults and young people with serious mental health and addiction issues, as well as the literacy, educational and social difficulties discussed by the noble Lady Baroness Longfield, all going unaddressed.

Appalling violence within our prisons. The MoJ in Prison Service reported in June, increases over the last year alone of 11% in assaults by prisoners on other prisoners and of 13% in assaults on staff, attributed in their report directly to overcrowding. Persistently squalid conditions in many prisons with inadequate, cancelled or deferred maintenance programmes. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Beith said, the criticisms we make do not apply to all prisons. Many of our prisons are of high quality, innovative and motivational, but a successful prison service would ensure that all institutions met those standards.

In spite of all this, I accept the noble Lord. The Minister's overall characterisation of the commitment and performance of prison staff as incredible, but against a history and background of low morale, there are still too many who fall badly short of that characterisation, and their wrongdoing needs to be exposed and tackled. However, this bill recognises that reducing reoffending depends crucially upon rehabilitation and upon the probation service. It is worth remembering the massive cost of reoffending, estimated to account for more than half of the overall costs of crime in the UK, an annual cost of between 18 and more than £23 billion.

Even without the costs to the state of housing and social care for the families of offenders, my Lords, central to the success of this Bill and the government in its aims, will be resourcing the probation Service. The government plans, as we've heard, to recruit 13,000 more probation officers by March next year and is allocating an additional £700 million to the probation service by 2028. However, we are concerned, seriously concerned that these figures do not add up. As the noble as my noble friend Lord foster explained in detail, Lord Bach and others expressed the same doubts.

Do the figures take into account three areas of extra costs arising from this bill? More tagging, implementation of the presumption against immediate short sentences, and extra supervision of early release on the earn progression model. My Lords, we welcome the presumption against short sentences. We've been calling for this for many years in the light of consistent evidence that such sentences increase rather than reduce reoffending. It is to be hoped that supervision of suspended sentences, together with conditions such as treatment conditions imposed by the courts, will lead to a targeted approach to rehabilitation and to addressing the individual difficulties of offenders in achieving rehabilitation within their communities.

Described by the noble Lady Baroness Porter. Suspension of sentences for three years rather than two should assist in this process, but more suspended sentences should not. As the noble Lady Baroness Prashar argued, reduce the making of community orders where prison sentences are not warranted. We also welcome the introduction of the Earned Progression model recommended by the Gauke Review for standard determinate sentences. We recognise. Recognise the perhaps surprisingly beneficial influence of the Texas model. This represents a logical, sensible and above all, transparent approach to early release.

To replace the emergency. Indiscriminate Sdz 40 arrangement. But for the new system to work well and fairly. Training and education in prison must be made more universally available. We would argue that there should be better rehabilitative programmes for prisoners on remand, as well as for sentence prisoners, and we will introduce an amendment to that effect. The introduction of a recorded finding of domestic abuse in the sentencing of a relevant offender is a reform for which my hon. Friend Josh Babarinde campaigned in the House of Commons, and this should enable victims and subsequent partners of domestic abusers to be better protected from past perpetrators.

We also applaud the overdue recognition of the interests of victims as a factor in the purposes of sentencing. On the question of the Sentencing Council, we fully agree with points widely made by my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord Lord Burnett, Baroness Chakrabarti, Viscount Eccles and others. We regard the Sentencing Council as performing a valuable and independent function in providing advice to sentences. Nor do we see the Sentencing Council's role work as undermining the constitutional role of Parliament in sentencing policy.

As this bill and this debate so clearly demonstrate. So we will seek to amend the proposal in clause 19 to subject sentencing guidelines to a veto by the Lord Chief Justice and the or the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, which is an unwarranted restriction on the independence of the Sentencing Council. My Lords, we have made specific concerns. We have specific concerns on the recall provisions in clause 29 of the bill. Effectively, the bill would introduce an automatic recall of 56 days for most prisoners recalled to prison for less serious breaches.

56 days is a long time. And as the noble Lady Baroness Jones pointed out, such recalls may cost offenders their accommodation or places on treatment programmes or the like, and we will seek to amend this. My noble friend Lord Beith mentioned our regret that the Bill does not commit to a resentencing of IPP prisoners, and I agreed with the tenor of speeches on IPP from the noble Lords. Viscount Hailsham Lord Moylan, Lord Woolley, Baroness Maclean, Lord Berkeley of Knighton and others.

The noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd made the point of principle, and he added an important point on the cost of IPP. We also reject the notion of publicly shaming offenders, undertaking unpaid work with names and photographs. It's vindictive and unhelpful. A point made by Lord Hastings. My Lords, overall, this bill is overdue in putting rehabilitation and reform first, respecting the evidence on what works in reducing crime. Along with the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and others, we reject the conservative frontbench characterisation of these reforms as likely to increase crime and make the streets less safe.

We do stress, however, with all those who've insisted in this debate that the success of this bill depends on providing the probation service with the support, the personnel and the resources that it needs. Ultimately, however, the potential savings to the public purse in reducing the cost of reoffending and the burgeoning costs of the prison service could, if realised, bring great net benefit to society, financial as well as social.
20:08
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, could.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paying my tribute to the late. Baroness Newlove. Not only for her contribution to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not only for her contribution to this House, but for the very considerable work she did. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considerable work she did. As Victim's Commissioner. Thank you. Could I also thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his introduction. Of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the. Bill, and all noble Lords for the detailed, informed and indeed sometimes diverse opinions that they've. Expressed with regard to they've. Expressed with regard to the Bill. The importance of this debate is. Underlined by the fact that it receives so little scrutiny. In the other place, it was in In the other place, it was in committee for one day for a bill so substantial and with such wide ramifications that seems wholly ramifications that seems wholly inadequate.

And indeed it meant that many radical changes proposed that many radical changes proposed in the bill were never even mentioned in the other place, let mentioned in the other place, let alone discussed or debated. So it is essential that we have the opportunity to examine the Bill opportunity to examine the Bill carefully and indeed in some respects, forensically. Could I respects, forensically. Could I make a number of general observations? This is simply an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attempt to tackle overcrowding in. Our. Prison estate. I certainly hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prison estate. I certainly hope not. And yet there was no mandate for these reforms in Labour's manifesto. There was a reference to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

manifesto. There was a reference to sentencing and it said this even when criminals are found guilty, the. Sentences they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentences they. Receive often do not make sense, either to victims or the wider either to victims or the wider public, unquote. The Lords, will this bill improve the complexity, this bill improve the complexity, but not the comprehension of sentencing? I fear that might be sentencing? I fear that might be the case. And as the noble Lord Thomas of Carnegie observed, the Thomas of Carnegie observed, the public must be able to comprehend that disposal, such as community that disposal, such as community sentences, are not only effective, but also a form of punishment.

And but also a form of punishment. And indeed, it will be important to explain that early release is in explain that early release is in the public interest and not just a fiscal necessity. So how is that to fiscal necessity. So how is that to be done? I ask the noble Lord, the Minister. I would also, as a matter of generality, express a degree of concern about the clarity of the proposed reforms and powers that are to be implemented. And in particular, I would make reference to clauses 13 to 16 and 24 of the bill that introduce a would introduce powers for the courts to forbid offenders to enter drinking establishments, to attend sports

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and other public events, to inhibit them from. Driving. Or indeed even to inhibit them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or indeed even to inhibit them from leaving specified geographical areas. It's simply not clear from the terms of the bill how any or all of these measures would be all of these measures would be implemented or enforced. So a number of questions will arise. How number of questions will arise. How is that to be done? Where will the funding come from? On whose shoulders will enforcement lie? Will it be the responsibility of public houses, those in control of public houses, those in control of sporting venues or other public venues? Will they be required to ensure that their own customers are ensure that their own customers are not under court orders? This will require a meaningful and effective reform, and it will require, in turn, a meaningful and effective turn, a meaningful and effective debate in order that we can understand how these provisions are understand how these provisions are actually going to work in practice.

And then there's the role of the And then there's the role of the courts. The bill leaves the government's stance on this somewhat unclear. Clauses 11 and 12 of the bill deal with rehabilitation activity requirements and provide that probation officers, rather than the sentencing courts, would decide on, for example, the number of days of activity that someone must complete in a community order. That effectively means that probation officers will replace the courts in the imposition of sentences for those on community orders.

That transfers a crucial power, and indeed an important role from the courts to the probation service. A point to which I'll return. But again, we require a degree of clarity about that. Furthermore, the bill appears to blur the government's stance on the relationship between the courts and the executive, a point addressed by the noble Lord Burton of Maldon when he referred to the provision in clause 19 about there being a statutory requirement for the Sentencing Council to obtain approval from the Lord Chancellor before sentencing guidelines are issued.

This does imply that the government believes that there should be a close relationship between the executive and the judiciary on the issue of sentencing. And yet, when we recently debated the Crime and Policing Bill and concerns were expressed about sentencing for offences such as flytipping, shoplifting and knife crime, the government response was, and I quote, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, unquote. Well is it? And will it be under the provisions of this bill? And more particularly, how are we to consider the provisions in clause 18 with respect to the apparent veto? It is as again, the noble Lord Burnett of Maldon pointed out, somewhat opaque in its provisions.

Turning on to some more specific issues, we have the end of short term custodial sentences and the introduction or development of early release, all of which in principle may be attractive. But for example, under clauses one and two, there will be a presumption that custodial sentences of 12 months or less will be suspended, except, of course, in the limited circumstances, such as breaches of protection orders. Does that mean, for example, that where someone pleads guilty at the first opportunity and gets a remission in their sentence, that someone who would have received a sentence of 18 months, but is to receive a sentence of 12 months, will then find themselves with a suspended sentence.

In other words, does this presumption apply not only in respect of custodial sentences of 12 months, but those up to 18 months? And I would welcome the new Lord. The Minister's response on that. It's estimated that the implementation of these provisions would mean that about 40,000 criminals would avoid prison entirely. But for what 1st May ask? The purpose of sentencing is not purely punitive, but is there to protect the public from repeat and violent offenders.

And as many noble Lords observed, rehabilitation and community orders are essentially resource based. The noble Lord Foster of Bath put the matter very pithily when he said, you need the means to achieve the ends. Is the Minister confident that this bill is going to provide the means to the end? And I bear in mind the way in which the Treasury often regards the Ministry of Justice and its role as one of the orphan children of government. There is a considerable barrier for the noble law to overcome in that respect, and when we go on to early release, clause 20 will reduce that to one third of the original sentence.

And I acknowledge that if we go back to 1967, there were similar provisions in place, albeit the test was quite significantly different to the one that is being proposed in this bill. But of course, if we have such early release, how are we going to accommodate the police estimate that this could lead to a 6% increase in overall crime, or approximately an additional 396,000 offences per year, the vast majority of which, of course, involve re-offending by those who've been released from prison.

We are liable to find ourselves in a cycle of released and recalled, unless we're very careful, and the noble Lord Hastings of Carisbrooke made clear why that cycle can only be broken by effective rehabilitation. And again, I repeat the noble Lord Foster of Bath observation you need the means to achieve the ends, whereas the means can it be explained? I'm also concerned that there may be a somewhat inconsistent messaging from the government. The government recently expressed outrage that criminals such as Haddock, who were at large on the streets.

And yet under this bill, the offenders of his type who received a 12 month sentence would be at large on the streets. Can the government clarify whether it's genuinely committed to including those convicted of such offences in this scheme? It seems that their position is that the community is capable of accommodating such offenders, but it can only possibly accommodate them if there is in place effective probation services. And again, it's a case of requiring the means in order to achieve the ends.

The Lords there is also a risk. I suggest that this bill simply sends the wrong message to repeat offenders. The presumption against short custodial sentences may appear to have merit, but it does remove a vital deterrent to repeat offending, particularly in low level crimes. Anti-social behaviour. Theft, particularly retail theft, domestic violence and other cases of stalking and harassment, and very often such so-called minor crimes are the precursors to more serious offending. So short sentences can play an important role as an intervention and as a deterrent against that sort of persistent and repeat offending.

And has that been properly taken into account when considering the use of non-custodial or suspended sentences in so many of those cases? There is a risk that essentially we're sending the wrong message to repeat offenders. And indeed, as one noble Lord observed, we may also be sending the wrong message to very young offenders who may believe that the future holds no risk of imprisonment if they engage in what is regarded, or they're persuaded to believe is low level criminality.

Can I then move on to suggest that the bill might involve potential overreach for the probation service itself, and is certainly going to place considerable burdens on that service? Clauses one and two. Clauses 20 to 23 deal with the issue of short custodial sentences are being replaced by non-custodial sentences, and 20 to 23 with early release, all of which is going to increase the burden on the probation services. But then clauses 11 and 12 with respect to rehabilitation will require probation officers to sentence offenders to the number of days they must complete.

Clause 34. Will enable probation officers to reduce the number of unpaid works an offender must complete. I'll come back to these provisions in a moment, but all of these clauses require officers to manage, supervise and monitor a very large number of offenders who will have avoided custody or have been released early. Under the bill, there are, of course, provisions for probation reset to help or assist the probation service. But when we look at the financial impact assessment, it could best be described as opaque.

We're told that in some instances, there will be a modest increase in the cost of services, and that the remaining have not been calculated. But probation officers will be expected to take on these new tasks. And the question arises as to whether they are going to be equipped financially. Apart from anything else to take those on. But there's also perhaps a more fundamental constitutional issue to be considered here. If probation officers are going to take on these judicial type responsibilities, which are being transferred potentially without correspondent or corresponding investment in training or supervision, where is that going to lead us? Unlike sentencing decisions taken in open court, these apparently administrative terminations will occur without transparency, without oversight, and that would appear without any form of appeal mechanism that the government has not provided any mechanism to ensure that these decisions are monitored or audited, or even transparently reported.

And I pick up the point made by the noble Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick about there being room for very material error where you impose these obligations on staff who are potentially under-resourced, under-trained and unable to, with any certainty, determine how they're going to perform these new functions, which were or are to be regarded as at least quasi judicial functions. That does represent, I suggest, a major constitutional shift in the balance of responsibility between the judiciary and the executive.

And has the Minister thought that through and considered the operational pressures that this is actually going to impose on the probation service? Finally, and very briefly, and with apologies for being over time, can I acknowledge the point about IPP sentences as a matter of principle? They cannot be maintained. The onus placed on this small cohort is one that is placed on no other prisoner in the prison estate, and it is one which they will struggle time and time to overcome, because we have now reduced that cohort to perhaps the least able, the least able to meet the requirements presently placed on them with regard to the probation.

I'm sorry, the question of how they are to be dealt with when they come to seek release. I don't offer a solution to that. I'm well aware myself that the need for a solution has dogged government after government. But we cannot wait another eight years to see this play out, and I invite the Minister to consider very seriously whether it should be a matter addressed in this bill. Thank you.
20:25
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. It's my pleasure to close the Second Reading debate of this vital Bill, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions during today's debate and those who have spoken to me privately. I'll attempt to answer as many questions as possible, but what I do not cover, I will follow up in writing and could also thank the noble and learned Lord keen for your speech. And yes, this bill is about prison capacity, but it's also about how we can reform the system.

It's sustainable, affordable and it works. So we get fewer victims and a real focus on rehabilitation. I'll turn first to the issue of IPP sentences. And I want to acknowledge that many noble and noble learned Lords have raised the subject today. And I think it's important that their concerns are raised and are discussed today. But also, this government is determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentence, but not in a way that undermines public protection.

And I'd also just like to put on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord Thomas for his work with noble Lord Garnier on recall, and what we are still learning from that work. The IPP Action Plan has contributed to the overall reduction in the IPP population over the last 12 months, as the Prison Reform Trust has said. We are seeing modest but welcome progress. For example, the unreleased prison population has reduced by around 14% to 946 people in September 2025 and after three years of quarterly increases, the recalled IPP prison population has fallen in every quarter for the last two years, from 1652 people to 1476 as of the 30th of September this year.

We've implemented changes to reduce the qualifying period for referral, for referral of IPP sentence to the Parole Board, and introduced a provision for automatic license termination. Termination. These changes have reduced the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two thirds. The revised action plan, published on the 17th of July, sets out where we intend where we intend to go further, including increasing access to release on temporary licence, expanding the approved premises pilot to improve resettlement support and enabling swift rerelease following recall through risk assessed recall review when it is safe and appropriate to do so.

And I'm determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders and their families, and I'm confident that our efforts will further benefit the IPP cohort. I will continue to engage with noble Lords, and I will continue to focus on developing new ways and improving existing plans to help IPP peers have successful parole hearings, and to see fewer IPP recalls. My door is open and I look forward to our next peers meeting. I shall now turn to the points that noble Lords have raised regarding the proposals in the Bill.

Let me start with the earned progression model, which has raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord. Noble learned, Lord Burnett and noble noble and learned Lord Thomas. I must begin by being clear of the context in which the government has introduced these measures. The prison population is still rising too fast, and we simply cannot build our way out of the capacity crisis. Our new progression model, inspired by Texas and recommended by David Gauke, sets a minimum release point of one third for those serving standard determinate sentences, which currently have an automatic release of 40 or 50%.

For certain sexual and violent offences, the minimum will be 50%, but the most dangerous offenders those on extended determinate sentences and life sentences, will be unaffected by the measures in this bill and will remain in prison for as long as they do now. And following the changes in this bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before. Under the progression model, if they play by the rules, prisoners can earn an early release. If not, they can be locked up for longer up to the end of their sentence.

So if someone receives a six year standard determinate sentence and they and they behave badly, they can serve that full six years in prison. And while I've heard the issues that noble Lords have raised, including the noble Lord Sandhurst and the noble Baroness Prashar, it is essential that this model can be implemented quickly and effectively through the establishment established process for punishing bad behaviour and rule breaches in prison. And I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Brooks welcoming us about the progression model, and also to Baroness Prashar and Lord Carter.

But I would like to reassure noble Lords that I spent a lot of time already discussing how the progression model will work, and whilst it is not an exact mirror of the Texas model because of the capacity issues and the complexities, it can create, essentially in the prison environment you go up the hill. So for bad behaviour, you, you, you stay in prison for longer, whereas in probation you go down the hill. So the the quicker you do your community service, the quicker you finish your responsibility.

We know this needs to be tough, and that's why we're doubling the maximum punishment of added time from 42 to 84 days per incident. And the noble Baroness Chakrabarti and Baroness Prashar quite rightly brought up the subject of adjudications. And again, that is something that I'm looking into because you are quite right. It needs to be absolutely robust and fair. A number of noble Lords have raised short sentences, and the noble Lord Keen Lord Sandhurst Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and other noble Lords.

And it's important point. We are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison, where they breached a court order, and where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or, in exceptional circumstances. Around 60% of adults sentenced for under a year reoffend within 12 months, and I think a number of noble Lords recited similar facts out about the ineffectiveness of short sentences. This is unacceptably high for victims in the public, and the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence re-offend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence.

We're following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. And I'm also following the lead of the previous government, who introduced this measure in their sentencing bill. I've heard the points raised about the impact of these changes, the impact on victims, and I want to reassure noble Lords, including Baroness McLean of Redditch, about that. Victims are at the heart of this bill. First and foremost, we are failing victims. If prisons run, if prisons run out of places entirely and crime goes without punishment for me, victims must always come first and we will be publishing the Vawg strategy shortly.

We're imposing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims. And we are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are known to prison and probation services, and their victims are better protected. And we remain steadfast in our commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. In addition to the measures in this bill, we are continuing the provision of free sentencing, remarks to victims of rape and sex offences and expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts with trained staff to support victims and more coordinated management of offenders.

I will now turn to the points that the noble Lords have raised about probation capacity, and how the reforms in the bill are being delivered and what is clear from by far the majority of speeches today that noble Lords are well aware of both the the pressure on probation, but also that when you get this right, how powerful it is and how fantastic the staff are. And that is why I think we are over the coming Committee stage, I suspect we will be drilling deeply into how the probation proposals work and and to what we can do to make sure that they are robust.

The probation service is an indispensable part of the criminal justice system that keeps us safe. But the last decade has been a very challenging time. We've already taken significant steps to focus resources on the highest risk and prolific offenders, where the evidence shows probation can have the greatest impact. And earlier this year, we announced a package of measures to rebuild the probation service. By the final year of the spending review, our annual 1.6 billion spend on probation and community services will rise by up to 700 million, a 45% increase.

As was clear in the Gauke Review, the third sector has a key role to play. We are indebted to so many wonderful organisations who are integral to the work of probation, and I agree that the longer term funding models are the direction of travel. I'd like to see. While the detailed allocations of that money are to be finalised, I can say that my priorities are clear. More people in post digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use, from increasing tagging to rehabilitation so the offenders can have a chance to turn their lives around.

This will make the job of probation staff more manageable and more rewarding, and I am hopeful for further conversations with noble Lords to give more clarity on probation funding in the days ahead. Recruitment and retention and training of staff are high priorities for the probation service, and the right reverend Prelate is clearly aware. We need to ensure we have sufficient workforce to safely supervise and manage people in the community. This bill includes several measures like welcoming the removal of Post-sentence supervision, the introduction of a probation requirement, and the termination of community orders.

Once an offender has completed their sentence plan. These will streamline processes, enable probation to focus their efforts on those who pose the highest risk and incentivise offenders to engage with rehabilitation. And the theme of Incentivisation is something that I feel very passionately about having run a business. How I incentivise colleagues on the front line in shops to serve customers well, I do believe, and I see it across the criminal justice system, the defenders genuinely not all, but many offenders respond to the right incentive at the right time in their in in their time in prison or probation.

And we've gone further since the its introduction. The deputy Prime Minister recently announced an expansion of Justice Transcribe, equipping 1000 more probation officers with the technology that cuts the administration and ensures staff can spend more time with their doing the thing they do best, which is working with offenders face to face to turn their lives around. And we want to go further with this too. Speaking to probation staff who've who've been engaging with justice transcribe, they call it a game changer and something they've been crying out for for years.

It's an important part of our plan to modernise the service and arrange a further digital and process. Improvements will transform the probation staff work, and ensure they can spend more time doing the things that they love doing. And I'm confident that our overall package of investment, continued recruitment and modernisation puts us on a path to ensuring the sustainability of the service for the long term. For the long term, I will continue to work closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to that end, and I'd be delighted to meet with noble Lords and with noble Lord, noble and learned Lord Thomas, to talk about a country that's dear to my heart.

And I can see from my house Wales. I will now turn to electronic monitoring, a crucial means of managing offenders safely in the community. And I thank noble Lords, including Lord foster, Baroness Porter and Lord Bailey of Paddington. And could I mention to the noble Lord, you may not remember many years ago we met at number ten, and I would like I'd be delighted to carry on the conversations we had then, which followed a very strong theme of your speech today.

The evidence is clear. Tagging works. It provides clear and reliable proof of an individual's whereabouts and behaviour. A recent study found that curfew tags reduce re-offending by 20% as part of a community sentence. Since their introduction in 2020, alcohol monitoring tags show no tamper and no alcohol consumed on 97% of the days worn as part of the community sentence. The currently around 20,000 people on tags, and we will increase this by up to 22,000 across court bail, community sentences and prison leavers, with many subject to curfews and exclusion zones.

A number of noble Lords raised the subject of the Sentencing Council, including Lord Beith noble and Lord Thomas Baroness Prashar, Baroness Chakrabarti and Viscount Eccles. The judicial independence in making the sentencing decisions is a fundamental constitutional principle. The government has an important duty to secure public confidence in our criminal justice system, and Ministers are responsible for that. And it is that balance we seek to strike in arrangements for the Sentencing Council. We shall return to this in detail at the Committee stage.

The issue of sentencing was raised strongly by my noble friend Baroness Longfield. There are and always should be, substantial differences in how children are treated in law compared to adults. Youth. The youth sentencing system strike a right balance between public protection and the principles of justice, while accounting for children's lesser maturity and protecting their welfare. This is why we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in light of the changes the Bill introduces, I will now turn briefly to other points that have been raised during the debate.

The removal of remand for for someone's own protection does not form part of the remand measures in the sentencing bill. As my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti is aware, the Mental Health Bill proposes to end the use of remand for someone's own protection, where the primary concern is the defendant's mental health. I'm open to hearing more on the general removal of remand for own protection. The noble Lord Lord Sandhurst raised concerns about clause 11 of the bill. The clause does not remove the court's sentencing powers.

It is ultimately up to the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making a suspended sentence order or community order, probation officers assess each individual's risks and needs after sentencing. They're currently responsible for determining the volume of supervision required, and as such, are best placed to determine how much rehabilitation how many rehabilitative activities will be most effective. That is why this clause removes removes the court set activity days. It ensures that we resource it it. Sorry, the writing's getting rather small here.

This ensures resources are used where they have the greatest impact in reducing reoffending and protecting the public. And my noble, the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb raise recall. My noble Lords recall is and will remain an important risk management tool to protect the public and victims. We're going further than the review's recommendations to introduce important safeguards to protect the public and victims. Certain offenders can only receive a standard recall. These offenders will only be rereleased by the Secretary of State or the parole board before the end of their sentence if they meet the statutory release test and a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord Beith, the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti have raised concerns about clause 35.

My Lords, I'm sure we can agree that people who commit crimes should show they're giving back to society. Let me assure you that careful consideration is being given to how this is implemented, and how wider impacts can be mitigated. And the noble Lord, Lord foster, I'm keen to discuss gambling and how we support addiction generally in the community. It's something that I'm very passionate about too, and I'd be delighted to meet with the noble Lord Berkeley of Knighton to discuss joint enterprise with my colleague, Minister Alex Davies-jones, as it's her area of expertise in the Ministry of Justice.

This has been a wide debate, and I bow to the experience and expertise in the chamber. Today, I and my officials will read Hansard carefully, and if I've missed anything in my response, we shall make sure to engage with your lordships and with with you before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and after the Committee, and I look forward to that. I beg to move. That this bill be now read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this bill be now read a second time as many as are that when we say content to the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when we say content to the contrary, not content, the contents have it. I beg to move the commitment motion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page