Lords Chamber

Monday 1st December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
None Portrait None
-

I I do.
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
in the first half of 2026, we still as yet have no details of what that initiative will will be. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, let the House know when the details will be released?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. He's right in saying that the the the government is committed to farming, government is committed to farming, food security and nature's recovery through a number of different environmental land management schemes, including the Sustainable schemes, including the Sustainable Farming Initiative. He'll be aware that the the scheme, the current that the the scheme, the current scheme was closed last March, but it's fair to say that all agreements agreed to under under previous previous iterations of the scheme are still are still live.

And it it it pays farmers to adopt And it it it pays farmers to adopt and maintain sustainable farming practices that can protect and enhance the natural environment alongside food production and also alongside food production and also support for farm productivity. We are determined to get this right. It's worth noting that only 40,000 out of a potential 100,000 farmer farming businesses took took up the scheme under the previous iterations, so it's really important that we get it right. important that we get it right.

We're determined to ensure that every farmer takes a look at the new scheme. When we do. When we do, new scheme. When we do. When we do, we'll obviously keep the house updated as to its publication.
15:10
15:11
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
the Basic Farm Payment Scheme in England are going down much faster than anyone envisaged, and this is causing real hardship for those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farm in the hills and dales of northern England. Well, of course, the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, of course, the government shares concern when any farming business close closes, and that's why we are backing farmers to be why we are backing farmers to be more profitable and unlocking the full potential of the rural economy, making sure there's business stability and clarity so that they stability and clarity so that they can invest with confidence. And that's why that we are looking to very much we very much welcome the very much we very much welcome the work that the noble Baroness Baroness Batters did on profitability, but on profitability.

profitability, but on profitability. And also we are going to align that with other strategies like the land use strategy. As we unveiled this once in a generational farming roadmap that should cover the next 25 years of of agriculture and farming, it's important to understand that over half of England's farmland, more than 50,000 farm businesses are already benefiting from our investment in the schemes. Environmental land management schemes, not just SFI, but also country stewardship and land recovery schemes. And it's and land recovery schemes.

And it's and it's important that we get the balance right between restoring nature and having productive farming. farming.
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this is the subject of the most utmost seriousness. I cannot I cannot commit to publishing to, to to to publishing date without understanding the, the, the the, the rigid, the how should I put it, the ensuring that the data is actually available to be published in the correct and statistically reliable and format. But this is something that, you know, obviously the government takes very, very seriously. He will noble Lord will be aware that since May 2024, DEFRA has funded the Farmer Welfare Grant, which provides a half £1 million to support charity projects which are focussed on improving the mental health and wellbeing of farmers in England.

That fund runs until next March and we're currently evaluating how it works and see whether it's possible to extend and expand this fund post 2026. And of course, in the wider NHS, we've hired 8500 new mental health support workers, which will help access to these for, for for anyone in distress. It's really important that we that we don't politicise the issue of of mental health issues across society, particularly where we have sectors that are are affected by this government stands behind its farming sector.

We understand that the changes that we had to make in last year's budget, which we have ameliorated in this year's budget, are are tough on farming businesses, but it's important that we make decisions that can actually put farming on a firm footing and also a fair by the public finances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. That concludes our questions for today. Members who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordship Lordship I Lordship I try Lordship I try to Lordship I try to ensure Lordship I try to ensure that Lordship I try to ensure that my Lordship I try to ensure that my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordship I try to ensure that my. Registered interest in matters regarding agriculture, which are in
15:20
15:20
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
content. The contents have it. After clause 11, amendment 51 Lord Keen of. Hello.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. That's me. I'm just. I apologise, my Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologise, my Lord. I was just getting my papers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was just getting my papers. In order. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In order. Yes. My Lords, I'm grateful to have the opportunity to introduce the second day of committee on the second day of committee on the sentencing Bill. I rise to move amendment 51 standing in my name and that of my noble and learned and that of my noble and learned friend, Lord Keen of Elie. This amendment proposes a targeted and necessary change to schedule 21 of the Sentencing Code. Its purpose is straightforward, namely to ensure that where a police or prison officer is murdered because of or in retaliation for their current or former duties, that murder automatically falls within the highest sentencing category.

That is one where a whole life order is available. An ordinarily appropriate. The present schedule 21 refers to murders committed in the course of the victim's duty. My Lords, that those words are too narrow. The provision was, we suggest, intended to capture the most egregious attacks on those who serve the public in roles that inherently expose them to danger. But the phrase in the course of duty. And that's what the statute says, has in practice been interpreted by the courts in a restrictive manner, is it excludes cases where an officer is murdered because of, or in retaliation for, or in consequence of their earlier performance of their official duties, when, for example, a murder takes place a while later after service has ended.

This amendment will correct that anomaly. It inserts the essential clarification that where the reason for the motivation for the murder is connected to the officer's current or former duties, the case will fall within the highest sentencing category that will be legally coherent and morally necessary. My Lords, the motive is already a well recognised component of sentencing. It is taken into account in terrorism offences. In the case of hate crimes, witness intimidation and organised crime retaliation.

It is therefore entirely consistent with the existing principle that the deliberate targeting of an officer, because he or she carried out their duty, should be regarded as an aggravating feature of the utmost severity. This amendment will not create a new offence. It does not broaden the law on homicide. It does not interfere with the Law Commission's wider review. What it does with precision and exclusively, is to ensure that the statutory scheme reflects, we suggest, Parliament's clear and settled understanding that to murder a police officer or a prison officer simply for having done their job is among the gravest crimes known to our law.

My Lords, let me speak plainly. We have seen the consequences of the existing drafting. The tragic case of former prison officer Lennie Scott revealed the gap starkly. Lennie Scott, whose widow and father I and others met last week, carried out his duties with integrity. That was in prison Altcourse Liverpool. He discovered in March 2020 an illegal phone in the hands of a prisoner. He was offered, but refused a bribe to turn a blind eye.

He duly reported it and as a result, not only was the prisoner discovered to have had a phone, but it was discovered that he had been having an affair with a woman prison officer who. Which was pretty serious, if you think about it, for that simple act of professionalism, he received explicit threats at the time that he would be seen to. Those threats were graphic. They contained details about the appearance of his two twin boys, no older than six years.

My Lords. Some years later, on the 8th of February, 2024, after Lennie had left the prison services, those threats were put into practice. He was hunted down and murdered, shot as he left a gym class in a planned act of revenge. It was a murder directly and unequivocally connected to the past performance of his duties. This was a gangland execution intended to punish Lennie for doing his duty, for not giving way to what had been asked of him, and to terrify and intimidate other prison officers into doing gangster's bidding in the future.

My Lords, because this crime did not occur in the course of his duty. But a couple of years later, the statutory framework failed to treat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it as the kind of murder for which Parliament provides the highest penalty. And the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the. Judge therefore did not pass a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Judge therefore did not pass a whole life order. This is a clear loophole in the legislation. And I look to noble Lord, noble Lord, the Minister, to put it right. My Lords, I ask, how many more lennie's will I ask, how many more lennie's will there be serving officers in the there be serving officers in the prisons and in the police force must know that there is the added must know that there is the added protection of whole life.

Order, deterrence, protecting people after they have left, as well as when they are in active service. How many serving or former officers walk our streets knowing that they remain potential targets long after they take off the uniform, and knowing that under the law, as presently interpreted, their killers may not face the penalty Parliament intended for those who attack innocent public servants. We cannot undo the tragedy that happened to Lennie Scott and his family, nor repair the pain, but we can ensure that the law is changed.

We can ensure that the sentencing framework recognises that the risks to officers do not end when their shift finishes, and certainly do not disappear when they have left the force. When a murder is motivated and driven by the officer's service, the seriousness, the risk and the moral culpability are exactly the same. This is a plain gap in legislation as currently drafted. It must be closed immediately. My Lords, it is very disappointing that this amendment was opposed by the government at Report stage.

In the other place, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together were in rare agreement on this amendment. I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, not to oppose it. My Lords, this amendment is modest in drafting, but deep in its importance, it transcends political fault lines. I suggest there is no reason why any noble Lords would oppose it. It simply makes no sense that a whole life order can be imposed for the murder of a prison officer while he is a serving prison officer, and while he is at work, but not if he is killed on the weekend with his family.

My Lords, this amendment restores coherence to the statutory scheme. It protects those who seek to protect us. I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Amendment proposed clause 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 11. Insert the following new clause as
15:30
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the government during the second day of Committee of the sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Keen and noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for drawing attention to this important topic, which I have carefully considered. My Lords murder is the most heinous crime a person can commit, and the murder of a prison commit, and the murder of a prison officer or police officer in the course of their duty is particularly abhorrent.

We must particularly abhorrent. We must ensure that those responsible are punished properly in the sentencing framework for murder. A whole life framework for murder. A whole life order is the most severe form of punishment the courts can impose. Currently, there are 74 prisoners serving these sentences. A whole life order is normally the appropriate starting point for the murder of a police officer or a prison officer, committed when they're on duty, and where the offence was committed on or after the 13th of April 2015, this provision was introduced to recognise the unique and dangerous job that police and prison officers do on a daily basis.

And as noble Lords have said, this amendment is motivated by the tragic case of the murder of former prison officer Lennie Scott. Like so many of our dedicated and hardworking prison officers, Lennie devoted his career to working with some of this country's most dangerous and challenging offenders. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising his case today. In Lenny's case, the judge considered that this starting point did not apply as he was not a serving prison officer at the time of the murder.

However, the judge did impose a life sentence with a 45 year minimum term to be served in custody, so it is likely that the perpetrator in this case will spend the rest of his life in prison. Given that he was 35 at the time of conviction, the previous Lord Chancellor asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of homicide law and sentencing. This is a wholesale review that will completely reconsider and make recommendations for a new sentencing framework for murder. Any changes to the framework, including to whole life orders, should be considered in the context of this review.

It would not be appropriate to make changes before that has finished. The Law Commission closed a call for evidence on the 31st of October 2025. They're reviewing the responses ahead of a public consultation due to be published in 2026. But noble Lords have raised an interesting point, and I want to assure assure them that this is one I'm going to take away and consider carefully. And I can also confirm that this issue has been raised with the Law Commission, so that they can consider it as part of their review.

With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister sits down. Perhaps he would just deal with the point that the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst made the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst made with regard to this provision. The amendment acting as a terrorist, so amendment acting as a terrorist, so as to prevent further intimidation of serving prison officers now in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the prison service. What happened to Lennie Scott is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What happened to Lennie Scott is absolutely appalling, and we need to make sure we do all we can to to make sure we do all we can to make sure that no other. Prison officers or serving prison officers or serving prison previously serving prison officers have the same fate. But what we want to do is to work with the Law Commission and also take away the points raised by the noble Lord to discuss with colleagues, because what is important is that we need to make sure that the public are protected from these people who commit these terrible crimes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I shall be, I hope, reasonably brief. But I must say reasonably brief. But I must say this the amendment 51 is simple, this the amendment 51 is simple, precise, and entirely consistent with established principles of sentencing. It does not create a
15:34
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
sentencing. It does not create a new offence, and with respect it does not pre-empt the Law Commission's broader review. What it does is to address a real gap, and we don't need, with all respect, the Law Commission to decide whether there is a gap here. There is a gap and prison officers in particular need this protection. And we've seen the tragic consequences. And this is the sort of threat which is like we are of threat which is like we are likely to see more of, not less.

So we look to the noble Lord for assurances on this. Otherwise it will come back at Report stage in this House. It must be accepted that murdering a police officer or prison officer because of, or in the course of their duty, is one of the gravest crimes imaginable, and the law should reflect this not simply to punish, but to deter. It must deal with and deter against calculated acts of revenge against former officers and gangland people will learn about this.

It will get about in prison. They will know it will go down the network. My Lords, this amendment is significant. It is significant for the men and women who carry out with integrity the difficult and demanding work of protecting our streets and indeed looking after. And I use that word advisedly. The prisoners under their care. And it's important that we reassure and encourage them. We want the best people to serve in our prisons. We don't want recruitment to be handicapped.

What message will it send out if the government says, oh, well, if you're shot down two years later, that doesn't count. You've got to hope that the judge gets it right. So we must provide the right protections throughout the careers of these officers and beyond. We have that opportunity today to choose to close that gap. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I withdraw. The amendment for now, but it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment for now, but it remains very much on the table. Is it your lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 12 stand part of the bill. This has
15:37
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
stand part of the bill. This has already been debated, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 12, amendment 52 Baroness Hamwee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And 52. This would provide for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the benefits of assessment of the benefits of mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or a when the victim is a woman or a girl, and to lay a copy of that assessment before Parliament, I should declare an interest. I'm a trustee of a charity called Safer trustee of a charity called Safer London, which works with young Londoners affected by or at risk of violence and exploitation.

And among these are young Londoners who display harmful sexual behaviours. Often they may not have a full understanding of their actions, where their behaviours may stem from, or that they themselves need support. I'm under no illusion that an intervention is likely to be quick or easy. These are often young or not so young people who've had no role model or or a bad role model who may be neuro neurodiverse, who may be resistant to relevant specialist treatment and support.

They may not understand what a healthy relationship is like. They may believe that what is harmful is actually what a girl or woman wants. The picture over recent years, of course, has become further confused by what they see online or in social media. So as I say, I have no. I'm under no illusion that this is easy, but it is important. And it seemed to me that a bill seeking to reduce re-offending is just the place where this kind of action should be taken.

And I'm not asking for immediate such programmes, so it's good if there are some that can be accessed, but I'd like to see put into the public domain an assessment of the benefits of programmes such as this. The other amendments in this group are in the name of the conservative front bench. They seem to focus largely on the number of rehabilitation activity days, and the number of days is a factor. But it's not the first factor or the only factor.

The content and the reasons for the content are rehabilitative activity are important. More important, I'd say. In other words, I think the approach should be more reasoned and nuanced, as these amendments might suggest. I beg to move amendment 52.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member proposed after clause 12, insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments in my name this group of amendments in my name and that of Lord Keen of Elie on on these benches we welcome the underlying principle of clauses 13 underlying principle of clauses 13 to 16 of the Bill. These relate. I'm sorry I've turned on. I apologise. I flipped on to the wrong. I thought it didn't make sense. I apologise for that. I turned over to the next group. My Lords.

These amendments, many of which are my name amendments 53, 54 and so on, together address the government's proposal to transfer a significant element of sentencing discretion from the courts to probation practitioners in determining the number of rehabilitation activity days under community orders and suspended sentence orders. The amendments seek not to frustrate reform, although made as clear as we made clear on Committee day one, we do oppose the changes, but they are intended to ensure that if such powers are to be re-allocated to the probation officer, to the probation practitioner from the judges, they are supported by and buttressed by the same principled framework of accountability, transparency and procedural safeguards that have underpinned judicial discretion through the years.

My Lords, the constitutional architecture of this country has long rested on the independence and authority of our judiciary. Sentencing is a judicial function, the product of recent evaluation of seriousness, culpability, risk and proportionality. Judges exercise that responsibility transparently in open court and subject to appellate review. These protections exist because sentencing is a public act in which legitimacy rests on visible fairness. Society represented by the third limb of the Constitution. The judiciary is passing sentence on outlaws criminal offenders.

Yet clauses 11 and 12 would shift this discretion from judges to probation practitioners. Probation professionals are, of course, dedicated and skilled, but they were never intended to assume quasi judicial responsibilities. The government may describe this as flexibility, but flexibility cannot become a veil for judicial discretion exercised behind closed doors, without consistency or without oversight. If probation officers are to take on direct decision making powers that influence that influence the substance of a sentence, then proper safeguards must apply.

The bill we submit contains none. Amendment 53 therefore, requires the Secretary of State to establish, by regulation clear national criteria governing how rehabilitation activity days are to be determined. Decisions of such consequence must not depend on local practice, on staffing pressures or administrative expediency. And in these straitened financial times, I emphasise that staffing pressures and administrative expediency judges operate within well-established frameworks. Probation should not be left to improvise. Amendment 54 requires written reasons for the determination of rehabilitation days.

Giving reasons is a cornerstone of fairness. Offenders must personally understand what is required of them. Victims must be able to trust the process, and the courts must be able to review what is being done in their name. Amendment 55 will preserve judicial oversight. It requires probation to the probation services to consult the court before setting a number of days outside the indicative range. Suggested sentence A sentence passed in open court must not be quietly ordered by administrative decision making.

Amendment 56 requires an anonymized national statistics on rehabilitation days. Transparency is essential if we are to avoid regional inconsistency or decisions driven by resource constraints, rather than rehabilitative need. My Lord. This leads on directly to amendment 57. This is the most important and urgent amendment in this group. The government's drafting introduces a maximum number of days. It effectively creates the risk that in practice, offenders receive the bare minimum or even negligible activity. Amendment 57 will reverse this logic by introducing a minimum threshold, a minimum standard which ensures that rehabilitation requirements are substantive, credible, and not merely symbolic.

Without a minimum, courts could impose an order that appears robust only for the actual element of rehabilitation to be reduced to a token. Once the case leaves the court. This is not sentencing, it will be administrative dilution. This amendment protects the public confidence. It ensures community sentences are meaningful, and it will stop the government from hollowing out judicially imposed requirements through secondary decision making. Financial pressures for shorthand. Meanwhile, amendment 58 introduces annual reporting by H.M.

Inspectorate of Probation on incomplete probation requirements. If the government intend to rely more heavily on community sentences, then Parliament, journalists, researchers and academics must be able to track completion rates and compliance. If we don't have such visibility, then assurances about improved rehabilitation and outcomes will be mere unjustified assertion. We also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for amendment 52. Every effort must be made to reduce offences which relate to violence against women and girls.

We support the principle of reviewing the benefits of mandatory healthy relationship programmes, and we hope the government will take this seriously. Indeed, we urge them to do so. My Lords, these amendments share a unifying principle. If government intends to allocate sentencing related powers to probation practitioners, then government must also allocate safeguards that accompany judicial authority. As drafted, the bill dismantles that framework and does not replace it. My Lords, the risks are clear. Inconsistency between regions. Decisions shaped by staffing shortages rather than offender need a lack of transparency and, in the end, an erosion of public confidence.

Victims deserve assurance that sentences are meaningful and are enforced. Offenders, for their part, deserve clarity and fairness. The courts deserve respect for their decisions. The public must know what is happening and what is being done in the name of the public. My Lords, for these reasons, I urge the government to consider the balanced and constructive nature of these proposals, and I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hearing the Minister's response. Lords.
15:48
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly, if I may. But at Second Reading I drew attention to. My real concern about the potential real concern about the potential lack of resources, both in terms of personnel and finances, to deliver all of the things contained within this bill. And therefore, it does seem to me very important as we go forward, that we are collecting as much data as possible as this bill beds in information about what sort of support requirements are needed to help prevent people from re-offending, what help is actually provided, and how much of that provided help is actually taken up.

And therefore I look at amendments 56 and 58 in this group by the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst and the noble Lord keen as being one very good example of illustrating the need to collect this sort of data. Indeed, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee has amendment 58 A, which is in the next group, and when we get to group seven, there are two amendments from me, 131 and 133, which also have the same effect. So across the house there is clearly concern about gathering information as we move forward, and it would be helpful and save time in later deliberations if when he responds, the Minister can give a broad thrust to the government's view on this particular issue.

But I want to finally end by one point that my noble friend Baroness Hamwee said. And that is, she said, it was very clear that not only should we gather this data, but we should have some explanation behind that data. So, for example, we may well have a situation where a particular offender, say in prison or on a custodial, a non-custodial sentence is expected to do a number of days doing education or skills work and yet doesn't do that amount.

And the question then is why is that? Well, it's certainly the case, from my knowledge of what happens in prison, that a number of prisoners don't fulfil the number of days available simply because classrooms are not available and staff are not available. I also know that in prisons it is, well, often the case that prisoners get notified of an available slot for their education. After that, slots work has already started. So I think my noble friend is absolutely right that in addition, we must be collecting the information about the availability of resources is not being taken up.

And if I can add one final thing, speaking as chair of your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Committee, we have come to a very clear conclusion that we don't like the use, use of rehabilitation and we think the public would find it better to understand if we talk about activities designed to reduce reoffending.
15:51
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Very briefly, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, explained very well some of the reasons why this group of reasons why this group of amendments is so important. I just want to note that as somebody who is a fan of rehabilitation, is a fan of rehabilitation, although I actually quite like that rebranding, that's just been rebranding, that's just been suggested. The truth of the matter is, is that what passes for rehabilitation, certainly in prison, rehabilitation, certainly in prison, is often shoddy or not available, not up to scratch.

And I'm always, by the way, not that is not a criticism of the people trying to deliver. It is for all sorts of reasons. And so I'm just very keen that we really think hard about what kind of rehabilitation is being offered in the community. I just cannot see how, even with a pledge to invest 700 million more into probation services, they can deliver what's in this bill. And it seems to me that this is part of the problem I have with some of the suggestions in terms of rehabilitating people via community sentences.

I'm worried, I suppose, that rehabilitation and community sentences will be discredited if this goes wrong. So I think the amendments are a very trying very hard to ensure in terms of compliance, in terms of making sure that they're completed, making sure that the victims, but the whole of community and society understand what they're trying to do is, is why these amendments are. Crucial to me. I wanted to just state very clearly that community sentences are criminal sentences.

They aren't supposed to be a kind of soft option. They have to be taken as stringently and seriously as if you put somebody in prison. And if somebody is put in prison and they escape, however that might occur, we think that they're trying to escape justice. And my concern is if we haven't got the resources or we haven't got our eyes on keeping ensuring that community sentences actually happen properly, then that's escaping justice. And I think that that therefore has it has to be taken very seriously.

I also just wanted to raise some concerns about amendment 52 in relation to mandatory healthy relationships courses. I have some cynicism that the way to solve the problem of violence against women and girls is through education. Myself and I just have a certain dread of the kind of excuse being, well, you know, I committed that fence because I didn't know that consent was needed. I wouldn't have done the rape if I'd been sent on a good course. I hesitate to say this, but some people are violence against women and girls because they despise women and girls.

And it's not a question of having sent them on a well resourced course. And I've heard an awful lot of excuses in recent years, actually, from people who say I wouldn't be a sex offender if only this had happened. And it's like, well, you wouldn't have been a sex offender if you hadn't committed the offence of sexual assault. So I don't want this to be an excuse for letting those largely male perpetrators off the hook. the hook.
15:55
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Sorry, my friend Baroness Hamwee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. To carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of mandatory healthy relationship rehabilitation programmes for offenders sentenced programmes for offenders sentenced to offences against women and girls. And we've heard many times the And we've heard many times the noble Lord, the Minister, talk about the government's target of about the government's target of halving violence against women and girls during the course of the parliament, and that is a target. parliament, and that is a target.

We completely support the area of relationship. Education is a relationship. Education is a difficult one, but we do have evidence that education in healthy relationships does help to address unhealthy preconceptions and outdated, and what some used to call chauvinistic attitudes in young men. And sometimes those attitudes spill into offending. And my noble friend was entirely right to talk of harmful sexual behaviours. And she also spoke about what young men in particular see and experience online, and take encouragement from what they see online to do sometimes unspeakable things.

The question of rehabilitation for sentenced offenders is whether education would address this. I accept that it's not easy making such programmes mandatory, but doing so would or might emphasise their importance. I hear the cynicism addressed by expressed by the noble Lady Baroness Fox about education for healthy relationships. But I'd say to her that we have seen how relationship education in schools encourages healthier attitudes among pupils and greater understanding among young people of the concepts of consent against the concepts of violence and force.

And I suggest that for offenders who do commit an offence, who do commit these offences, education would have the same beneficial effect, particularly if it is combined with a sentence for the offender, whether a custodial sentence or an assessment or a community order. So an assessment of that beneficial effect would, I suggest, be entirely beneficial. In a sense, of course, this is a probing amendment because we would encourage the government to make the position clear, and we'd be hoping that they would adopt the spirit of the amendment in any event, and that the noble Lord, the Minister, will commit the government to undertaking such an assessment of the place of healthy education, healthy relationship education.

But we note that the amendment also is supported by the opposition front bench. My Lords, turning to the rest of the group as to amendments 53 to 55 and 57, those are the amendments which we say impose extra directions to the probation officers and impose burdens upon them as to the nature of the arrangements they make for rehabilitative activity and as to the flexibility they have in adjusting those. Those activities. The noble Lord, the Minister, has frequently in this House described our probation officers as dedicated and fantastic.

And so they are. And these amendments, we suggest, are unduly dirigiste. They attempt to tie the hands of probation officers in an unnecessary way and in an untrusting way. I suggest they demonstrate a lack of trust in the probation officers whom we are asking to do a very difficult task. Sentencing is as the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst said, for judges. But clause 12 does not shift the discretion from judges to probation officers. Rather, it leaves the probation officers to decide how they undertake their task of assisting in rehabilitation of offenders and therefore of reducing re-offending.

And the number of days they impose should be for them. What we need is more and more high quality specialist training to enable our probation officers, particularly those new ones who are going to have to be recruited to make and to implement decisions about rehabilitation activity in the in the light of full knowledge of what is available and a real sense of what is likely to work in individual cases. Turning to amendments 56 and 58, which require the Secretary of State to publish statistics on rehabilitation days and an annual report on incomplete probation requirements.

Those amendments are welcome, and I agree with my noble friend Lord foster, that there are serious problems about which we're very concerned of the availability of resources and information for the probation service. I would only add this that this is a probing amendment also in the sense that I should have thought that such information would be regularly collected by a well regulated department, as we hope the Department of Justice is. But that information would be available anyway without a formal annual reporting requirement.

As to the final point made by the noble Lady Baroness Fox, I quite accept that reducing re-offending may be a better term for the public than rehabilitation, whether that's a rebranding as was suggested, I'm not sure, but what this is all about is about the concept of turning the lives of offenders around. And I know that's central to the mission of the noble Lord, the Minister for.
16:02
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
As noble Lords know, I've devoted much of my life and my career to criminal justice reform, and in particular, the question of how to reduce reoffending. And because of this, I'm particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 52 to 58, in relation to amendment 52 on violence against women and girls. And as the noble, the noble Baroness Hamwee Baroness Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord Lord Marks raised. This is a serious and complex challenge that demands coordinated action.

HMPPS works closely with partners to manage risk, protect victims and reduce harm through evidence based interventions. For over three decades, HMPPS has led in developing programs that address attitudes and behaviours linked to offending, alongside specialist psychological support and community tools. Guided by the principles of effective practice, these services target those at medium or high risk ensuring resources are focussed where they make the greatest impact. And we're always considering research findings that show us what reduces reoffending both here and abroad that we can learn from.

But there is evidence that has shown that effects of accredited programme participation for low risk individuals are usually found to be to be negligible, or in some cases negative, and therefore accredited programs are not routinely recommended for low risk offenders. Turning to the amendments, 53 to 58 tabled by the Noble and Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Marks also reiterated, I would like to reassure you that clauses 11 and 12 do not remove the court's sentencing powers.

The decision to apply the requirement to an order sits firmly with the court, and that will remain the case. For example, in the same way as in the case now, where a judge considers it necessary to impose a community or suspended sentence order, it is they who will determine whether to add a probation requirement. The probation requirement will be one of the menu of requirements available to judges to decide to apply to an order. In addition, where a pre-sentence report is requested by the court, the judge will be provided with an indication of an offender's risk and need and what intervention they may receive following a more thorough assessment by the probation after sentencing.

My Lords, the removal of court set radis is needed. The evidence shows that RA is not working effectively. Practitioners are restricted by the current approach, and we know that radis sentenced are not always aligned with an offender's rehabilitative needs. The evidence from our published process evaluation is clear that probation staff and magistrates felt that the RA was, in some cases, sentenced as a catch. All I've been told by probation practitioners across the country, from Manchester to the Isle of Wight, that the way the RA is applied currently, with sometimes an arbitrary number of RA days being sentenced, restricts their ability to effectively rehabilitate offenders.

We're moving to a model that enables probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. This was a direct recommendation in David Gauke Sentencing Review report. The removal of court specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where it will have the most impact. Decisions will always be led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer.

If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties. I do agree it is important we're clear on how the probation requirements will be applied. That is why clear guidance will be in place to support practitioners in their assessment, and on how to deliver the change. We should trust our valued practitioners to make informed decisions about rehabilitation activity in the same way they do with supervision. It is important they have the flexibility to do so without placing an extra burden on them to justify each decision to the court.

And as the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley mentioned about probation plans and I previously mentioned last week in the first day that I'm very happy to present to noble Lords the plans for probation. And I've already had one noble Lord take me up on the offer so others are welcome. Data is published annually on completion of some community requirements, and I do not think it would be proportionate to legislate at this time to publish further specific data on probation requirement as proposed by the noble Lords.

We keep under regular review what data is collected and published, especially in the era of AI. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord foster, that quality, up to date information is important to inform management and policy. And the way I have run my businesses in the past, and the way I'm trying to do my job as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, is to use data to hold people to account, because we need to keep improving performance so we can improve public confidence in the justice system.

In light of this information and the reassurances I've provided on the intention of these clauses, I urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, for one, would really welcome a discussion with the noble Lord. a discussion with the noble Lord. Didn't realise we should use this occasion to accept the invitation, but perhaps at the same time I but perhaps at the same time I should use an opportunity to talk to him more about what the to him more about what the organisation with which I am connected has succeeded in doing. connected has succeeded in doing. In the area of healthy relationships, perhaps the word relationships, perhaps the word mandatory was misplaced in my mandatory was misplaced in my amendment.

It's more than education, more than having people sitting in a classroom being told nothing is a complete answer in this area. I think we're all aware of that, but I'm talking about. 1 to 1 connection contact, which has to be built up over a large period before it's going to be effective. So really something more detailed, more full than I. I dare say I was giving the impression of I'm grateful to the noble Lord Sandhurst for supporting the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure. That amendment 82 be withdrawn? That amendment 82 be withdrawn? Amendment is finally withdrawn. So Amendment is finally withdrawn. So 5252 amendments 53 to 58, in the name of Lord Keen and Lord Sandhurst not moved. Not moved. Amendment 58 a Baroness Hamwee.
16:10
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 58 a Baroness Hamwee. 58 A. Rehabilitative or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

58 A. Rehabilitative or. Activities. Activities designed to reduce re-offending, whatever we call them. And I don't disagree with my noble friend. What we call them is important, and treatments are often provided by the third sector, and a lot of what is provided is excellent. But it's not enough and it's not consistent. Across the country. The third sector's role was acknowledged by David Cork. Cork in his in his review, we hear success stories. For instance, a middle aged woman whose alcoholism was treated after she had been.

Convicted several times for relatively low level offences. She ceased offending when the alcoholism was treated and she was able to leave, lead an ordered life. I am thinking, too, of a young man who, time after time, failed to connect with his probation officers. Then he found one. She found him whom he trusted, and that enabled him to take proper advantage of the support that was available and so on. Those two examples are people that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee met before my noble friend joined it.

I know the Minister knows all this, and he knows much more than I do, but I wanted to table this amendment because regional disparities are substantial and funding needs are acute. A friend of mine. Refers to some of these organisations as having something that's almost that. They're almost similar to an eating disorder. They simply don't have enough. It's not a very good way of putting it, but. Then they are so hampered by lack of funding.

I think it must be very difficult to be working for one of these organisations, knowing that you can never do enough. I don't have the Cate that all services should be provided by the state, but I do think it's a very sorry position that we're so reliant on voluntary charitable organisations which are struggling to keep going, struggling not always successfully. As to amendment one, three, nine B my noble friend Lord Marks will say more about reporting on re-offending, giving comparative details between offenders who completed community and custodial sentences.

I'd be surprised if that's not available now to the MoJ, but because one wants to see sentences that work and maintain the trust of the public, we're becoming like a record that's stuck in mentioning public trust. But we want to maintain that trust in the operation of the justice system. The more information, the public domain, the better. I think. Lord Jackson's Amendment 93 is in a similar vein, though I don't come to the same conclusion about an automatic sunset of the bill or act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as it would be. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 12, insert the new clause, the words of which are printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I rise to move the amendments in my name in this group. Group three my name in this group. Group three I the the House will be delighted. The Committee will be delighted to
16:14
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
The Committee will be delighted to know that I don't intend to go into detail on amendment 86, as I think it's quite straightforward and others may wish to discuss it, including my noble friends on the front bench, but I do intend to elucidate my amendments. 93 A and 127. The point of this group is transparency in the criminal justice system. And the first of my amendments, sorry, second of my amendments is 93 A, which is around the efficacy of reforms to community services.

The reason I've moved this amendment is because and incidentally, it goes without saying, it is a probing amendment, is because I do think it's important over a period of time to test the efficacy of the quite substantial and radical policy changes that are giving rise to by these particular clauses in the bill. And so it is appropriate amendment, but it's challenging the government to to account for the success or otherwise of of this of these proposals, because make no mistake, my Lords, this is about a risk.

It's about a potential impact on the quality of life of persistent offenders. So people convicted, potentially of assault, of burglary and other very serious crimes. Now, I know my sparring partner, my sparring partner, the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee doesn't like the term roaming the streets. When we describe persistent offenders who are not going to be incarcerated in a prison estate, I don't know if there's another, more cuddly term that she would like to use as an alternative, but it seems to me that we shouldn't sugarcoat the real world impact of people who hitherto would have been incarcerated in custody, who will now not be.

I think that's important to keep in mind, Ministers, do my Lords need to take into account the level of risk and the costs, both in financial terms and in the quality of life and the residential amenity of many ordinary citizens who will potentially have caused to come across some of these individuals in the course of everyday life. I think it's absolutely right that Parliament does have a have a right and duty to be made aware of the real world practical impact of this unprecedented liberalisation of the criminal justice system that we envisage in this bill when it reaches royal assent.

I also think it's reasonable to allow a period of two years to elapse before judging the overall evidence as to the efficacy of these changes, particularly obviously, as they relate to community orders and also suspended sentence orders. Now, Baroness noble Lady Baroness Hamwee use the term sunset clause. I'm not sure it's quite a sunset clause in the traditional sense, but I do think it's reasonable and appropriate for us to measure whether there is whether the Minister and the government is good at at its for its word in reducing recidivism by 10% in order in terms of the effect of these changes, and if not, then Parliament and Ministers will then have the responsibility and the duty thereafter to review the policy and in the light of the evidence and take appropriate action.

I do think that is something that a fair minded person would concur with. So, my Lords, with respect to 93, a others may wish to comment, but I do believe it is sensible to put this provision on the face of the Bill because it's evidence based, and I know that the noble Lord, the Minister, is someone who does believe in evidence led policy. Without further ado, I will move to a potentially more intractable issue. The House may know that I raised the issue of openness and transparency of the Parole board, which is enunciated in my amendment one, two, seven in this group, when it when it arose in the Victims and Prisoners Bill last year.

And I moved the amendment both in committee and Report stage to that bill, amendment one two, seven. These amendments seeks to establish the presumption that the Parole Board hearings would be open to the public, with exceptions. Of course, it seeks more generally to improve public faith and trust in the criminal justice system. This is both a probing and a permissive amendment, and a natural progression to and consolidation of, the reforms undertaken by Ministers over the last seven years in the previous government, arising from the public disquiet over the proposed release of serial rapist John Worboys in 2018 that resulted in a review of the parole system and a public consultation published in 2022, and a finding in the High Court in March 2018 that the Parole board's Rule 25, a blanket ban on transparency and details of the board's deliberation, was unlawful.

My Lords. The government then rightly moved to address the very serious failings identified by the Warboys case by allowing summaries of parole board decisions to be provided to victims and other interested parties, and to allow a reconsideration mechanism. Introduced in 2019, this allows a prisoner and or the Secretary of State for justice within 21 days to seek reconsideration of several decisions taken by the board. Victims are now also permitted to seek a judicial review on the grounds that decisions were procedurally unfair or irrational.

Most significantly, the Parole Board's Rule 15 was amended by secondary legislation in 2022 to enable public hearings to be facilitated upon request to the chair of the Parole board, quote, in the interests of justice, unquote, a test utilised previously by the Mental Health tribunal. My amendment is nuanced and heavily caveated in proposed new subsections five and seven. It presumes no absolute right to open parole board hearings on the most serious cases, but it nevertheless presents a balance between the interests of the victim prisoners and the wider criminal justice system.

And importantly, it imposes a statutory duty on Ministers to take note of the importance of rehabilitation. Reducing recidivism. Fairness and due process. My Lords, I accept that the Parole Board discharges a quasi judicial function. But secret justice is not justice, as most reasonable people would regard it. Open and transparent judicial proceedings are one of the few fundamental principles in the court system of England and Wales, and furthermore, other jurisdictions across the world, such as those in Canada and the United States, have a more open and transparent hearings regime, especially regarding the rights of victims to attend and participate in such meetings.

I was not entirely convinced. I have to confess, of the previous minister's comments in the committee last year in the debate that the changes made in 2022 regulations definitively precluded all but a few hearings from being held in public. My amendment specifically addresses concerns about sensitive evidence and the concerns of the victims. It permits such matters to be raised as a rationale for proceedings to be held in camera. So I would make the point, my Lords, that under these measures, not every one of the 8000 plus parole cases would be held in public.

This is not the aim of the amendment, the permissive nature of which means that there is an expectation that the powers will be only lightly exercised in a minority of the cases by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances in place to protect the operational independence of the Parole Board, and a requirement to publish a review of the efficacy of the policy as it affects the interests of justice, test, as well as public confidence in and support of the criminal justice system.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord Minister as he addresses these issues, and explains why it is not possible to go further in the programme of reforms already undertaken over the previous few years by allowing public hearings to become the default position. I thank him in anticipation for engaging on this issue, and on that basis, I would ask the Minister to look favourably on this amendment because I think the time for reform, for reform has arrived.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. To support my noble friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jackson of Peterborough in general terms. And in particular. I believe that we must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Assess the effectiveness of. Measures introduced. And if they're not effective, we need to they're not effective, we need to go back to the drawing board. I also wish to move my amendment 93 Be. This seeks to ensure participation by prison inmates in participation by prison inmates in education, training or other purposeful activity. Not my original description, although I find the awful word purposeful was first used in 1598, but it also has a secondary meaning of determined or resolute, which makes me feel a lot better now.

I've tabled this amendment because I am concerned about the state of education in prisons, both now and going forward. My wording is far from perfect since to keep it in scope of this narrow bill, it can only apply to custodial sentences from the day on which this bill comes into force as an act. Whereas the problem is endemic across the prison estate. The amendment provides for an annual review of progress and the implementing regulations. Bringing it in would be subject to affirmative resolution to make the amendment more palatable to the Minister and his officials.

As a former fellow retailer, I admire the Minister and his distinguished father and Timpson, the company, the repair chain that they run and their brilliant work on rehabilitation of offenders. However, I was sorry to hear that their workshop in Wandsworth Prison has not reopened. The truth is that the success of these and parallel efforts by other companies to get ex-convicts into long term work, requires offenders to be appropriately trained whilst inside. Now the government is hoping that the measures it is taking to free up prisons, some of which are hard for people to stomach, will provide more time and resource to supervise education, skills training and purposeful activity.

However, on the 15th of October, Charlie Taylor, Inspector of Prisons, wrote a blog about the problems in adult prisons. He had been contacted by despairing governors and heads of education about the cuts in provision they are facing under new prison education contracts. The Prison Service has told him that there will be an average reduction of some 25% of provision, but some prison leaders say they're losing as much as 60%. As he says, there are powerful reasons for ensuring an inmate does not spend day after day in blank activity.

Why is there so little acknowledgement of the role of reduced re-offending? As part of our goal of shrinking the prison population, as few as 31% of prisoners are still employed six months after leaving prison. This is not surprising when 20 out of 38 prisons inspected in the last reporting year were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. It takes weeks to get prisoners into work, and attendance at training courses is often shockingly low. The working day is short, often as little as five hours, particularly on Fridays.

And yet, prisoners need to get into the job habit for their future success. Another problem is the low literacy levels of many prisoners, and I suspect, poor English in many cases. Now, we had a similar challenge at Tesco and with the support of the trade unions, arranged education that helped to keep employers in the firm. Grateful for the lessons and the extra opportunities. This opened up. With the widening of employment rights. It becomes even more important to use the many months that many spend in prison for remedial education and skills training, so that employers can take them on with confidence without the fear of a long, drawn out industrial tribunal if they do not perform.

I know only too well that prisoners differ. You have career criminals who are very clever and entrepreneurial and risk taking. They might be captains of industry with a different background or ethical compass. They need something different and to be kept separate, but they need to be fully occupied so they are not continuing their evil operations from inside prison from time to time. Some go straight, especially if they are inspired to change, for
16:28
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
example by taking a degree as the average sentence of those actually in prison becomes longer. The in prison becomes longer. The opportunities and the need for better education of the prison population becomes ever greater. population becomes ever greater. Incentive schemes, early release and management of privileges are important, and I hope the Minister important, and I hope the Minister in replying will explain how the new sentencing laws can help with prison education by improving the prison education by improving the incentive structure.

However, I believe a more radical approach may believe a more radical approach may be needed and that we should oblige prisoners who are still subject to custodial sentences to enter into custodial sentences to enter into education, training, etc. as part of a prison regime, rather as is done in the military. Just providing adequate access to education, although important, is not enough. I have seen the failure of voluntary training in the civil service, the good and hard working up for the training and improve and those who really need it don't.

So what I'm looking for is mandatory education or training for those who remain in prison after the government's reform forms, all of whom will, in practice be sentenced for 18 months or more. They will be serious criminals and badly in need of rehabilitation. That is why to pick up a theme from discussion on day one, which I was sadly absent for. We can't have a voluntary regime in prisons. My Lords. Our jails cost a fortune. Prisoners aboard demotivated and wasting time as they serve their years, education and the acquisition of skills, or helping out in the kitchens and gardens can be transformational.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with almost everything that she said. I've been on prisons monitoring board, so I'm very familiar with the inside of prisons. But what does trouble me is this But what does trouble me is this that if there is a requirement that the prisoner is part of his the prisoner is part of his sentence, does A or B, but the prison doesn't provide the facility, prison doesn't provide the facility, is the prisoner not then in breach of the sentence? And is that not going to be a problem when he seeks going to be a problem when he seeks to get release or goes to the parole board?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parole board? I thank my noble friend for that. Question and it is a good question. However, we are talking in my amendment about future sentences, not about the existing ones, and I think we need to find a way of encouraging a radical change in prisons. I mean, this is a this is committee, this is a probing amendment. But I think you do need to look at making an element of requirement for these long servers, or it just doesn't happen.

I speak with my experience of the public sector and what happens if you haven't got requirements. So I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to take this agenda forward in the new world. And I hope that he will agree that a suitable, suitable amendment to this bill suitable amendment to this bill could be extremely worthwhile.
16:31
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords and I, as a group of amendments in this group, actually covers a range of different issues, covers a range of different issues, all under the heading of accountability and transparency. So I just want to say something generally on that, which is I think we have to concede that the public, we have to concede that the public, for good reason, are pretty cynical about prison policy at the moment about prison policy at the moment and are suspicious of changes in sentencing.

There's all sorts of controversies that have arisen around both of those things. A lot around both of those things. A lot of us spoke to such these issues at Second Reading. So one of the ways that I think this bill need for it not to simply become part of that cynicism is that I think that we need to ensure that the decisions made in relation to this legislation are as open to the public, to public scrutiny as possible. And in that spirit, I particularly support the noble Lord, Lord Jackson's 93 A, which is a report on the efficacy of reforms in relation to community sentences and suspended prison sentences, suspended orders, and so on.

In some of the discussions that we've had, it's as though we're having a conversation that if we increase the number of suspended sentences so that and and community sentences that re-offending rates will simply go down because we can all people will be in the community, there'll be rehabilitation everywhere, crimes being committed will, you know that somehow prison is blamed intrinsically for making people in prison absolutely guaranteed to carry on offending when they leave prison? That's a kind of pop.

That's a kind of one description that we heard from a number of noble Lords at Second Reading. My concern is that we sometimes might fool ourselves about a rehabilitative utopia, about the community. And I use an analogy in Second Reading about mental healthcare. Of course, if you posit the situation of locking people up in psychiatric hospitals and then pose that and say, how would they possibly get, well, we should have community, much more community provision.

I would often agree with you. The problem is, is that if actually you release people from those hospitals into the community without provision, then actually that is a disaster both for the for everybody, both for innocent victims in some instances and also in that instance for patients. So my worry is that really worthy aims associated with this bill will not be able to be delivered because of a lack of facility or resources in the community. And I am also concerned that despite the undoubtedly honourable and genuine and sincere intentions of the noble Lord, the Minister in this House, actually the arguments in relation to justifying this piece of legislation have been much more pragmatic and utilitarian elsewhere from the rest of the government, which is effectively to say we have to review sentencing, we have to do all of these things because our jails are too full, which is not the same as having any kind of principled commitment to improve things.

And so, at the very least, I think we owe it to the British public to check what happens once this bill comes into action. And that's why. And whether actually it is delivering its efficacy is incredibly important, because if it doesn't work, then actually it's people in the community that are going to suffer. And so I think that I amendment 93 A is crucial. I also wanted to absolutely support the noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe in her 93 B as much as anything, because one of the reasons why we say prison doesn't work and why actually people argue there's a problem with prison is precisely because actually the purposeful activity, or in fact, just using prison in a way that could be constructive whilst being a punishment, but also being used to ensure that prisoners are in fact have access to training, work and education and so on.

It's just not being delivered at the moment. It's just it's just a, you know, you can say it's happening. It is just not happening. The noble Lord, the Minister, knows that I'm involved in one project called Debating Matters Beyond Bars, which is debating competitions in prisons. And one of the things which the prisoners often say when they're involved in these is is really good to have the opportunity to have a bit of pugilism that's intellectual rather than fisticuffs and actually just having something to think about, to talk about, to debate and discuss.

That is kind of education, too, but it is absolutely excruciating trying to get those kind of projects off the ground in prisons, because there just are not the resources. The number of prisoners that I've met over the years have been enthusiastic about doing some kind of educational training, but not able to access it in prisons simply fuels this notion that prisons are not working, that they've become absolutely seething morasses of of frustration. And that can't be good for anyone. So I would like to make them mandatory as well.

It's kind of quite difficult because that's not entirely to do with accountability, except that in some ways, if we could actually see accountability and transparency about what's actually happening in relation to education and training in prison, I think it would inform rather than it just being sort of broadly mentioned. I think it would inform that broader debate. And then just finally, I there is one amendment that I'm absolutely not sure on, and that's the noble Lord. Lord Jackson's one, two, seven enabling public scrutiny of parole board proceedings.

Now, I am not a I watched the BBC series on parole. I watched every one of them. Absolutely fascinating insights. I actually think that parole hearings and parole boards and so on are and what happens in relation to parole are crucial and key. My concern is, and I know the noble Lord has included in reference to objections from victims and families and legal representatives, is the the notion that everything should always be open. Now, I've argued for political transparency and accountability.

That's fine. But there are things that the parole board does that I think might require discretion and some privacy. And one of the things that I've had drawn to my attention is that, for example, it might well be that parole board members of staff might want to say about a particular prisoner, you should not let them out. You know, off the record, I want to say this to you about this prisoner, and I don't necessarily want that being made widely available.

So I think it's just more complicated than just saying, open up the parole board. That's what my reservations are. I also have to say that the parole board itself, though, or the whole Pro system, really does require some careful scrutiny, because I do feel that the frustrations of prisoners, their families and victims very often centre on what happens at parole hearings. I mean, if you actually talk, I mean, as people will know about IPP prisoners, their whole fate, their whole rest on what happens at parole board hearings and the frustration of people not feeling that they're given a fair hearing, and then not having access or being able to make public what happens, I understand, but I think it just is not a black and white issue, and therefore I'm uncertain about that particular

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. At the beginning of the second day, the amendment 51 and Group two
16:40
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
day, the amendment 51 and Group two that followed, and then this one, Lord foster, right at the beginning said, yes, we can talk about all of this, but depends on whether they are resources to deliver your change. In Yorkshire, I went to visit a farmer, a pig farmer, who. Was very, very successful and was the chair of governors of the local comprehensive school, and Ofsted was making a lot of demands, particularly the testing of children.

Everybody was into testing and examination and into testing, but the resources of delivering what was required was not lacking, but rather was lacking. And he said to me, come and I'll show you my pigs. So we went into the farm, saw the pigs, and said, do you see them? Those are going to be sold in about six weeks time. What matters is not that every day I wear the pigs to see whether they have actually arrived at the right weight to fatten the pigs is not constantly to weigh them, but to feed them.

That's what action fattens the pigs. It's not the constant weigh. Yes, transparency is important, but let's be very careful that we don't overburden the probation service by throwing to them quite a lot of things they need to do, and we need to know whether they're doing it. What that did to the teachers. The beginning of Ofsted was always using them as scapegoats to be blamed for lack of proper resources and constant training of teachers to be better teachers.

So I just hope that the Secretary of State also will not be given so many burdens of the things he's got to produce before Parliament every year. And actually, the eyes taken off. How do we turn our prison service into a place where people really are rehabilitated, where those who want to learn are being taught, where re-offending begins to drop? Because if we don't pay a lot of attention to that and we these things are interesting. I know about accountability and transparency, but we can be so obsessed that in the end, the people are given more and more burdens, taking their eye off the job they're supposed to be doing.

So I have a bit of a caution, and particularly about the parole board, on what you mean by accountability and how it's going to get there. And I want to agree with Baroness Fox certain things need not all hang out. There are certain things which require confidentiality. And if you're not very careful, we are going to begin to distrust the entire criminal justice system because the public feel unsafe. The public feel more should be put in. And the question I want to put, we're all very keen on all of this.

How much volunteering have we ourselves given to helping prisoners, the prison service, in a prisoners, the prison service, in a voluntary role, so that they begin to deliver better?
16:44
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Loads?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've done it again. My Lord Best,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've done it again. My Lord Best, if I may address very briefly the if I may address very briefly the amendment 58 a in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and noble friend Baroness Hamwee and myself, the. Amendment addresses the need for a report of the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements, and it goes hand in requirements, and it goes hand in hand with the amendment in my name, 139 B, which talks about reporting the levels of re-offending by offenders who have completed both custodial and community sentences.

My Lords, I preface what I have to say by mentioning the urgent requirement which we all accept to increase the number and effectiveness of rehabilitation activities and the effectiveness of custodial sentences in reducing re-offending. But there has been and Lord Sentamu the noble Lords and Lord Sentamu was right to remind us of the points pressed by my noble friend Lord foster, that the success of this bill depends on full resourcing of the probation service, because there long has been, and there continues to be a shortage of resources.

And I say again what I've said before at Second Reading and elsewhere, that resources spent on the probation service will first reduce our prison population and the expense of prisons. And that's a move that this bill encourages, but also holds out the hope of reducing the financial and the social benefits of of increasing, sorry, the financial and social benefits of reducing re-offending. My Lords, last Wednesday, the noble Lord, the Minister, I wasn't here, but I read his speeches, described the demoralisation of the probation service under the last government and the shambles of the aborted reorganisation, my Lords, that had a really serious effect on the morale and the effectiveness of the probation service.

And what we need is more innovation and opportunity for rehabilitation in the probation service, both for offenders undertaking rehabilitative activities, but also for probation officers to have the opportunity to deliver what they are trained to do. That is more rehabilitative activity. And this government's policy and this bill are all about reducing re-offending. And it is, I suggest, fundamental to that, that there should be adequate reports on on the rehabilitation activities and also on the success of the struggle to reduce re-offending.

So we must keep a handle on progress on both fronts, both for offenders who serve in custody and those who serve community sentences. Only in that way can we monitor and foster improvements. And in this context, part of the rationale for the conclusions of David Gauke Sentencing Review and of this bill to move towards reliance on community orders and reliance on the probation service, rather than on custodial sentences, and particularly on short custodial sentences, has been to foster those ends.

And it's right that the success of that shift in emphasis should be monitored and considered, with practice adjusted if and as necessary. And for that we need data and information which would be available from the reports that are suggested. And failing that information and that consideration, significant aspects of the reforms would risk failure without our being able to tell where they're failing. I agree with my noble friend Baroness Hamwee that a sunset clause the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, objected to the use of that term.

But it is what he what he proposes, even if it's a conditional sunset clause where he suggests that there should be a 10% reduction in re-offending. Of all the significant aspects of these reforms would be withdrawn. That I don't suggest, I suggest is not a helpful approach. What, for example, if we get an 8% reduction would would happen? That of itself would be a success if a more limited success than the one for which we're hoping.

Turning to amendment 86, which is Lord Jackson's amendment suggesting universal ethnic and nationality Republic reporting, I suggest that that carries significant dangers. I'm not suggesting that ethnicity, where it's relevant, should not be recorded. The grooming scandals have taught us the importance of not fighting, shy of noting ethnicity, but the breadth of amendment 86, which covers effectively all offences and all offences should not just be monitored but should be publicly reported. So data recorded to be published and laid before Parliament, I suggest, is significantly dangerous.

It could encourage populism and in that I'm afraid I disagree with the noble Lady Baroness Fox who supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that conditional sunset clause. My Lord. Obviously anything to discourage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously anything to discourage populism. I appreciate that's a popular call in this house for some popular call in this house for some people. Anyway, could I just ask people. Anyway, could I just ask the noble Lord what the danger is, apart from encouraging populism? Because I think when I put my name Because I think when I put my name to that amendment, even though I didn't in the end speak on it, that actually some of the controversies actually some of the controversies around sentencing about crime and law and order and prison and so on law and order and prison and so on have been a failure to provide information.

The noble Lord himself has mentioned the grooming gangs, but I think the more information there is, the better. What could there be to be frightened of? It's not. It doesn't have to be. You don't have to draw a conclusion. That one doesn't have to draw the conclusion that any negative thing things will come from having more information. And I think as it's been hidden for so long, these kind of details that actually having them made available for the British public so that they can make their own decisions, it's something we should trust the British public with.

I know the noble Lord is keen that we trust probation officers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm also keen that we should trust the public. I'm also keen that we should,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm also keen that we should, generally speaking, trust the public. But 86 requires all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court and magistrates courts to have their country of courts to have their country of birth, their nationality, their ethnicity, their immigration status and the offences for which they and the offences for which they were sentenced to be recorded and published and laid before published and laid before Parliament. That, I suggest, can encourage the drawing of entirely encourage the drawing of entirely the wrong conclusions by the British public.

Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I seem to recollect that his party supported, for instance, the Lammy Review, which looked at Lammy Review, which looked at sentencing and led by a circuitous route to the decision of the Sentencing Council to fall out Sentencing Council to fall out somewhat spectacularly with the former Lord Chancellor and his party, is also supported. The use of quite detailed empirical data around stop and search, which is around stop and search, which is through looked through the lens of all the prism of race and ethnicity.

What's so different? Is there a particular kind of empirical data that he doesn't think the public that he doesn't think the public should be made aware of, or is he just merely saying that that this is a poor amendment for the sake of it? Because it seems to me that the the rationale is that you collect as much data as possible, you have an evidence led approach to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy, and then you can design legislation in the appropriate way. Okay. I agree with the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the noble Lord Hameed, the noble Lady, about the collection of data. What I'm concerned about is the mandatory concerned about is the mandatory publication of all data, which I say risks being misused. And the say risks being misused. And the noble Lord is quite right to suggest that my party supported Lammy. And indeed, I've spent some Lammy. And indeed, I've spent some time in these in this chamber, reminding the House of the Lammy reminding the House of the Lammy review on inequality of outcomes based on ethnicity and the sentencing guidelines bills debate.

That's quite different from saying that every single offence needs to be reported on and published, which can lead to, I say, unfortunate reporting. The Lords, turning to Baroness Ruth Neville Roth's Amendment 93, not only like the noble and the noble Viscount Lord Hague did I agree with almost every word she said. But I agreed with it profoundly, in the sense of the benefits of participation in education and training, in purposeful activity. All of that. I just have some concern about.

The use of the word mandatory. In principle, all those things are sensible and beneficial for all the reasons that she gave. But as we know in this House, many prisoners are struggling with addiction issues, with mental health issues and some with problems of ageing and illness. And for those prisoners, the prospect of education, training, work and purposeful activity may be nugatory. And I just worry about too much use of the word mandatory in these contexts without considering all the effects.

What is important? And I stress this again because it was important when we in the last group when we considered probation, is flexibility and a personal approach so that offenders are dealt with having regard to their personal needs. That's an additional point to the one made by the noble Lord Viscount Hogg, who talked about the availability of particular training opportunities. And of course, those were important as well. Turning to amendment 127 on transparency of the parole board, I say yes to transparency.

I think in general terms, the proceedings of the parole board should be public, should be heard, should be considered, and reporting of them is a good thing. But here I do agree with the noble Lady Baroness Fox in her concern that there may be material that does need to be private. And it seems to me that in these hearings some discretion has to be applied to enable the Parole Board to receive and take note of material that should not necessarily be published, be made public, and the hearing should make that decision.

However, in general, the principle of transparency is the principle of transparency is one with which I and my party agree. one with which I and my party agree.
16:56
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
I wanted to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley. Amendment 86, and respond briefly to some of the points that the noble Lord Lord Marks just made in opposing that amendment. It might be relevant here to consider the interim guidance published by the National Police Chiefs Council on the 13th of August of this year, following consultation with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, to encourage police forces to disclose the ethnicity and nationality, although not the immigration status of suspects charged in high profile cases, and that interim guidance is currently the subject of a consultation being carried out by the College of Policing, which is trying to decide whether to make the guidance permanent or to withdraw it, and the Runnymede Trust and other charities have written an open letter to the Home Secretary and to the chair of the National Chief Police, the National Police Chiefs Council, making many of the same arguments that Lord Marks made opposing the interim guidance that publishing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects in serious, high profile criminal cases is dangerous.

It can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions. It can fuel the rise of populist parties and so forth. But the reason for the introduction of this interim guidance was because of the speculation. Indeed, the misinformation about the suspect in the Southport attacks in the summer of 24 and the object of advising the police to publish information about ethnicity and nationality of suspects in high profile criminal cases is precisely to avoid people speculating in that way, drawing the wrong conclusion to give them the information to fill the vacuum that would otherwise be filled by speculation.

And I think the same arguments can be made in favour of amendment 86.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the courts. I'm sorry to interrupt the. noble Lord, but I would invite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, but I would invite him to clarify whether his objection to what I was saying is objection to what I was saying is restricted to high profile criminal cases to which he has referred, or cases to which he has referred, or does he support the amendment insofar as it covers every case in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insofar as it covers every case in the Crown Court and every case in the magistrates courts? I do support the amendment and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do support the amendment and don't think it's excessive to require the publication of this data in every case. And I'd like to data in every case. And I'd like to ask the noble Lord whether he would approve amendment 86 if it was amended, whereby it was just information about convictions in high profile cases that the amendment was asking to be published. Is your objection just to the extent of the information required to be published, or do you object to any information being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

published? Lord sits down expecting a reply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord sits down expecting a reply from me and and he will get one. It is that there is, is and ought to is that there is, is and ought to be a discretion about the sort of publication to have a mandatory requirement for the recording of requirement for the recording of all information in every case. And it may be that it also goes to some it may be that it also goes to some high profile cases, is to tie the hands of what is published in an unreasonable way.

It may be that in a lot of cases, publication is plainly in the public interest and plainly in the public interest and and should be made. I do accept and agree that there should be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fullest possible recording, and then publication is a matter for the department. I think the risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the risk. Of only requiring Crown courts to publish information in some to publish information in some cases, but not all cases, and to expect the Crown Court to exercise discretion, is that it could lead discretion, is that it could lead to public suspicion that they are suppressing data for precisely the suppressing data for precisely the sorts of reasons that you that the noble Lord articulated earlier, that it might lead to the rise in that it might lead to the rise in support for populist parties.

I would say that if the concern is would say that if the concern is that the publication of data showing the number of serious offences committed by people according to country of birth, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, if the concern is that that might fuel a rise in populism, surely the cause would be the fact that a disproportionate number of criminal offences have been committed by members of certain groups, not the fact that that information is being published and the concealment of that information, the refusal to publish it, or the concealment of some of the information I fear would lead to greater public suspicion, greater speculation, and indeed, misinformation.

The argument made by the National Joint College, the the Joint Chief Constables, is that we, the public, need to know this information if they're if we're going to avoid the kind of speculation, misinformation that fuelled the disorder in the summer fuelled the disorder in the summer of 2024, to quote the famous Supreme Court justice, Louis Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, the best remedy for false and misleading speech is not and misleading speech is not enforced silence, but more and better speech.

Sunlight. Sunlight, better speech. Sunlight. Sunlight, disinfectant.
17:02
17:02
Baroness Porter of Fulwood Portrait Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It's well established that the literacy and numeracy rates for those who end up committing crime are much lower than those in the general population. A ministry of justice report into prison education found that 57% of adult prisoners taking initial assessments had literacy levels below those expected of an 11 year old. In his review, David Gauke explicitly references the use of purposeful activity in the texting system and positive engagement with it as being linked to serving less time inside prison.

Yet under these reforms, there's no such requirement. My noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe has already referenced Charlie Taylor's assessment of the current system. David Gauke also points out in his review just how much of a problem access to these services is in many of our prisons. I quote His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Annual Report for 2022 to 23 found that standards of purposeful activity were rated poor or insufficiently good in all but one of the adult male prisons inspected.

Despite the measures in this bill, there will still be a growing prison population. This will make delivering these services even more challenging, but it has to be addressed. We need to make sure that people who are spending time in prison are spending it as constructively as they can be. Focusing on this and prioritising resource to help reduce the chances of people reoffending is the best way of reducing crime over the longer term. I would argue accountability and mandatory requirements are what ultimately drive how we place resources.
17:04
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
I wasn't intending, I should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say, to. Intervene at all. In this group, but could I just try to inject a element of reality try to inject a element of reality into amendment 86 that Lord Jackson proposes, which requires the court proposes, which requires the court service to record and retain in respect of all offenders convicted and sentenced in both the Crown and sentenced in both the Crown Court and Magistrates Court. The details that have been referred to country of birth, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and the offences themselves.

My Lords, it's important to remind the committee that in the magistrates courts, hundreds of thousands of minor offences are dealt with every year. For example, hundreds of thousands of motoring offences, speeding, careless driving, not having insurance and matters of that sort as well as I can't remember how many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of failure to pay a TV licence, and the vast majority of those cases don't trouble a court in in the normal sense, in that there is no hearing in a court.

They're dealt with under the single justice procedure, and almost all of them, save those that are contested, are dealt with essentially on the papers. The information that's identified in the proposed amendment at the moment isn't available, and it's difficult to see how it might be made available. I can't for the moment think of a way it could be done without increasing the burden on the system, generally exponentially, and imposing huge burdens on those who've been prosecuted for speeding and not having a TV licence and so forth.

And unless there were of some sort for this information to be given, nothing could sensibly happen. Now, my Lords, I don't I don't seek to express a view on the merits of collecting such information, or at least parts of it for some cases. I mean, that already happens as it as it happens in the Crown Court to to some extent. But my Lords, the the breadth of this amendment is something which travels into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

area of unreality, I regret to say. My Lord, my Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord. Hang on. So sorry. Me, I.
17:07
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hang on. So sorry. Me, I. Think. Is that right? Yes it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think. Is that right? Yes it is. Yes. Lord Tyrie a good day, are we? Yes. Lord Tyrie a good day, are we? My Lords? I am grateful for all noble Lords who've tabled an amendment since spoken on the topic of transparency. It's really very important aspect of criminal justice system. This is accountable that it instils trust in the public who rely on it. Beginning with amendment 58, A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we on these benches broadly support the aim of this measure, knowing the affordability and accessibility of treatments and activities is an important part for ensuring that the probation system is working.

Such matters are vital to persons on probation, and they can make a real contribution to those who complete their probation periods. Regional inequalities should be known and should be addressed so that all who are subject to such orders have the same means with which to complete their sentence. That may be an ideal, but it's what we should be aiming for. I would like to offer support from these benches for the amendments. In the name of my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

There may indeed be real practical issues and objections, as the noble and learned Lord Burnett has reminded us of with all his experience, and he's right to draw our attention to the practical difficulties in identifying and recording ethnicity and other information. That may well be for another day. That is the fundamental objection, but nonetheless, we would argue that certainly the government should be looking at what information can be sensibly obtained in this area. I was somewhat surprised to hear the noble Lord Lord Marks say yes to the collection of data and principle, but no to its publication.

That's what I think, he said. Who will see it then? Just civil servants and Ministers, not members of Parliament, not members of this House. If collected, it will certainly leak. It may be, I understood, misunderstood him, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought he said yes. I didn't oppose publication. In any broad way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In any broad way. I simply said it was a matter of discretion as to what should be published and what should be kept published and what should be kept private. The issue of universal publication is the dangers that I expressed. It's a matter of discretion, it's a matter of relevance, and it's a matter of importance. And those are decisions importance. And those are decisions to be taken by those who collect the information. I think there are the information.

I think there are problems with that as to how the discretion should be exercised and discretion should be exercised and who would set what rules. I won't spend longer on this, but I would suggest that the noble Lord, my my noble friend, Lord Young of Acton, was right when he drew attention to the interim guidance suggested and supported by the National Association of Police Chiefs. We really do have to think about this. We we do need information. We do need some sunlight.

And if we don't have accurate information, then the wrong information will be put out there. And that will be used by populists and will be dangerous. We need accurate information and it should, if it is limited to serious cases in the Crown to Crown Court cases, that would at least be an important start. We don't need to know the ethnicity of every driving offender. That is clearly unnecessary. But offences of violence and everything else in the Crown Court, why not? If it can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done, let's just look at it. Forgive me for interrupting. I'm grateful to him for saying,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him for saying, why do we need to know anyone's ethnicity? Why? How is that relevant at the stage that we're relevant at the stage that we're talking about? I just don't get this argument, I'm afraid. Why is ethnicity relevant and who is it relevant to? Interesting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant to? Interesting. That I may be using a. It's only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I may be using a. It's only one of the factors included, and I didn't mean to select just that I didn't mean to select just that I was using it as shorthand for what is in Lord Jackson's amendment country of birth. And that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant. I suggest a nationality. Frenulum, if I may, indulgence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frenulum, if I may, indulgence of the House to specifically answer a Lord Marks reasonable point. a Lord Marks reasonable point. There is and has been for many years significant concern about overpolicing of some communities overpolicing of some communities that has given rise to a number of key initiatives, including the Police Action Plan, of which, with Police Action Plan, of which, with his great expertise, he's very well aware of that is based on the collection and collation of data collection and collation of data around ethnicity.

You cannot have one without the other, I'm afraid. one without the other, I'm afraid. And therefore, in order to keep the faith and trust that taxpayers have in the criminal justice system, one has to collect as much data as possible. So if one collects it for overpolicing to prevent that, one should also collect it in other ways as well. So you have a clear, transparent system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's quite a lot to cover in this group. I think my noble friend this group. I think my noble friend has made the point. We never suffer has made the point. We never suffer from having enough information. Too from having enough information. Too much information. And if it is collected in bits and pieces, then collected in bits and pieces, then there is the danger of distortion. The noble Baroness lady cases report exposed a decade long dated collapse.

It made it clear that collapse. It made it clear that this should not carry on any longer. This is an area in which I suggest we have dragged our feet for too long. The majority of OECD countries have mandatory reporting statutes. The fact is, the United Kingdom does not do the same, and that is no help to anyone other than the offenders. So we need to do something which will implement lady cases recommendations. It will give forces necessary data to record, analyse and respond to different dynamics in different communities.

To publish data will prove to the public that the government is not concerned with accusations of bigotry, but focussed on outcomes. These are clear benefits in this amendment. In noble Lords efforts to tackle crime and reduce re-offending, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, has considered it carefully. Perhaps the most important of my noble friend's amendments is 93 A. It is similar to amendment 139 B in the name of Lord noble Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, which will require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the levels of re-offending re-offend.

So these are statistics which everyone I think agrees are important. Reoffending rates are important in their own right, but what is far more important is the effect on of policy on those rates and of those rates on policy itself. Virtuous circle. My noble friend's amendment sets this aim out. In practice, the government intends to ease the pressure on our prisons by increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system. This is a fine girl, but the proof will be in the product.

There is little use legislating if we don't look to see if it's worked. And the only way we will know if it worked is if we have the data to see what has actually happened. The government measures must be seen to have tangibly decreased the rate of offending, and certainly I hope not to have led to an increase. Only then can we consider them effective. My noble friend's amendment would ensure that the government is held to account by itself and by the public.

It would do so by legislating that if their measures do not have the desired impact, and if re-offending rates are not reduced by at least 10%, then the relevant sections of the act will cease to have effect. This amendment seeks to hold the government to account. The Lord Chancellor likes to speak up his own achievements. Why should he not lay out the effects and let the public decide for themselves whether they've worked? This is a sensible amendment. It will allow the government to prove that it is achieving what it says it is.

And I hope, my noble Lord, the Minister, will take this opportunity to agree. My noble friend's amendment would also require government to lay out the data on re-offending for those on community and suspended sentence orders. Many noble Lords spoke against the list of offences offenders which we proposed on day one of committee spoke against them being exempt from clause one. Most notably repeat offenders. It was argued that such offenders are like unlikely to fall under the presumption provided for by the Bill.

The publication of data under this amendment would ensure this is in fact the case. If it is not, the public are entitled to know that. I would also like to speak in favour of amendment 93, be tabled in the name of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. As she has set out, it aims to introduce mandatory participation in education, training, unpaid work or other purposeful and I emphasise the word purposeful activities is a condition of custodial sentence. To many defendants and thereafter a convicted persons are functionally illiterate.

2,530%, I think, is the figure in prisons. This is certainly a factor which contributes to being in unemployment and subsequent offending. Important points were made on the same lines by my noble friend Baroness Porter, and I hope the government is listening to them. My Lords, the modern prison system is predicated for large part on rehabilitation. This implies leaving prison with an improved outlook and a developed set of competencies compared with those with which the prisoner entered prison.

Current prisoners are organised, at least in theory. Around this end, schemes, courses and work are often available to guide prisoners into productive work while they are inside and prepare for them when they leave. But this is not mandatory. They are not offered out of obligation. Rather, offers are based on capacity and funding, and indeed are often reliant on funding. This creates a very unequal and disorderly system, where some inmates are rehabilitated and some are not, and that is usually the result of factors out of their control.

There's no point in creating a system intended to rehabilitate if the system does not, in fact, provide the means to deliver that. My Lords, each individual prisoner costs the taxpayer £54,000 a year for accommodation and upkeep and of course, to keep them inside. That means that the law abiding public is essentially paying more than double the minimum wage to house the individuals who've broken the law. That is too much to be spending on a system that works for some, but does not for many.

This is a group that aims to increase the transparency of the criminal justice system. Transparency is good for several reasons. It ensures accountability, which in turn ensures the efficient running of the system. But perhaps most importantly, transparency serves to uphold the public's trust in the system. My Lords, we face a crisis of trust in our criminal justice system. The last YouGov poll taken on public confidence in the British judicial system saw for the first time since the poll began, that as many people did not have confidence in the system as those who did, the British public do not believe the system that they pay for is producing the right outcomes.

We have to acknowledge that the public must be able to see that the criminal justice system works for their benefit. This involves, I'm afraid, locking up many offenders, but it also involves ensuring that they make good use of their time. If criminals are mandated to engage while in prison in activities that benefit society when they come out, then these activities and these activities are documented and recorded. As my Noble Friend's amendment aims to introduce, then we could begin to instil trust in the system as a whole.

It will be a stepping stone because it will be seen to doing some good for those who are locked up. This is the case for this entire group of amendments. The poll, which I cited, demonstrates that we must do more, even if the changes are small and incremental. The public should know who it is, who are committing the crimes, whether they are being adequately dealt with and whether the measures the authorities use are working. These are the aims of my noble friend's amendments and we on these benches support them.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I thank noble Lords and Baronesses for the opportunity to discuss these important
17:22
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
amendments as part of a fascinating debate. And noble Lords have certainly covered a lot of ground. Transparency in the criminal justice system is vital. We must strike the balance between promoting understanding and accountability without compromising the integrity of our public services or creating unnecessary burdens for those working in them. I'll first turn to amendment 58. In the name of the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. But before I begin, I must acknowledge noble Lords. Important questions on funding for the Probation Service, a crucial part of delivering the reforms in this Bill.

As noble Lords know, we're investing up to £700 million in the final year of the spending review, an increase of 45%. And as I said at Second Reading, while detailed allocations are yet to be finalised, my priorities are clear. More people in post digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use. These will all make the job of our hardworking probation staff more manageable and more rewarding. And I repeat my offer to noble Lords to arrange a session in the coming weeks to take them through this in more detail.

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord Lord Marks for raising important points regarding the availability of activities, activities and treatments for probation requirements. And I can reassure the noble Lady and the noble and Right reverend Lord Sentamu that we are enabling probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. To do this, we will have guidance and training in place to ensure they are clear on how decisions should be made and how to deliver them.

This includes what interventions are needed and when to refer an offender to a specialist support service. So if an offender whose offending is driven by addiction is sentenced to probation requirement, their probation officer will be pointed to the right interventions to address any factors that could lead to this behaviour. The noble Baroness Cass, Baroness Porter, Baroness Fox and Baroness Hamwee rightly raised the point on availability of treatments. It is critical offenders have access to the right activities and treatments to support their rehabilitation.

That is why the Ministry of Justice works closely with NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care to ensure that all offenders who need it have access to high quality mental health, alcohol and drug treatment, and. Have made a targeted investment to support those referred by the criminal justice system, including funding 575 drug and alcohol workers with criminal justice specialisms. They work closely with prisons, probation and in courts, as well as the police to improve access to and quality of treatment, and our ongoing partnership with NHS England has also achieved an increase in the number of mental health treatment requirements.

The number sentence now more than five times higher than it was a decade ago, up from 960 in 20 14 to 4880 and 2024. The noble Lady knows I'm always available to speak to the House about how we are ensuring these treatments are accessible and funded, but given that, I hope that she agrees with me that a statutory requirement to publish an annual report is unnecessary now to amendment 139, which requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed a community or a custodial sentence, reducing levels of reoffending to cut crime and ensure fewer victims is at the very heart of this bill's purpose, and is at the very heart of why I took this job.

The evidence is clear and we're following it. Offenders given a community order or suspended sentence order re-offend less than similar offenders. Given a short prison sentence. We're exploring how we can evaluate the impact of the bill's provisions on key outcomes, including levels of reoffending. In the meantime, I can confirm that we already published data on levels of reoffending by disposal type, including custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on a quarterly basis. I hope my answer also reassures the noble Lord Lord Hanson, of our commitment to following the evidence regarding his amendment 93 a however, as I'm sure he will appreciate, there are many factors that go into whether someone re-offends and creating artificial targets will not support hard working frontline staff trying to improve the system.

I also thank the noble Lord for amendment 127. But whilst we share the aim of improving transparency in the parole system, the government believes this proposal is unnecessary. Public hearings were introduced in 2022, allowing any hearing to be held in public where the chair considers it in the interests of justice. This amendment would reverse the current position, making public hearings the default and requiring the Parole Board to seek agreement of the Secretary of State to hear a case in private. This would undermine the board's quasi judicial independence and create significant administrative burdens.

It would also require victims views about the prospect of a public hearing to be sought. In every case. This risks retraumatising victims and burdening them with an additional and unnecessary decision about their case, and there is no evidence that a demand for all hearings to be public exists, so the amendment would not offer any meaningful benefits over the current process. The board holds over 8000 oral hearings annually, and yet the board's website reports just 55 decisions on applications for public hearing since 2022.

I will briefly turn to amendment 86. This government remains committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders, and we're working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable early identification of foreign national offenders, which will support earlier removals. This may require a new mechanism to verify the information provided, and as the noble and learned Lord Burnett set out, this must be cost effective and prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff. That is why we're we're exploring both operational and technological solutions.

But for this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary infrastructure is in place to support it. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness Baroness Neville-Rolfe for her kind words, and for raising the important issue of participation in rehabilitative activities like work or training. And I am pleased we have had the opportunity to debate it today, and also learn more about the history of the word purposeful. We fully share the ambition behind this amendment, which is to ensure that time in custody is used productively to support rehabilitation and to reduce reoffending.

Prison should not simply be where criminals stay between crimes. I want to make clear that this government is, of course, committed to improving regimes across the prison estate, but making participation a mandatory condition across every custodial sentence would be impractical and in some cases, counterproductive. Prison regimes vary widely to meet the needs of different populations. Imposing a blanket statutory requirement, risk creating obligations that cannot be met. Courts can already signal programmes that could assist the offender in their sentencing remarks.

Prison authorities can take into account when determining appropriate activities, and rehabilitation works best when it is voluntary and tailored to individual needs. Forcing participation could undermine genuine engagement and meaningful progress. It is therefore essential that prisons are able to plan each person's rehabilitation according to their individual circumstances and needs. That said, I want to reassure the House that we are not standing still. In the last financial year, over 50,000 prisoners participated in education courses and whilst all noble Lords are aware that we are under pressure on delivering education, we do have a slight 3% increase in funding.

But one of my priorities is to make sure we get our classrooms full and we also really develop the work of purposeful activity and workshops. And across the prison estate, thousands of prisoners are engaged in work every day in our prison industries, which build skills for working life. And as well as this, we are working to expand our partnerships with employers and businesses. We partner with external businesses such as Greene King and Marston's, where prisoners can start training and work in prison and then continue into employment when released.

And we and we already put out annual statistics on prison education, I'm keen to consider how we can share more data on personal activity, but this will require further thought and development of the data sources. But I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is much more difficult to rehabilitate, to rehabilitate prisoners if prisons are constantly running out of critical capacity. That is why the other reforms in the bill, ensuring there is also space in prison for the most dangerous offenders, and our progression model are so important for these reasons, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of this amendment, we do not agree with the mandating of with mandating purposeful activity.

I therefore urge that these amendments be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to me as his erstwhile sparring partner. I'm erstwhile sparring partner. I'm going to have to up my game on
17:32
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
going to have to up my game on amendment 58 A. This was intended as a mechanism to introduce the issues. I'm sure the the Minister will understand that one has to find devices in order to introduce subjects, and one of those most often used is laying a report. So I take his point about an annual report, but this was intended as to use his words, tailored, intended to be tailored to what works. And I was particularly keen to stress the reliance on the third sector and the need for its services to be available.

I think this is particularly relevant to women offenders, but not only at them. So I'm grateful to him for his his comments. It is an issue that is hard to leave alone. I noticed that when he was talking about the the treatments that are available, he understandably referred to health and social care department. It's not only that, however, let me just take this moment if I can, and I'm aware that we're spending a very long time on this group to refer to the purposeful amendment of the in in every sense, I think of the noble Lady, Baroness Neville Rolfe to support it, but only so far and yet hoping that supporting it so far might give us something on which we can work after this stage to inject an element of reality.

I, the report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord foster, the one entitled I think, I think I've got this right. Better prisons, less crime. I found it quite shocking to read how the difficulties and the failures to provide education and skills training, particularly when one thinks of the functional illiteracy, numerous numerous numeracy and illiteracy mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Porter. And it would be a great pity having to to impose a mandatory requirement.

Which would, I think, be setting up too many prisons and too many prison governors setting them up to fail. But the issue remains very important, and I think it's a very good thing that we've had this opportunity to discuss it. Having said that, I beg to. Leave to withdraw my amendment. I think it was 58. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave, withdrawn. We turn then to in clause 13, amendment 59, Lord Sandhurst, I assume.
17:35
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. On these benches we welcome the underlying principle of clauses 13 to 16 in the Bill. These relate to new community order requirements that can be imposed on offenders as part of their suspended sentences and community orders as part of their sentences. But as I asked at Second Reading, the big question is how are these going to be made a practical reality? There is a commendable aim here to equip the courts with additional tools that will both enhance public protection and steer offenders towards genuine rehabilitation.

My Lords, it may surprise noble Lords to hear that on these benches we do not oppose suspended sentences as a concept or in application. It has been abundantly clear. I hope, that we take issue with clauses one and two as currently drafted, because we believe there should not be such an indiscriminate provision for criminals to serve their sentences in the community. However, for those offenders who should serve their sentences on a suspended basis, these clauses are a welcome measure.

They will improve the regime, or at least they have potential to improve the regime if properly drafted. Many noble Lords have spoken of their support of suspended sentences in favour of short term custodial ones, arguing that the short term benefits of serving such sentences in prison are largely outweighed, if not entirely negatived, by the effects of custody. Whilst we recognise this argument, and in many cases agree with it, I would respectfully point out that this is just one side of the coin.

Of course, the outcomes for prisoners themselves are an important consideration in this debate because if successful, it prevents or reduces the rate of recidivism. But we must recognise the wider public. They have an interest also in recidivism, namely that it doesn't occur. And they also have a legitimate interest in seeing the right people positively punished. My Lords, if we are to give support to the broader aim of this bill, this support will hinge entirely on the government's ability to ensure, and in fact, to guarantee, that those on suspended sentences will be managed in a manner that drives towards public safety, not just the term of the sentence.

If it cannot be shown that those being released into the community cannot be managed in a safe and effective way, then we fail the public by allowing this bill to pass into statute. Noble Lords may wish to point to statistics that claim that reoffending rates are lower for those on suspended sentences, but the reality is that the statistic is not nothing. If we are to allow offenders onto the streets, then we must do in this way do so in a way that does not increase danger to citizens going about their lives and doesn't increase the crime rate.

There will be a higher number receiving suspended sentences than do at the moment, and it must be common sense that at least to date, judges have struck strike strive when imposing suspended sentences to impose them on those whom they think there is a lower risk of breach. But if it's going to be effectively for everybody, then inevitably there will be those for whom there is a higher risk of breach. On day one of committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke in opposition to to exemptions which we suggested for suspended sentence provision in clause one.

The noble Baroness said if there's a real danger to the public, we probably wouldn't be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months. My Lords, the reality is that there is a range of crimes for which offenders are routinely sentenced to immediate custodial terms of 12 months or less. Certain sex offenders come within that category. This is a matter of fact. The noble Baroness may not consider such people a real danger to the public, but we on these benches do.

Further to this, the noble Lord, the Minister, has confirmed that in reality this presumption will extend to sentences up to 18 months once guilty pleas are accounted for. In other words, 18 months discounted 12 because of a prompt and early guilty plea and then suspended. My Lords, we must be very clear about this. Sentences up to 18 months imprisonment contain categories of people who are certainly violent and certainly dangerous. They may not be dangerous to particular identified individual, meaning that the exemptions in the statute will not apply.

Instead, we are at the mercy of court orders to keep the public safe. My Lords, the amendment to exempt those involved in terrorist or associated offences from the suspended sentence provision on day one was also met with resistance. Noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee, said if an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less? Well, under the Terrorism Act 2000, a person who wears an item of clothing or displays an article related to a proscribed organisation will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months.

This means that an offender wishing to fly an Al Qaeda or Nazi flag on the street will, in this case, now receive a suspended sentence. They are not putting a particular individual at significant risk of harm, but I'm sure noble Lords will agree that there are risks to the public and to the behaviour of the public generally. Such behaviour winds people up, yet they will they not be exempt from this presumption as currently drafted. My Lords, we will never support this measure.

But if we must resign ourselves to the possibility, then that this will soon be the reality on these benches, we will strive to do everything we can to lessen the risk to the public. That is why the amendments in this group have been tabled, and I now briefly outline the practical aims of each amendments 59, 64, 69 and 72, and a general practicality condition to the imposition of the new community order requirements. They have been suggested to ensure that they may only be imposed where compliance with such requirements can realistically be monitored.

My Lords, to impose these new orders will be meaningless if we cannot ensure that they are going to be enforced in practice and can be enforced. It is of no practical benefit to ban an offender from a particular type of public event. If there's no meaningful way of ensuring that he or she will in fact, not attend such events when released into the community. Likewise, there's little value in placing a driving prohibition on an offender who feels no deterrent from getting back onto the road as a result of an order that he knows is fruitless.

In practice, these amendments touch on the point of the utmost importance the government wishes to oppose them. Then they are saying they are willing to allow the courts to impose orders which they know in practice, will not be upheld. This was the exact justification for the removal of the rehabilitative activity days in clause 12, namely that the maximum thresholds are rarely upheld in practice, and so they needed reform. So will the government follow the same logic for the new powers they're giving the courts, or will they allow conditions of suspended sentence to be given out in the full knowledge that really they're just token gestures? We make this point not only to expose the inconsistent arguments that the government has set out in the bill.

This is not simply a matter of an ineffective law that is likely to waste the already stretched resources of our judiciary. Failure to get this right will lead to more crime. It will result in more sexual offences, more assaults, more thefts, more knives on our streets. If offenders cannot be practically managed under the new community requirement conditions, they should not be allowed to return straight to society. So two amendments 62, 67 and 73 seek to ensure that the appropriate supervising authority enforces the relevant community order requirement imposed by the courts.

My Lords, the principle here is straightforward. Conditions that are not enforced are not conditions at all. They are simply lip service. That sounds good and reassuring in this chamber, but means nothing to the victims who meet their offender in the pub, or the shopkeeper who finds the man who robbed him standing outside his door in breach of a suspended restriction zone. If the government opposes these amendments, then they must defend the following position, namely, that the court should be allowed to impose requirements which in reality are not going to be policed.

That would not merely be poor lawmaking, it would be dangerous. We've already seen where unenforceable orders lead to chaos, which surrounded criminal behaviour orders and football banning orders where breaches have gone undetected or under forced unenforced for months shows that if you design a system without the basic infrastructure for compliance, you do not get rehabilitation, you do not get simple obedience, you get contempt, you get offenders who learn that nothing happens when they ignore the rules. And you get victims who lose faith in justice altogether.

And our society falls apart. My Lords, public confidence is not an abstract principle. It is the foundation of the rule of law. Every time an offender, in breach of their conditions, walks past a victim with impunity or conducts themselves in other similar breaches, we erode that foundation of the rule of law and of our society. Finally, amendment 63 and 64 ensure that when conditions relate to a specific public event or premises, the relevant organisation is informed, because again, there's no point of a prohibition on attending a public event or entering a particular bar.

If the people responsible for admission at the gate are unaware, the order exists. For those who argue that breaches will be rare, I argue rather than speculate, let us make it sure that the system has the data and the notification mechanisms to prove it. If this House is to support the government's drive to release more offenders into the community rather than custody them, rather than impose custodial sentences, then the very least we must insist on is a system that checks whether it works.

Anything else is reckless and unwise. Opposing these amendments is not only undemocratic because it strips Parliament and the public of transparency. It is positively dangerous. It tolerates avoidable risks to the public. The government cannot say that community sentences will reduce reoffending and improve public safety, while at the same time resisting the very mechanisms that would allow us to monitor and enforce them. If Ministers are so confident that this approach works, then they should have nothing to fear from accountability, from enforcement or from data.

My Lords, I urge the public to accept these amendments as the minimum necessary safeguard. If not, they have to be willing to explain to the British people why they believe offenders should be released with conditions that are unmonitored and unenforceable and unknown to those who, in reality have to uphold them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the position these benches will never support. Thank you. Amendment proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Clause 13, page 28, line 26. At the end, insert the words as the end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. I printed on the marshalled list. I been struggling to find the amendments that I was speaking to, amendments that I was speaking to, to which the noble Lord has been referring when he talked about my referring when he talked about my opposition, I do remember querying opposition, I do remember querying things like terms like associated offences and offences which have a connection to terrorism.

I think that the the context was a little more nuanced, perhaps, than the noble Lord would would suggest. I agree with him about enforceability, but to have a particular officer responsible for enforcing each prohibition doesn't seem to me, if I've understood it properly, to be practicable. I have points on enforceability in the in the next room. The answer may well be electronic monitoring. I wonder if I can raise a point which is comes a bit from left field, but having.

And I'm sure I'm not the only member to have received an email
17:51
17:51
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
shandy? I don't know, but it seemed quite intriguing. I won't hold him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to it if he doesn't know. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lord, on unlike the the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, I've got more Lord, Lord Sanderson, I've got more qualms about these particular prohibitions from just broadly a prohibitions from just broadly a civil liberties point of view. But also I, I just this idea of bringing in endless kind of bringing in endless kind of surveillance and state bodies, keeping their eye on people, banning people, prohibiting people banning people, prohibiting people on the basis that this is necessary because it will allow people to avoid prison.

But actually, the problem is it turns the community into almost like prison like conditions. And I don't feel easy with that in terms of these, you know, ban on attending public events, entering drinking establishments, new restriction zones and so on. But the but the where I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Anderson it is just practically how on earth it's going to work. How will probation cope with monitoring these prohibitions? I just cannot understand how it would be feasible.

We keep discussing that there is a problem of probation, sorry, probation, not having enough resources. We then assured that more resources would be made available, but now we're actually asking probation to do even more than they were doing before. And I, I think that resources always implies money, but it's a lot more than money. I would have thought that that a lot of the new things that we're asking, this bill is asking probation officers to do will require a lot more training, and the noble Lord will the Minister will know that, for example, in relation to IPP prisoners, because of the huge caseloads that probation officers have, very often the last thing that they want to be dealing with are IPP prisoners who are at the very least challenging.

And in many instances, we know that in order to get them off the books, they adopt a risk averse attitude, which is anyone who even just technically breaks some licence condition, maybe is late for a meeting. Any of these things suddenly gets recalled into prison, so there's all sorts of complications around simply saying probation will do it. And I know that whenever I raise problems with probation immediately, there's kind of a rush for people to say how brilliant probation officers are.

This is not a slight on them as individuals. This is a problem with the service. And in fact, if anything, it's probation officers themselves who feel frustrated and tearing their hair out that they're expected to do so much with so little. And now we are in this instance, I you know, there's a real reason why there's difficulty in recruiting new trainee probation officers, why there is a staff, insufficient staff numbers. But now what I just don't understand is are we expecting probation officers or how are we going to monitor, say, for example, you have a prohibition on entering.

I can't remember what they're called now when you're not allowed to go to the pub. Basically that one drinking establishment, I mean, it's a kind of probation officers going to be standing outside the pub. I mean, how are we going to know whether anyone is entering the pub or not? Who is it? That's why I think the amendments in this group are quite useful, which is, is this just a box ticking exercise? I mean, it's practical and somebody has to let the the drinking establishments know and then they have to monitor whether anyone goes into them.

I also think that there's a whole paraphernalia and potentially quite difficult issues in relation to deciding when we when, when people are, when restriction zones are, are put in place, whether how it's decided or sorry, who decides where they are, what's it based on and who's going to monitor it. So I just think that there's there's a wide range of new restrictions and prohibitions that are only being brought into place because of this move to remove people from prison and the community and probation do not have the resources to ensure that this will not just be technically bureaucratic to enact, but actually not keep either the public safe on the one hand, or be able to keep an eye on efficacy.

And so consequently, I would like to tighten up via amendments like this. The the whole notion of these orders. But I'm not even convinced that they are the way to go or that that anything other than a problematic example of why there's a prior problem of letting everybody out of prison too early when you haven't got the resources in the community. in the community.
17:57
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
It is here. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, one of the three key principles behind David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishments outside of prison. The new community requirements new community requirements introduced by clauses 13 to 16 are designed to implement that principle. The intended to give the principle. The intended to give the courts a wider range of options to punish offenders in the community, from stopping them from going to watch their favourite football team, watch their favourite football team, to imposing a restriction zone that requires them to stay within a requires them to stay within a particular area.

The noble Lord, the noble Lord Keen and noble Lord the noble Lord Keen and noble Lord Sandhurst have quite rightly raised questions about how these are to be enforced and monitored. Their amendments would prevent the court from imposing these requirements. If there are not enough arrangements for enforcement in place, or the court does not believe they can be enforced, and they seek to ensure that the relevant authority supervises requirements imposed by the court, I hope it will help noble Lords, if I begin to explain how these orders will be monitored and enforced.

And it is very important to remember that community and suspended sentence orders are already a well established part of the justice system. This bill simply expands the range of options available to judges when they pass a sentence. As with all current community requirements, probation staff will monitor an offender's compliance with their order. They use a range of tools to do that, such as intelligence from partners, including the police. This includes electronic monitoring where appropriate, and probation staff are already skilled in using these tools to enforce community orders.

If probation staff learn about non-compliance, they have a range of options. They could return the offender to court, which can result in even more onerous requirements. They can impose a fine, and in more serious cases, they can even send the offender to custody. I hope that an example will help illustrate this. Let us imagine that Harry, an ardent supporter of Sheffield United Football Club, is banned from attending football matches under one of the new community requirements. To enforce this order, the court has ordered that he must wear an electronic tag.

Harry breaches his community order by going to a game. His probation officer learns about this from the data from his tag. In other circumstances, a breach may be identified through intelligence sharing between agencies. They decide that the breach is serious enough to return Harry to court, where he receives a further fine. So, in short, these new requirements will be enforced by probation staff who are skilled and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experienced in enforcing similar requirements. And this government is making sure that the probation service has the capacity to do. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. Vital job and keep the public safe through recruitment, increased funding and investing in technology, including even more alcohol tags, which the noble Baroness Hamwee which the noble Baroness Hamwee kind of referred to, but of a new sort of alcohol test, which I'm unaware of but sounds interesting. unaware of but sounds interesting. I must also emphasise that the bill does not require the courts to use these requirements. Critically, the these requirements. Critically, the court must determine that any requirements imposed are the most suitable for achieving the purposes suitable for achieving the purposes of sentencing.

So for all the reasons I've set out, the government's view is that these amendments are not necessary. The noble Lord has also tabled amendments requiring venues to be notified of any ban. I appreciate what this amendment is trying to achieve, but would gently say that it is unnecessary. The duty to comply rests with the offender and enforcement rests with the probation service. We do not believe it would be appropriate to place, even by implication, a burden of enforcement on hard working businesses.

As I have already noted, probation officers are responsible for supervising offenders serving their sentences in the community and taking enforcement action where necessary, and they are a skilled and experienced people. They are skilled and experienced in doing so, and I'm glad that we have. We've had the opportunity to discuss these amendments today. I hope I've given noble Lords greater clarity about how these amendments will be both imposed and enforced. And I ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a system of measuring one's breath. And so if you are deemed to have drunk, then it stops the car ignition. And it's worked very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ignition. And it's worked very successfully in other countries. I thank the noble Baroness Cass.
18:01
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very interesting and I will take it back to the department. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. My Lords, I'm grateful for the explanation given by noble Lord, explanation given by noble Lord, the Minister, but the issues at stake here are not theoretical practical questions about how these conditions will actually work and will they be real and meaningful and enforceable. The government has repeatedly asserted confidence and suspended sentence, and the expanded use of community based requirements. If that confidence is well placed, then these amendments should be entirely uncontroversial. They do nothing more than ensure that what is ordered by a judge can be delivered.

In reality, we are not seeking to impose obligations to enforce the. Obligations on, for example, the whoever, the licensee of a public house. But they should know so that they are free then to pass the information on to the police or the probation service, because they won't want someone there who is the subject of an order and it will be a public house order, for example, because there has the offender has a particular issue with behaviour in such places. So too with that football grounds or other specified events.

The host, if that's the right word, should be informed and it should know that a particular individual, if recognised, should not be on his premises and can be turned away. The noble Lady Baroness Fox has, with her usual acuity, pointed to the civil liberty aspects of this as well. I won't embark on those, but she is certainly also identified practical and policy issues underlying these provisions. In clauses 13 to 16, we suggest on these benches that these amendments insert a simple and reasonable test.

They do not impose a condition unless compliance can realistically be monitored in practice by the Probation Service, and the probation Service will need help from the hosts. My Lords, it's not radical to say that orders issued by a court should carry weight, a prohibition that cannot, in practice be checked and will not be checked is not a deterrent, a restriction that cannot be enforced and will not be enforced is not a restriction. Without these safeguards, we will create orders that are performative rather than protected.

That will offer only the illusion of safety to communities and to victims. The government itself used this precise standard when justifying reforms elsewhere in the bill, for example, removing rehabilitative activity days because the system and I quote, did not operate effectively in practice. These provisions in 13 to 16, if they are to be in force, must be enforceable in practice and must be effective. If a condition is imposed. But nobody has a duty to enforce it, then it's not a condition at all.

The probation service is not going to have time to go running round the pubs and football grounds and so on. It's going to have to rely on information from other people. These amendments simply ensure that the supervising authority has responsibility for enforcement, and is given the means to do so, rather than the vague hope that somebody may intervene if they happen to notice a breach. Without this duty. We repeat here that the failures seen with criminal behaviour orders and football banning orders were thousands of breaches each year.

Go unpursued and offenders learn that compliance is optional will be repeated. Public confidence will not be restored by rhetoric. In fact, it will be damaged. It will be damaged by visible consequences, namely failures to enforce. The government is proposing to release more offenders into the community under suspended and community based regimes. That's a political choice. Having chosen that path, it must choose the responsibility to ensure that it works and that it is safe. We should not be asking the British government to accept greater risk, while refusing the safeguards that would mitigate that risk.

Ministers who believe that this strategy will reduce reoffending should have no objection to tests of practicability, enforcement duties and notification requirements. To oppose these amendments, they must be justified as to why they will be unenforceable, unmonitored, unaccountable conditions. That's a hard case to make to the victims, to police officers on the street or the public whose safety is being traded away. The amendments we put forward are not obstructive. They are supportive. They will help, indeed allow the government's policy to function in the real world, not just on the printed page.

If we are going to put offenders back in the community who might not otherwise have been there, indeed probably would not have been the very least, we the public, is confident that these conditions will be monitored, enforced. So I urge the government to look again at these amendments and to reflect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. For now, I withdraw them. Is it your. Pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill, as many of
18:07
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Clause 14, amendment 60 Baroness Hamwee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I too am intrigued concerned as to how these concerned as to how these conditions will be monitored and conditions will be monitored and enforced. I didn't support the amendments which are aimed at the same question in the last group, same question in the last group, because I don't think we should make, for instance, the licensee of make, for instance, the licensee of a pub or the operator of a sports ground, the enforcer of conditions. ground, the enforcer of conditions.

We, many of us have been critical We, many of us have been critical enough in the area of immigration about making landlords and so on. Enforcers of government legislation. But I think there's still a lot to explore in this. I said that I assumed that the answer was going to be electronic monitoring, but how is that to be done? Unless you're requiring the offender to be confined to a particular place to home, for instance, and they're not as strict as that, they're excluding certain events.

So does somebody need to know where events are taking place, an Oasis concert or a Premier League match, or a fringe theatre with a tiny capacity? Does how is this actually checked? The Minister said that the probation officer will get the data from a tag. I don't know enough about how these work to know whether the probation officer can easily find out whether somebody has has actually attended a Sheffield United match. How how is that actually done in practice on a day to day basis? Does does the probation officer have the GPS coordinates for everything? That might be an issue? I really think it would be helpful if we can understand more about this.

I'm also a bit a bit concerned about live facial recognition. If it's being used, I don't know whether it's going to be used, but that works on the basis of a watch list which is created for a particular occasion. But then, as I understand it would be deleted, not something which would go on for several months. And I had thought that live facial recognition was only for the period of surveillance. So I think I'm asking for much more briefing on this, which obviously we then want to be in the public domain, but we need to understand it first.

My noble friend Lord Marks will be speaking to our amendment 106, but I can't overemphasise the importance of this amendment or something like it. The objective is reducing reoffending, so one must enable employment, education and rehabilitation program and so on. We know from the experience of other orders, for instance, the requirement to report to a police station can be imposed with absolutely no regard on the demands on an individual who is then forced to take a day off work.

So I'll be interested to hear how the enforcement actually works. With the support for the offender, which is implicit in the activities. And my noble friend Lord Foster Bath, in making the overarching point about necessity and proportionality, has hit on what is, to my mind, a very important point. I wish I'd thought of it, but I support him in this. I beg to move. Amendment 16.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 14, page 29, line 23 after requirement page 29, line 23 after requirement insert. If enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practical or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practical or. My Lords, I rise to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment's standing. My name 61, 66, 102 and 104, and I find myself 66, 102 and 104, and I find myself in the unusual position of broadly agreeing with the noble Baroness, agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the amendment 60. My Lords, this is an example. I
18:13
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is an example. I suppose you could call it legislative drag, where time has elapsed between the publication of legislation, which in this case, I think the Second Reading in the Commons was the beginning of September and real life events today, because I want to actually talk about the broader context of how these proposals and policies may impact, particularly on the hospitality sector. My Lords, we do not oppose in principle the creation of new tools to protect the public or manage offenders.

But their successors, other noble Lords have said, depends significantly on enforceability. And clauses 14 and 15 lack any operational detail on how pub or event attendants, organisations, those bands will be implemented or enforced, making them currently unworkable. In practice. It's unrealistic and unfair to expect pubs, bars, off licences and event venues to police. Court ordered bans without a clear enforcement structure. The hospitality sector is already in severe financial distress and I'll return to that shortly.

If enforcement is. Enforcement is not intended to fall on venues, the government must explain how probation and policing will manage compliance, giving existing resources and the staffing crises that we discussed on day one of committee of this bill. Parliament is being asked to expand suspended sentences without meaningful clarity on how offenders will be safely managed in the community, and the amendments call for government transparency and practical detail before sweeping new powers are approved. And they are sweeping powers.

So we have to ask the question are they enforceable? Are they practical? Are they affordable, are they realistic? Or do they put too much resource intensive pressure on the hospitality sector, already under huge strain, to become de facto agents of the criminal justice system? A point the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee mentioned by policing these policies and proposals. The hospitality sector is struggling as never before, with energy bills, unaffordable, wage increases, falling consumer confidence hikes in national insurance payments, half £1 billion potentially on holiday taxes to be imposed and mass and a massive increase in business rates through revaluation of rateable values.

Increases in rateable values will see a pub, for instance, paying an extra, the average pub £12,900 more in business rates in the next three years. Astonishingly, the figures that UK hospitality have released in the last day or so show that there will be a 76% increase for pubs and 115% for hotels by 2029. In respect of business rates and the office for National Statistics data predicts the sector will this year, by the end of this year, lose 110,000 jobs by the beginning of 2026.

And the and the Chancellor is only implementing a quarter of the reduction in business rate bills promised earlier this year. And business rates relief has been cut by this government. What we've seen effectively is a stealth tax on the hospitality sector. My Lords, these regulatory changes in clause 14, clauses 14 and 15, may well spend the and spell the end of of some businesses on the tipping point of viability. The pubs Advisory Service figures show that the number of pubs in the UK has decreased, decreased by 5% in the last three years, but the average value of the properties have gone up by 36.8% per pub.

So we're talking about a significant bureaucratic encumbrance for many of these big for many of these businesses. My Lords, the government, I think, and Ministers, the noble Lord, the Minister, should address the big questions. Who will manage this policy? What's the structure for the enforcement? Who will be responsible for compliance? Where is the transparency, accountability and above all the details? The noble Lord, the Minister, must address all these issues and not just hope for the best and fall back on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secondary legislation. Right? I give way to the crossbenchers,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to the crossbenchers, of course. Right. I rise briefly to express my scepticism. I have to express my scepticism. I have to say, about amendments 60, 61 and 66, because they do seem to me in each respect to be impractical. So far respect to be impractical. So far as 60 is concerned. I find myself looking at the phrase if enforcement of the requirement is enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable, well, in one sense is perfectly sensible.

But who's going to determine that? But who's going to determine that? Is it going to be a justiciable issue? Is the Probation Service going to hop up and say, I'm afraid we can't do that? And what if the defendant says, oh, yes, you can. We get we get ourselves into an extraordinary situation, and indeed there will be some adverse consequences, too, because a judge might be very inclined to make such an order, which in principle is highly desirable, but there is some doubt as to the possibility of it being enforced.

So this seems to me to be a tricky road down which to go. And then I go and look at
18:19
18:20
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendment 101 a. This bill introduces a provision to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence, without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. Such oversight will guard against unintended consequences and provide due process for both victims and offenders. It will afford both victims and offenders an opportunity to make representations to an independent judicial body before licence conditions are imposed, and subsequently should changes in circumstances arise.

For example, a victim may want to leave or enter the restricted area or seek a variation to enable them to do so without fear. A restriction zone is highly onerous, restricting almost every aspect of a person's life, including their ability to work, receive specialised medical care, and see family. Any application to leave the zone places a huge administrative burden on the authorities. The proposed new restriction is a significant step akin to control orders now replaced by the terrorism Prevention and investigation measures, but without any requirement for judicial oversight.

Those those assessed as terrorism risk are currently have the benefit from initial oversight from the High Court to allow for an evaluative judgement as to the necessity and proportionality of such conditions, and have got have got ongoing opportunities for review. This amendment seeks to introduce judicial review by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones, the Parole Board oversight of such conditions will be an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed on offenders, and will also provide an opportunity for victims to voice any potential impact on them before an independent body.

Significant point is that there should be a judicial oversight and parole board, in my view, is an appropriate body as it has the expertise and the capacity. High court will be more expensive and more onerous. I appreciate that the Parole board does not have a enough on have not oversight of licence conditions set for standard determinate sentences, sentenced prisoners or whereas a restriction could technically be imposed on them. However, there is no reason why the standard sentence prisoners could not be could not be referred to the parole board if they were being considered for restrictive zone conditions.

So the principle point I'm trying to make is to ensure that there is an official oversight on these onerous conditions. Back to you. conditions. Back to you.
18:23
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. On the 20th of September this year, there were 26,647 people subject to electronic monitoring, various types of tags for a range of different purposes. And it's been estimated that the the bill before us will increase the number of people being tagged by an additional 20,000. In other words, this bill will double more or less the number of people being tagged. And during our deliberations, we've already heard the Minister making clear that it is his understanding that the vast majority of people who leave prison will be among those 20,000 people who are going to be tagged.

And although it is true that there is guidance that says the defender's release from prison will enter a period of intensive supervision tailored to their risk and type of crime, it does acknowledge that probation officers will be allowed some discretion as to whether all of the prisoners leaving will be tagged. But, my Lords, my real concern is that probation officers who've heard the Minister say the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged are going to end up tagging the vast majority of prisoners.

And that's why I have moved amendment 110ZA, the purpose of which is to require the relevant authority when considering whether to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a relevant order, to have regard to whether the requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the order, and whether the requirement is proportionate considering the individual circumstances. Now, My Lords, the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee did an investigation into tagging as it currently stands, and we looked ahead at what might be coming down the track, and we heard a number of worrying bits of evidence.

For instance, we heard about a 77 year old woman who was recalled to prison simply because there wasn't a tag small enough to fit her. And we heard from very many people the stigma that is attached to them while wearing a tag, even to the point at which people who see the tag, they're pretty obvious in many cases are frightened by these people believing that they're dangerous. None of this, of course, helps them to re-establish themselves back in their local communities.

And we also discover a number of real, serious ethical issues. For instance, evidence that black people are almost twice as likely to be subjected to electronic monitoring as their white counterparts. And even the Home Office itself acknowledged this in a 2023 report on an equality impact assessment, which which acknowledges that GPS tagging may disproportionately affect some nationalities. Now, the MoJ told our committee that it too accepted the electronic monitoring might not be suitable for all individuals and addressed issues like work, childcare commitments and so on.

And of course, other measures that rarely are taken into account. One very good example a prisoner I spoke to who was on a curfew order but had got into prison because of his gambling addiction, stolen money, got into prison as a result, then on release had a curfew order, and when he said he wanted to go to a meeting of Gamblers Anonymous, he was told he couldn't because that took place in the evening when the curfew applied. Now, that seems to me fairly nonsensical.

So, my Lords, we came to the conclusion as a committee that the MoJ, alongside the judiciary and the probation Service, should conduct regular reviews to ensure electronic monitoring is being used proportionately across all groups, as well as appropriately among vulnerable groups, of whom women. We highlighted in particular. So, my Lords, in raising this amendment, I just want to draw attention to the concern the committee had about the rather blanket assumption that all prisoners of the vast majority of prisoners would be tagged.

Whereas we think it's really important, as the noble Baroness Prashar has said, and in fact, in subsequent amendments that we're going to hear, we're going to hear similar arguments. The noble Lord, Lord keen, has got an amendment in the next group on this particular issue. And indeed in in group seven, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raises the important issue of allowing offenders to have a say in this so they can point out the impact that a tag of one sort or another for a particular purpose may have affecting their lives, and possibly not being able to go to work or do childcare issues or whatever it might, might be.

And my my noble friend on the front bench has got some amendments down later on looking at driving bands and exclusion zones and whether they could impact somebody's ability to really reduce re-offending. So, my Lords, it's simply an opportunity for the Minister to explain that he doesn't really believe that the vast majority of prisoners are going to go, and that probation officers with the expertise, he points out, that they have, will be able to have discretion to decide whether or not a tagging electronic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

monitoring is appropriate. Very briefly beg the indulgence of the House just to respond to my of the House just to respond to my noble and learned friend, Viscount Hailsham. It seems to me he wishes Hailsham. It seems to me he wishes to wheel the ends, but not the means in this. In terms of my amendment 61 and 66, what I would
18:30
18:30
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. And I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category that is prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events, may generally be too wide in any case, because it's going to be very difficult to define a public event.

And moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability, but with enforcement spoken to in the last group by the noble Lady, Baroness Fox and the noble Lord Viscount Hogg foresaw difficulties in determining practicability which he thought might be fatal to these conditions, and I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question, really, for the House in considering whether these restrictions ought to be permitted, these conditions ought to be permitted, is to see how far they would, in practice be imposed, if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability, because I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points, if I can put it that way, relating to community orders and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence.

As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the noble Lord, Lord Jackson's point that it's pretty easy to find out whether pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and new intelligence gathering techniques might be needed to address. But when I talk about justification, it's right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part, at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement.

They are in part, therefore punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, a far more serious punishment and one that with in the with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender being having the opportunity of undertaking any rehabilitative activity at all. And the other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer.

And it does seem to me that although I have some sympathy with the noble Lady Baroness Fox on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, first, monitoring by tagging is no different than monitoring by curfew or monitoring by a residence requirement, which we've had for a very great deal of time. But the new technology enables a more flexible approach and a wider approach to conditions. But I do remind the noble Lady Baroness Fox that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.

Turning to amendment 106, in my name, the amendment would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes and that those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restrictions and conditions, and the purpose of this amendment in each of its subclauses is to enable both the courts, when imposing conditions, and probation professionals, to weigh in the balance.

On the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims, which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition against the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It's a classic balancing exercise that's undertaken of a type that's undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity. And that's really what we're talking about here.

The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of the amendment is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So the condition should still be could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions which will permit the desirable activity. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting Baroness Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions.

And of course I see that. But my Lords, these conditions are not perfect. They will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. But in practice, I suggest that for the most part, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach. Questions of affordability were raised and of course, more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions.

But they those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody. The noble Lady Baroness Prashar raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the parole board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I'm not quite sure how that will work. It seems an onerous obligation on the parole board, but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones in a general sense that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges as to how they're to be imposed, and by training of probation officers as to how they are to be implemented on electronic monitoring, of which the noble Lady Baroness Fox spoke, I suggest that it is proportionate that if it is a proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with her points. My Lords. I wish to begin by speaking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and in doing so, I'm Peterborough, and in doing so, I'm sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of already expressed in other parts of the House with regard to these provisions in the bill. It's already been made clear that we on these benches do not, in principle, oppose the idea of giving courts
18:38
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody. And we support that aim. But clauses 14 and 15 do little more than to say courts now have these powers. The government has provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced, and a ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise.

And indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence. The government wants this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community based orders, yet to support them in this effort. They are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub bands, club bands, concert bands, public event bands without actually explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan, my Lords, are we seriously proposing that every pub, every bar, every off licence and every concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? I mean, the result is unacceptable.

If such pub bands become unenforceable and is reduced to a tick box exercise in sentencing documents, while nothing on the ground actually changes, then the sanction becomes meaningless. And that is not an improvement in justice. My Lords, the burden such a regime places on hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. And already pubs and nightlife venues are under severe financial and structural pressure. As we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association, as a consequence of the National Insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed upon these venues by the government.

Some 209 pubs have closed permanently, an average of eight a week, and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, let alone unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court, impose bans on individuals under threat of legal liability. I'm obliged to the musical accompaniment that my Lords, my Lords, the government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie in public events or drinking establishments, but in that case they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a probation service, which everyone would accept was already under severe strain, and simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough.

We do require specifics. If we are to trust that the government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community, if the government cannot explain clearly how these bands will be notified, enforced or policed, then how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these benches must ask, on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders? If we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work without detail of the most basic respects in respect of banning access to pubs or events, the amendments offer a simple test.

Before we hand out sweeping powers to courts. They require the government to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified. Pumps, events, promoters, the police. What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishment? How will these bands be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring the state? The probation service venues? If the government cannot provide that clarity, then these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions.

They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real world effect. And that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and indeed, public safety. My Lords, the choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers. The choice is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community based orders. They demand that if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith.

We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and indeed to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues. The noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee moved her amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to an important question that is again central to the debate concerning these orders and the noble Lord Marks moved his amendment 106 again, an amendment that would allow for exemptions to restrictions on conditions such as to allow person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programs.

I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the government's response on these points regarding the part of the amendment, which requires an annual report on the use and effectiveness, we on these benches would support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that these provisions in the bill are working or will work. My Lords, we therefore fully support the amendments and the name of my noble friend, Lord Jackson, and we look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the Minister's response to what are important probing amendments with regard to the Bill.

amendments with regard to the Bill.
18:45
18:46
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
largely focussed on enforceability, but I as as yet in the previous group, the noble Lord, the Minister claimed that these kind of prohibitions were part of punishment, and he's right to suggest these punishments for those suggest these punishments for those people who are not in prison, but they are still being punished. But they are still being punished. But I, I'm, I'm not finding it easy to understand how these particular orders punish the individuals. Are they related to the crimes they committed? The example the noble committed? The example the noble Lord gave earlier was, you know, as part of punishment, you will be prevented from going to a particular football match.

I understand if you're supporting Liverpool at the moment, that might be not so much. Would it be a punishment to go and watch? Never mind anything else. But I mean it's it's is it how does it get decided. Who what the punishments are. And I really thought the example the noble Lord, Lord foster gave of the potential downside of saying, we'll have a curfew and you can't attend your gambling and on your meeting. But also if we're actually going to say that as part of punishment, you can't go to public gatherings.

Who decides what public gatherings? Some public gatherings are obviously morally good for people. Do we not want them to go to a political public gathering? So can you just clarify how it's decided which person in the community gets one of these orders, and who makes the decision about who should be banned from what pub, what football match, what public gathering, what political? Gathering or what have you.
18:48
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and Baroness. Prashar, Lord Marks, Lord foster and Lord Jackson for tabling these amendments. Amendment 60, 61 and 66 refer to the enforcement of the new community requirements, and I hope the noble Lady and noble Lord will be satisfied with the summary of the answer I gave regarding the previous group. The responsibility for enforcement sits with the Probation Service, who have a range of options available to respond to non-compliance. This includes returning the offender to court where they may face further penalties, and this can include being sent to custody.

The noble Baroness asked how this works in practice and I hope I can assist where electronic monitoring is imposed, electronic monitoring service provider will receive an automatic breach notification if the offender should breach a licence condition predetermined by a court or probation officer, they will then provide information on the breach to the probation officer by 10:00 the following morning for them to then take the appropriate action. And if the noble Baroness would like further clarification and to speak to the experts that I work alongside, I'd be very happy to arrange that.

I turn now to the amendment 102 104 regarding enforcement of new licence conditions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. As with the new community Order requirements, enforcement of licence conditions will mirror current practice where they are supervising offenders. Probation will monitor offenders behaviour and any potential breach of licence conditions. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to the breaches, and these include issuing a warning and increasing supervision where needed. It also includes records custody. Again, I hope that an example will assist your lordships.

Lucy has received has recently been released from prison after serving a custodial sentence after seriously assaulting someone in a pub. Her licence condition includes a ban from entering any drinking establishment. After several weeks, Lucy admits to her probation officer that she has frequently been going to pubs and clubs, even though she has not been arrested. Her probation officer decides that more intensive supervision is needed to manage her risk and puts this in place. As with community orders where an offender is on licence, there is no expectation for businesses or venues to manage these conditions.

And as the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham rightly pointed out, imagine a probation officer already under under pressure, having to notify every pub, every bar and every venue within 20 miles that certain offences, certain offenders cannot go there. Imagine businesses having to securely store, monitor and update this information and by implication then be responsible for enforcing these conditions. This is not for venues or people in the community to manage, and it will not help offenders to integrate back into their communities.

Probation will continue their management and supervision of these offenders, and are best placed to respond to any breaches, including recalling them to prison if necessary. But we must be clear we cannot monitor every offender, every moment of every day, and nor should we. Complying with licence conditions is an important way in which offenders can show a reduction in their risk as they reintegrate into their communities. It is how they can rebuild the trust that they have lost by committing the crimes.

The punishment correlates to offending behaviour and the decision of the sentencer, who takes into account the nature of the offence. I hope this reassures both noble Lords and Baroness Baroness Lea that these measures will provide our probation service with a full suite of options to support them in managing offenders in the community, a task they are best equipped to do. And of course, we're also supporting the probation service with more funding, more recruitment and better tools to help them do what they do best keeping the public safe.

We therefore believe that these amendments are necessary, and I urge the noble Lords to withdraw them. On that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With all due respect to the noble Lord, the Minister, that's not a great example, because the not a great example, because the example he gives is that Lucy has volunteered that information, that she's in breach of her licence she's in breach of her licence conditions, given that the licence conditions are de facto a replacement for potential custodial centres, had she not told the probation officer she's still in breach of the licence conditions, breach of the licence conditions, she's still going to the pub.

So I don't really think that's a great example. With all due respect to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister. Well, I'm happy to provide further examples if that was helpful, but it may be that the tag, helpful, but it may be that the tag, if Lucy had had one on, would have been used by the monitoring team to identify where she had been or where she hadn't have been. And of course, we're also we therefore believe. I also thank Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord Marks for amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restrictions and conditions.

I am proud to be a Minister in the government that has introduced this measure. These will pin certain offenders down to a specific geographical area to ensure that victims can move freely everywhere else. I must pay tribute to those who campaigned tirelessly for this crucial change, including Diana Parks and Healthy Barkworth Nanton. I hope it will help your lordships if I explain how the process of drawing a restriction zone will work in a little more detail, where restriction zone is deemed necessary and proportionate to manage risk, probation officers will will conduct a detailed risk assessment.

They work closely with victim liaison officers to ensure that victims have been given the chance to make representations where appropriate, but they must also ensure that offenders can access all necessary services, including employment, with consideration for public protection and risk. They must not be a barrier to employment nor prevent rehabilitation. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, the noble Lords will know that this is the last thing that I would want to happen. On a recent visit to the Serco offices in Warrington, I saw first hand how exclusion zones are designed.

I saw the detailed consideration and care that is taken when developing them. I'll ensure that the same level of attention is given to restriction zones when those are being drawn, with due consideration given to both the needs of the victim and the offender. And let us be clear, these considerations are inextricably linked. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycling of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that restriction zones protect victims. So restriction zones, like all restrictive measures, must accommodate rehabilitative aims like employment.

That way, we will better protect not just a single victim, but all victims. I'll now turn to amendment 100 101 A from the noble Baroness Baroness Prashar. This would give the parole Board oversight of restriction zones. While I thank the noble Lady for raising this question, my firm view, as I've set out throughout this speech, is that the probation service are best placed to monitor and request licence conditions, and that the the judiciary are the best place to hand out orders.

The Parole Board are best placed to develop risk management plans on release for indeterminate sentence and more serious determinate sentence offenders. They direct the release of it is not for them to do so. In cases where offenders are subject to automatic release. If an offender is released automatically without any involvement of the parole board, it would be inappropriate for the board to then be asked to approve a restriction zone for an offender whose release they did not direct, they would have no knowledge of the individual and their case.

As with current provisions, it is right that that probation will manage the licence for these cases. They are the ones who know the offender and the risk they pose best. I also thank Lord the noble Lord foster for his amendment 110 Z a and agree that it is important to ensure electronic monitoring is imposed where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. When electronic monitoring condition is being considered following an individual's release from custody, probation will carry out an extensive assessment of that individual's circumstances.

This is to ensure electronic monitoring is used appropriately as part of their wider supervision. Conducting these assessments via the professional judgement of our probation service remains a core principle to ensure that electronic monitoring is only used where proportionate and necessary. I have full confidence in the checks and decisions taken by the probation service, and I have confidence in the technology that is used to enforce any electronic monitoring requirement. I can also assure the noble Lord that electronic monitoring, suitably suitability checks currently in place and carried out by probation are robust.

They ensure the imposition of electronic monitoring will not result in harm to victims or perpetrators. We are confident that probation officers will continue to impose electronic monitoring where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. My noble Lords, I urge you to withdraw your amendment.
18:57
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this is one of those occasions when scrutiny is occasions when scrutiny is important both to the proponents important both to the proponents and the opponents of a proposition. Some of us want to make sure it works. Others want to show that it won't. And I hope, too, that the won't. And I hope, too, that the the Minister will understand that certainly from these benches, we are not seeking to oppose what he's planning, but to understand how it planning, but to understand how it will work.

To me, it's identifying where there's a breach, which is the the big question mark. And I enthusiastically accept his suggestion that there is further briefing that we can can have there. I never like doing things in private, but I think that's a necessary step. The noble Viscount, I think, was criticising my drafting rather than the substance. At least I hope that was the case. And I, I know of the case of the lady whose wrists were too slim to take a tag.

It was worse than that. She kept being told she was in breach because she was. It was being understood that she was refusing to wear a tag, whereas she couldn't. So there are a lot of situations that one can't quite imagine until one discovers that actually they have happened. I'm sure we will come back to to this subject of enforcement. I have to say, I'm relieved. Having had a look at the relevant clause just now, that these are not among the provisions which will commence immediately on passing of the act,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure
18:59
19:00
None Portrait Amendment:65 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments tabled by this group of amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As we've already seen, the bill introduces new prohibition powers, prohibitions on attending public events, restrictions on public events, restrictions on entering drinking establishments, restriction zones, limiting movement, electronic monitoring to enforce compliance, and in principle. This, of course, all principle. This, of course, all sounds very sensible, but we must again ask the critical question how again ask the critical question how will these powers work on the ground? The laws, the prohibitions, for example, with respect to drinking establishments? Legally, the offender must comply, but enforcement is then shared.

Probation must monitor, the police must act. And in practice, of course, this is far from straightforward. How will breaches be reliably detected? GPS or electronic monitoring may indicate proximity but cannot confirm entry. Reporting from licensees or police may be inconsistent. Once a breach is detected. How quickly can probation services respond, and are resources sufficient to manage multiple offenders across wide areas? Without clarity, we cannot be confident that these powers will actually work. And that is precisely why amendment 71 and 76 are moved.

They require the probation service to record and publish breaches, repeat breaches and underlying offences. They also probed the reliability of electronic monitoring. Can GPS monitoring operate reliably in towns, cities and rural areas? Will probation teams receive training to know how and when to respond? We know, as I've said before, that probation services are already stretched. Surely new powers that add a substantial responsibility to their workload have to be considered with care, and we simply seek clarity as to how these services will actually be managed in these circumstances.

The Lords, these amendments come from a place of reality, not of opposition. They affirm the government's policy while probing further. It can be delivered reliably, and I look forward to the Minister's response on how these powers will operate in amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 14. Insert the new clause as 14. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled First Amendment 65.
19:02
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 65. I thank the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Sandhurst for their amendments. The new community requirements in clauses 13 to 16 are vital reforms, and I am glad that I have had the opportunity to speak to them in some detail today. Amendment 65, 71 and 75 seeks require HMPPS to publish the number of offenders who breach these requirements and to log what their associated offences were. And while I am sympathetic to the intent behind it, we do not agree that it is necessary.

The Ministry of Justice already publishes detailed sentence outcome statistics. This includes the type of disposals handed out at court and is split by detailed offences and offender characteristic. We regularly assess the effectiveness of all community requirements. HMPPS range of staffing and caseload data, and we must be conscious of adding more work into the service. We also place great value on the independent oversight and assurance provided by Inspectorate of Probation. They already inspect the service and provide insight into how it is performing.

Given the information that is already available. We do not agree that adding a statutory requirement to publish this information is either necessary or proportionate. But I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will keep an open mind. I will continue to review regularly what data is published, what can be stopped and what can be added. I now turn to amendment 74 and 76, which probe the use of electronic monitoring to enforce restriction zones as part of a community or suspended sentence order.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments and with regards to amendment 74, I can reassure them that we believe that electronic monitoring will be imposed alongside these orders. In the vast majority of cases, however, electronic monitoring is not appropriate in all cases. Some offenders have no fixed abode. They may live complex and chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up these individuals to fail, instead of helping them to improve outcomes for victims, the public and the offender themselves, a court will be able to impose a restriction zone without electronic monitoring when it cannot obtain the consent of someone whose cooperation is required, such as the home owner, or where the appropriate local arrangements are not in place to enable electronic monitoring or where it would be inappropriate.

We believe it is right that the decision about what requirements to include as part of the sentence sits with the judiciary hearing the individual case. If a court does not believe the restriction zone will be effective without electronic monitoring, then it has a range of other requirements at its disposal. And when a requirement is not electronically monitored, probation will monitor offenders behaviour for any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches. If they identify that they have not complied, for example from police, intelligence or victim concerns.

I will end by briefly turning to the question of how these are to be monitored in practice, and the reliability of the technology that allows them to do so. The use of electronic monitoring to enforce these requirements will mean we receive retrospective data that provides clear evidence of an individual's whereabouts. This ensures that those receiving a restriction zone are robustly monitored. GPS is a reliable technology that has been part of electronic monitoring since 2018. This will allow probation to assess whether someone has breached their restriction zone.

And as I've said before, if this happens, probation staff have a range of enforcement options at their disposal. I thank the I thank noble, the noble Lord, for the constructive discussions on these matters, but I hope I provided sufficient reassurance on the on the points that have been raised. And I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we've already discussed why transparency, discussed why transparency, reporting and practical assurances are essential, first of all, on are essential, first of all, on enforcement. Enforcement is only as good as the system supporting it. It's not enough to create It's not enough to create restrictions in law if those tasked with monitoring them lack the resources and capacity to act resources and capacity to act effectively. Secondly, repeat offenders are a particular concern if data on repeated breaches is not recorded and published, the restrictions risk being meaningless for those most likely to violate them.

Thirdly, my Lords, public confidence is at stake here to create a law that cannot be implemented correctly is unwise. Restrictions that are not transparent, not measurable, and not enforceable will undermine trust in the entire system. My Lord, these amendments are not intended as a challenge to the principles in the Bill. They are seeking. Again, operational clarity. And therefore, while at this time I'm willing to withdraw these amendments, I indicate to the noble Lord, the Minister, that we will return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them at a later stage. The amendments are withdrawn. Is it your lordships pleasure
19:08
19:09
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Bach, and with one caveat that I'll come on to in a second. I'm also attracted by the amendments in the name of Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. But, my Lords, I begin really by declaring my interest as the chairman of Pearson Gambling reform. And I do so now because the thrust of this group of amendments is about the lack of reference to tackling gambling disorder in the criminal justice system and the need to do something about it. Anyone who is looking at the BBC news headlines only today may have noticed the headline Skipton gambling addict fuelled habit with company funds.

And the article goes on to point out that a web developer has been jailed for fraud after siphoning more than half £1 million from the company he worked for to fuel his gambling addiction. But my Lords, when you see in all the legislation, all the guidance, all the support and help that's given, that disorders caused by drug and alcohol addiction are frequently referred to in all the procedures, processes, guidances about how the probation service, the prison Service and the judiciary should handle various stages.

When a suspect or offender engages with the criminal justice system. But gambling disorder isn't. I believe it should be, and these amendments offer a way forward. Part of the role of sentencing is to consider how best to reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending, where, for example, it's been identified that a person is a drug addict, or that he or she committed crime to raise funds to pay for the habit that is frequently taken into account, for example, by adding a treatment condition or giving a non-custodial sentence rather than a custodial one, so that more effective treatment can be provided to reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

But my Lord, since screening for gambling disorder rarely happens, it isn't taken into account in the sentencing process or in any subsequent stages during either custodial or a non-custodial sentence. Indeed, judges, for example, do not routinely consider gambling disorder as a mitigating factor in the same way that they do for drugs and alcohol disorders. Now, in the other place where a similar concern was raised, Ministers argued that gambling was a mental health issue, and since mental health did form part of the screening and sentencing decision, therefore gambling was covered.

No need to take any further action now. To some extent, my Lord, that is actually true. Both the World Health Organisation and the internationally recognised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put alcohol and drugs and gambling disorders under the umbrella mental health disorders. But critically, all three are then linked under a subcategory substance-related and addictive disorders. So in the Who and in the diagnostic manual, it is clear that they treat drug, alcohol and gambling as a separate group that need all three to be considered.

For quite a long time, however, we have referred in all the documentation to mental health and drug and alcohol issues, only separating out drugs and alcohol from other forms of mental health issues, since they do require a separate approach. Gambling isn't mentioned and this is actually borne out in the official documents that are currently used in the main assessment system, the Offender Assessment System Oasis, as it is called, which is used by both prison and probation staff guides on Oasis say it is used by prison and probation officers to assess the needs and risks of offenders specifically, specifically the risk of reoffending and the risk of harm.

The resulting assessment then helps formulate plans designed to reduce those risks. And chapter three of the latest Oasis guide under section 3.2.1 Likelihood of Reoffending Assessment, lists factors linked to offending, and the list covers things like accommodation, education, training, employability and relationships, drug misuse and alcohol misuse also appear, but there is no reference to gambling. Despite the very clear evidence, as we heard from that quote of the links between gambling disorder and crime. So currently the system fails in multiple interrelated ways.

First, identification is inconsistent and unreliable. Many individuals enter court or prison without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Second, courts rarely have access to gambling. Specific psychological reports, leaving judges without the evidence needed to make informed decisions about sentencing. Third, there is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences. Fourth, within prisons, treatment and peer support are largely absent and gambling culture remains pervasive.

Fifth, upon release, continuity of care is inconsistent. Individuals are discharged without referral to community gambling services, without peer support, without family support frameworks, leaving them highly vulnerable to relapse and to re-offend. The omission of gambling needs to be rectified only in September of this year. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, in their document Gambling Policy and the Criminal Justice System, called for it. Gambling, they argued, should be included in the assessment system and should be matched with measures including treatment orders and even gambling free wings in prison to help prevent those with gambling disorders from reoffending and more significantly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Nice guidelines call for it, recommending routine questioning about gambling, alongside questions about smoking, alcohol and substance abuse, even when no risk factors are obvious, and specifically specifically for the criminal justice system, the Nice guidance say screening about gambling should occur at each point of contact with the criminal justice system, including the police liaison and diversion courts, probation and prisons. So my amendment seeks to rectify the omission. So, for example, adding treatment orders, which would of course mean adding gambling to the assessment system.

Other amendments require probation and prison officers to ensure the availability, where appropriate, of gambling disorder treatment, with annual reports on the availability and use of such support treatments. Another recognising the need for specialist expertise about all three disorders drug, alcohol and gambling suggest the establishment of specialist teams within the Probation Service. The Minister earlier today told us we should let probation officers have freedom to use their skills and expertise to make thorough assessments of needs and risks. But my Lords, in the case of all three disorders drug, alcohol and gambling, it does require very specific expertise, which is why I think such teams should be established.

Another amendment looks at gambling related licence conditions for offenders on non-custodial sentences, and those leaving prison on some form of early release scheme, and amendment 70 introduces a gambling premises entry prohibition requirement, and subsequent amendments in the group provide the necessary details. Of course, my Lords, in proposing a gambling premises entry prohibition, rather like the other prohibitions we talked about earlier. I'm particularly conscious, in the case of gambling, the more serious, more harmful forms of gambling take part online.

And so if the noble Lord, the Minister, accepts the thrust of my amendment in my amendments about taking gambling more seriously than I'd be, more than happy to work with him and officials to develop a wider gambling prohibition requirement, using, for example, bank transactions to check on online gambling. Now, my Lords, I'm enormously grateful to the noble Lords Minister and the Lord Lyon for meeting me last week to discuss all of these issues. And I know that they do recognise the problems that are raised, and which my amendments in this group seek to resolve.

So I hope that before Report stage discussions can continue. So I'm very much looking forward to the Minister's response, but I do know that he is well aware of the problem that currently isn't being addressed within the criminal justice system. I hope together we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can find a way forward. Lord Jay I begin by apologising. I was waiting for the noble Lord to move it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move it. And I beg leave to move. I do apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologise. After clause 15, insert the new clause as printed on pages ten, 11 and 12 of the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 12 of the marshalled list. Amendment 70. I apologise to.
19:19
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to. The House for the intervention then and secondly, more importantly, for not having spoken at Second Reading, and I wasn't present due to domestic circumstances. Had I been present, I would have spoken about the importance of following up with really from Lord foster on the importance of addressing the problems that we have with those who are sentenced with addiction problems. And here I'd written down whether it be drink, drugs, gambling, sex, sugar, smoking and so on, and we find new addictions coming along all the time in these days.

So, my Lords, in this group, I'd like to speak to amendments 97 and 107. The the purpose behind these amendments is is fairly simple. It's to ensure that addicted prisoners are released before the or released before they can be classed to be well on the way to sobriety. And this can cover gambling as well as drink and drugs that the Justice Department will be prepared to provide funding, maybe from the prisons education budget, to fund the admission of these prisoners into residential recovery rehabilitation centres so that they can continue with their recovery.

And we saw with the recent early release programme, there are a number of people were prisoners were released then who were in prison undertaking recovery courses, in particular doing 12 step recovery courses were then just simply released and there was little follow up in the maintenance of their recovery afterwards. Some of those prisoners, however, are however, did find their way into some residential centres, so only a small number, and they were funded mainly by charities, all by the generosity of the centres who took them in.

And my Lords Baroness Hamwee mentioned in the earlier debates. Many of these centres are struggling. We've seen a reduction over the last ten years by a half in the number of rehabs around the country. We've got far fewer than we ever used to have, and many of the problems that are encountering, obviously is financial. Many of the patients they now take in are funded primarily by the major insurance companies, or alternatively, they get support from charities. And this really means that those who are at the bottom end of not working and don't have insurance or have little funds themselves or don't have contacts with charities, increasingly, we're finding those people at the bottom end, including prisoners, the finding it so difficult these days to get into residential recovery.

So what I'm suggesting with these rather modest little amendments here is that when prisoners are released, when they're in recovery, if they've not completed their course, they should be permitted to go into residential centres. If they're able to find them, who are willing to take them under, in turn, the cost of their residential accommodation and treatment would be met out of a budget to be provided by the Justice Department, and I would suggest it should come out of your education fund as a way of finding the means.

This would be money well invested. Hopefully it would ensure people found sobriety and hopefully it broke the cycle that we see so often of people going into prison due to their addiction coming out, getting back in the old company, drinking and drugging and gambling again, going round the circle and back in prison again, which is extraordinarily costly to society. There is an opportunity to get people into residential recovery that not only does the prisoner the prisoners benefit, but it benefits their family and it benefits the wider community too, in the best possible way.

So I hope that the Minister is prepared to give some favourable consideration to these ideas.
19:23
19:24
19:24
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
without saying how personally delighted I am at the Minister's Department today for having raised Department today for having raised legal aid rates in a number of very important areas like crime, immigration and housing. But on to my amendment, which would introduce my amendment, which would introduce an express right for their being made subject to licence conditions, made subject to licence conditions, to make representations about the to make representations about the about the necessity or the proportionality of, of the light of the conditions.

This amendment has the support of the Prison Reform Trust, who have been very helpful in their advice. Of course, those of us who enthusiastically support this bill argue that in order for prisoners agree that in order for prisons not to be overused, tough new measures are sensibly proposed. To restate the to restrain the behaviour and activities of offenders on release from prison, a suite of new and tough licence conditions, and I think it will be agreed between in the committee that licence conditions must, as a matter of law, be both necessary and proportionate.

This amendment gives offenders an express opportunity to make representations without disturbing, and this is the important part of the amendment. The Secretary of State or the Probation Service. In reality, the probation officer ultimate decision as to which conditions to impose. So there is no question of overriding the probation officer that you don't like it. The request is that the offender should be able to make some representation about the suitability or otherwise, as far as their individual cases concerned, this can be a safeguard against disproportionate and inappropriate use of conditions, which can, of course lead to increased recalls if they are the wrong conditions or not suitable, and thus increase pressure.

Even more pressure on our under a lot of pressure already prison system. It's an unintended consequence would be where conditions might impose impact on, for example, resettlement or other other matters such as employment and healthcare. And the idea is, of course, behind this amendment to prevent unnecessary recalls to prison. The irony there's a slight irony at present, for only for the most serious offences where where releasing is in the decision of the parole board. Is there a formal avenue for the offender to make representations, but not for offenders who don't go? Have to go through the parole board process? My Lords, this is a quick and a modest amendment and an attempt to find a way of ensuring that all offenders who may be subject to these measures, whether they're the new tough measures or not, can at least make representations before they are imposed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But, my Lords, I. Wanted to rise to support my noble friends and noble Lord, Lord noble friends and noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in the amendments they've spoken to in this group. they've spoken to in this group. Lord Foster, I thought, was quite right to draw attention to gambling right to draw attention to gambling and how that is a and it can be an addiction like other addictions which which are so prevalent within which which are so prevalent within the prisons.

And my noble friend Lord Bach made a I thought a very
19:28
19:30
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath for moving this group of amendments, providing care for individuals with addictions and gambling in particular, should be a fundamental role of a national health service, and we support his aims. As the noble Lords has explained, gambling addiction is a chronic issue across this country. Roughly 2.8% of all adults are engaged in at risk or problem gambling. A huge number of people either in need or at risk of needing support services.

His amendments highlight this issue and the need for our services properly to address gambling addiction. So too we support the sentiment behind the noble Lord, Lord Brooks Brooke of Alverthorpe approach to addiction recovery. Recovery services. Often, individuals with addiction either cannot accept or do not want to accept recovery services. To introduce a requirement to engage with services would serve these people. This is particularly the case in prisons. Last year there were almost 50,000 adults in recovery in alcohol and treat drug treatment in.

Centres, in prisons and secure settings. Almost 60% of those individuals were undergoing treatment for crack or opiates. That 60% comprises vulnerable individuals being treated for misuse of the harder substances. The principle behind the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath amendments one three, 1132 and 133 clearly reflects the reality of the situation. Moving there, we heard an interesting proposal from Lord Bach which merits consideration. And we've also heard an interesting speech from Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who of course has great experience as a Minister in this field.

We remain, however, not fully convinced that this group of amendments would have the desired effect. There is a large question mark standing over the or hovering over the whole of this bill. That is the general enforceability of the new orders that it introduces. We have explained that we do not agree with the decision to suspend sentences under 18 months. That is, 18 months because the government have opposed our guilty plea amendment. But if the government is to make this all work, the new orders they impose have to be effective.

And as I have said before, today, we are not convinced they will be. As I've already argued, the government's new drinking establishment entry prohibition requirement, realistically, is unenforceable. Public event attendance is too vague and too broad. The government's approach to new orders is largely deficient. We do not think that they should be taking on new responsibilities, even if there is a need for them, as is the case with gambling addiction, when they have demonstrated an incapacity to plan for the existing responsibilities which are being imposed.

The onus, therefore, is on government to demonstrate with the noble Lords. Well intentioned amendments can be accepted if possible and then implemented. We would like this to be the case, but if possible and only if possible. Gambling addiction and addiction in general requires attention from our state, but the state must first prove itself confident. We look forward to hearing the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. My Lords, I want to thank the
19:34
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lords for sharing their views and for tabling these amendments, which raise important issues around which raise important issues around tackling gambling harms and the harms caused by other addictions. Just last week, I met a prisoner at HMP Wormwood Scrubs whose life had been devastated by gambling harm. Although the data on gambling is limited, I understand that this is an important issue impacting the lives of offenders and their families. I will turn first to amendment 70 and 78, which would introduce new community order requirements one prohibiting an offender from entering a gambling establishment and one introducing a mandatory treatment requirement.

I wholeheartedly share the noble Lord Fox commitment to supporting offenders whose lives are impacted by gambling, and I can assure noble Lords that courts already have the power to prohibit offenders serving a community or suspended sentence from entering gambling premises. They can do this through a prohibited activity requirement. However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the menu of community requirements under close review. Clause 17 of this bill introduces a power to add or amend community requirements using secondary legislation.

This will provide further flexibility to ensure that the framework is kept relevant to the offending behaviour. I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord foster and my noble friend Lord Brook, and reinforced by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. These speak to the wider issue of how the criminal justice system can support and treat those whose offending is driven by addiction or mental health needs. I know this issue is close to both noble Lords Hearts and I agree completely.

The long side effective punishment. We have a duty to rehabilitate offenders with gambling, addictions and other needs. We must provide them with the right support throughout the criminal justice system to rebuild their lives. And I hope it will help your lordships for me to set out the ways in which we are already doing so. Pre-Sentence reports help the court to identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be considered at sentencing, where they're relevant to the offence or the offender's culpability.

Courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to their offending. Where appropriate, courts may consider mental health treatment requirements funded by NHS England as part of a community or suspended sentence order, where mental health has been identified as an underlying factor, and the use of these requirements has increased significantly in recent years. Alongside this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling related harms. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, homelessness or unemployment.

We also work closely with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for offenders, and aligned with prison and probation services. This includes increasing the use and effectiveness of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community, and suspended sentences for those in prison. There is already a statutory duty for prison governors to provide health services in custody, with our approach guided by the principle of equivalence of care to patients in the community, and we're ensuring that prison leavers remain in treatment on release by strengthening links to prison, probation and treatment providers.

Finally, support for those with gambling related harms in the criminal justice system will be bolstered by funding from the statutory gambling levy. The government has committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of this. I will also be reaching out to representatives in the gambling industry and will be looking to host a round table with them next year to better understand the impacts of gambling, harm and what more we can do. The noble Lord has also tabled amendment 108, which would give new powers to set licence conditions prohibiting offenders from entering a gambling establishment.

I want to be clear that the provisions in clause 24 will support our aim to give practitioners a full range of tools to manage and support offenders. Existing powers enable probation to set additional licence conditions related to gambling, including prohibiting offenders on licence from gambling or making payments for other games of chance. Probation also has an existing power to request an additional licence condition, directing offenders to undertake activities to address their gambling activities where necessary and proportionate to their risk. HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling related harms.

We will be looking at issuing operational guidance to practitioners on effective usage of gambling related licence conditions, alongside the implementation of the new conditions set out in clause 24. And I'd very much like to harness the noble Lords considerable expertise on this topic. I hope he would be keen to work with me and my officials as this work develops. And finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment 110. Here I can reassure my noble friend that probation practitioners carefully consider what licence conditions to recommend, as part of their supervision and management of an offender.

They can tailor conditions to the specific needs of the offender, in line with managing public protection through. Though there is no formal process for representations, this is not considered to be necessary. Probation practitioners drawn a range of information when applying licence conditions and discussion conditions. With offenders as part of release planning, they must ensure that licence conditions are necessary and proportionate, and they can grant necessary exemptions to licence conditions for rehabilitative purposes, and this will be the same for the new conditions.

I must repeat my thanks to noble Lords for allowing this House to debate these important subjects, but I hope I've explained why the government does not agree that these amendments are necessary, and I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
19:40
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Begin by thanking the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for agreeing in principle, at least with the amendments, and rightly saying that he wants them accepted and implemented, but only when he can be convinced that they can be enforced. And in so doing, he's drawing attention to the well known problem of the shortage of support, even at present. And so, for example, those who are identified as having a mental health problem when they enter prison, only 1.6%, 1.8% of those who are so identified actually even start treatment.

So he's quite right. We've got to do much more. And the noble Lord Brooks also pointed it out. We've got to do much more about the provision of support. The noble Lord, the Minister pointed also to it is a serious problem, as he describes it. He's quite right, because the percentage of people in prison who are suffering from gambling disorder is many times greater than in the population at large, and the amount of gambling that goes on in prison is now very well documented.

And sadly, on occasions involving prison officers. In doing that, the one disappointing thing in the minister's response is he seemed to believe that it is still perfectly all right to separate out from mental health. The two issues of drug and alcohol are not to even include the words gambling disorder in the list, both in the assessment procedure and so on. I hope I can persuade him in the discussions he's obviously keen to have, and I'm keen to have as well, that we can find a way forward.

But I would be very keen indeed to make sure those words are included in the relevant documentation. But having said that, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 70 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
19:42
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 71, 72, 73 and 74 Lord Keen not moved. The question is clause 16 stem part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say. Content, content, content, content. The contents have it after clause 16, amendment 75 and 76 Lord Keen not moved. The question is clause 17 stem part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content. Content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the house be resumed.

We will then move to dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the bill before 2023. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content, content, the contents have it. Repeated. The statement made in the House of Commons today. OBR forecasts Lord Livermore. My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a statement on the OBR forecasting process made in the other place earlier today by my right hon.

Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The statement is as follows. Mr. speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead up to the budget. I understand that this is a topic which has held much interest and speculation over the weekend, and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal statement on the government's position to the House. However, the government has also today received the results of the Obr's investigation into the early release of the Economic and fiscal outlook at the budget last week.

I know the House will be very concerned to understand those findings, and so the majority of my statement will be concerned with this latter point. On the formal point, let me say that the Chancellor has been entirely consistent and honest with the public about her considerations in the lead up to the budget last week. First, the Chancellor was clear on her priorities for the budget on the 4th of November cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting our debt, and borrowing.

The budget that she delivered last week delivered on all three of those priorities. Second, the Chancellor was clear on the 4th of November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed that the budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of their reduced productivity forecast. Third, the Chancellor was clear on the 4th of November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion.

Fourth, the Chancellor was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the budget, and the budget document shows these decisions cost 6.9 billion, sorry, £6.9 billion in 20 2930. And finally, the OBR have now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on the 4th of November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.

Mr. speaker, the combined effect of that information is this on the 4th of November, the Chancellor knew that the government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this government's priorities for the budget had been delivered or any additional headroom built. In light of this information, and in the knowledge of the Obr's productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on the 4th of November that challenging decisions will be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was completely correct.

Mr. speaker, the Chancellor took a unique step of delivering that scene setter speech before the budget, precisely so she could be honest about the circumstances she was facing and the decisions she would need to take. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything that she has said. Mr. speaker, let me turn now to my second topic. Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor had begun to give her budget speech, the office for Budget Responsibility published their entire economic and fiscal outlook online.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the obrs responsibility. It is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor. Later that day, they have now conducted an investigation into how the report was published prematurely, and they sent their report, including their findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Select Committee today at 12:30 p.m.

The report states, and I quote, we are in no doubt that the failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the Obr's reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15 year history of the OBR. It adds the ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests over the years with the leadership of the OBR. The report notes that this has inflicted heavy damage on the Obr's reputation, and caused significant disruption on Budget Day, to the Chancellor's disadvantage.

I can confirm to the House that the report goes on to make clear this is a significant and long standing issue that has allowed external users to gain early access to the Obr's publication, which contains full details of their forecasts and of the Chancellor's budget. Mr. speaker, in the days since the budget, there has been speculation of what kind of error led to the economic and Fiscal outlook being published early. The report today confirms the cause was not, and I quote, simply, a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early.

The report concludes that the cause of the obr's error was systematic, systemic issues, and that the investigation has made clear that the problem exposed last week was not a new one. Indeed, I can
19:48
19:48
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
the OBR never allows this to happen again. It notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords early access, including passwords and random character URLs, were not used. It further notes two used. It further notes two configuration errors which were not understood by the Obr's online publishing function, prevented the safeguards within their online publishing software from being effective. However, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned to share that the am very concerned to share that the report also notes, and I quote again, it is very likely that the weaknesses that cause the premature access of the November 2025 economic and fiscal outlook were economic and fiscal outlook were pre-existing.

Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 Economic and fiscal outlook was accessed prematurely. Mr. speaker, these findings are very serious indeed. The market sensitive information should have been prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning. That it might have been the case on more than one occasion is even more severe. We do not, at this stage know the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions, as a result of information being available early, but I do want to share one further piece of information from the report with the House today.

On the morning of the budget, the first IP address to successfully access the economic and fiscal outlook had made 32 prior attempts in the day. Starting around 5 a.m. Such a volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point, and this unfortunately leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the economic and financial outlook is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, we do not have answers to all these questions, but I can confirm that the Treasury will be making contact with previous Chancellors to make them aware of developments that relate to previous fiscal events. The OBR have rightly conducted their initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the government and the Treasury Select Committee now take the time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow at their post budget hearing.

Furthermore, in response to the recommendation in paragraph 3.4 that the problem exposed last week was not a new one, I can confirm to the House that the government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events is carried out. Although let me specifically note for the House that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber activity. In addition, the report says that they could not, in the time available, carry out a deeper forensic examination of other recent economic and fiscal outlook events, and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support now urgently carried out.

Mr. speaker, we will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk this incident has uncovered, including the report's conclusion that the Obrs information security arrangements should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR. This government is committed to the independence of the office for Budget Responsibility and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy making. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the government's economic and fiscal policy making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I want to begin by noting the resignation of Richard Hughes from resignation of Richard Hughes from his position as chair of the OBR and to thank him for his service in that role, which he has occupied that role, which he has occupied since 2020. We in the opposition will carefully study the contents of the report, which has been of the report, which has been issued today into the highly regrettable early release of the regrettable early release of the economic and fiscal outlook, and we welcome the seriousness with which welcome the seriousness with which the OBR has treated this matter.

We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity. The only person who has shown any integrity in this process has been demonstrated this by resigning. Perhaps the Chancellor might want to follow his example. My Lords, we must not let today's report be a convenient
19:53
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
distraction from the matter we are discussing, namely, the accusations discussing, namely, the accusations that the Chancellor misled the Cabinet, the markets and the public Cabinet, the markets and the public in the run up to the budget. My Lords, on the 4th of November, three weeks before the budget, the three weeks before the budget, the Chancellor held an extraordinary press conference to warn that a downgrade in the public finances downgrade in the public finances meant taxes would have to rise. She pointed to a supposed collapse in pointed to a supposed collapse in productivity, and she said this had consequences for working people and for the public finances.

To. No one compelled her to make this announcement. She chose to do so. She signalled openly that she was preparing to break the Labour manifesto by raising the basic rate of income tax. Presenting this as unavoidable. Yet we know that the picture she painted was not the full truth. There was a sin of omission. What she did not tell the public, Parliament, or even her own Cabinet, was that the public finances had actually improved. Higher than expected tax receipts had offset most of the productivity downgrade by the 31st of October.

Four days before her press conference, the OBR had informed her that she in fact had a 4.2 billion surplus against the main fiscal rule and not a black hole. The omission of material fiscal information during the most sensitive period of the economic calendar is extraordinarily serious. My Lords, the OBR itself was so concerned by the misconception circulating before Budget Day that its chair took the highly unusual step of writing publicly to the Treasury Select committee to correct the record.

He confirmed that the Chancellor had been informed as early as the 17th of September that improved tax revenues largely wiped out the productivity downgrade. Yet on the 4th of November, she chose to speak only of gloom and my Lords. Working families, savers and businesses all made decisions as a result. People judge their financial futures based on those statements. The markets reacted. Journalists. Journalists reported these words, and the briefings and selective leaks that followed came from the Chancellor.

Her officials and her government. And they were incomplete. They were confusing and they were misleading. This comes on top of weeks of U-turns, backtracking, redraughting and contradictory briefings. I think I recalled this chaos in earlier debates, but what makes the whole saga even more inexplicable is this if the Chancellor genuinely wanted more fiscal headroom, if she wanted to raise taxes in the name of prudence, then why on earth did she not simply say so? Instead, we had misreporting, mixed messages and false presentations of the facts.

And for what? There is no obvious strategy, no coherent political rationale, no fiscal logic. It simply looks like incompetence. Serious, consequential, consequential incompetence at the very top of the Treasury. And let us be clear, this would be unacceptable at any time. But in the run up to a budget, when the markets are watching with greater intensity than at any other point, when households and businesses make real decisions based on what they believe the government is telling them. When the entire country waits to hear how their taxes will be collected and their money will be spent.

My Lords, then this is unforgivable. So in the light of the chaos the government has created around this budget, can the noble Lord, the Minister, answer three simple questions? Can he confirm that the Chancellor was aware of a 4.2 billion surplus against the main fiscal rule on the 31st of October? Can the noble Lord tell the House if the Chancellor wanted to increase tax, to improve headroom and fund extra spending on welfare, as the noble Lord, the Minister suggested? Why did she simply not just say so in her scene setting speech? And finally, will the government finally subject itself to an investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury into possible market abuse by all those in number ten and the Treasury, who would have had access to relevant confidential information.

My Lords, if the government have nothing to hide,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then they will have nothing to fear from such an investigation. Yeah, My.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. Lords. This really has been a bit of a nominee shambles. Announcement. nominee shambles. Announcement. Scene setting musings, U-turns, misstatements, leaks, speculation that for a time at least spooked
19:58
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that for a time at least spooked the markets, raising interest rates on government debt and causing such uncertainty that businesses and individuals delayed or abandoned decisions. Now we in this House, I think, have felt for the Minister, who has tried to hold the line by refusing to speculate, despite being inveigled by pretty much all of us to try and make him do so. But frankly, all around him, others were simply flying kites. My Lords, on the issue of the OBR, Richard Hughes has taken the honourable step of resigning.

And like others, I agree that he is very much that the embodiment of of a dedicated civil servant that has contributed much to the economic welfare of this country. But so can the government tell us that now that it understands the or recognises the seriousness of the breach? Is it possible that attempts to access this information was actually rises to the level of criminality? Are we looking at a possible issue around that? And also in the security review, is it being extended to other arms length? Government.

Other department, other entities that are arm's length from the government, which might indeed, again also have significant information, but not have the security that is necessary. On the issue of the Chancellor, I think we do need to understand much better why statements about tax receipts that were omitted from the discussion on November the 4th. That. But my Lords, I think also sits within the context of the omnishambles that I described. I am very concerned that for the future, this sort of form of extreme kite flying, not just on this budget, but it's certainly we've seen it on earlier budgets, has become so normalised that it is now effectively killed off purdah.

And I'm not sure that's good for the economy. That or for the way in which the markets behave in that case. Will the government recognise that it needs to overhaul the whole budget process? The Swedish example is one where Parliament gets to debate the government's budget before it's set in stone, propose alternatives and make amendments. And that is then followed by a period of scrutiny and accountability. It's one example. Will the government now bring forward a new approach to this process, one that enhances accuracy and transparency and properly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restores both public trust and the role of Parliament. In confidence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In confidence? I'm very grateful to both noble Ladies for their contributions and their questions. The noble Lady their questions. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe began by paying tribute to Richard Hughes and his actions today, and his record of public service. I was very fortunate to work with Richard Hughes while I was a special Hughes while I was a special adviser in the Treasury. He was my private secretary while I was a special advisor, and I know special advisor, and I know absolutely what she says in terms of his commitment to public service.

And I would like to add my self to And I would like to add my self to the words that she spoke. The Chancellor said earlier today, and I quote, I want to thank Richard Hughes for his public service and for leading the office for Budget Responsibility over the past five years and for his many years of public service. This government is committed to protecting the independence of the OBR and the integrity of our fiscal framework and institutions. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe spoke about misleading, and I fundamentally reject that.

The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything that she has said. On November the 4th, the Chancellor said that her priorities were cutting the cost of living NHS waiting lists and debt and borrowing, and the budget delivered precisely on those priorities. The Chancellor was clear that if there was a productivity downgrade, that would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed that their tax receipts are £16 billion lower than they otherwise would have been. The Chancellor said she intended to build more headroom.

She built more headroom to £21.7 billion. The Chancellor was clear that policy choices would need to be paid for. The budget shows those costs £6.9 billion. The Chancellor was clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on taxation and on spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years. So, as I say, the Chancellor was completely honest, completely consistent with the public in everything that she said. I noted that the noble Lady, noble noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe spoke of quotes a supposed productivity collapse, as if she's trying to make light of the fact that the OBR looked back at the past 14 years, and they revised their view of what the previous government had done to the economy downwards, that they looked at the chronic lack of investment, they looked at Brexit, they looked at the mini budget, they looked at all the things the previous government had done, and they were forced to downgrade productivity, the performance of the economy as a
20:03
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
result. And they put that forward and said that that had lasting damage on the economy. The noble damage on the economy. The noble Lady described that as supposed. So I do think that I'd like to acknowledge the fact that that was acknowledge the fact that that was real and has real and lasting consequences. The noble Lady then also said, and I quote, public also said, and I quote, public finances had improved. I don't understand how going from a headroom of £9.9 billion at the headroom of £9.9 billion at the spring statement to headroom of £4.2 billion before any measures were billion before any measures were taken to into account as an improvement in the public finances.

I do think that that is important I do think that that is important to point out, she said, that there's no fiscal logic to this budget. So is she therefore saying that she thinks that headroom of £4.2 billion is sufficient? Is she saying that the Chancellor would come before Parliament and announce £4.2 billion of headroom? That would have been an acceptable level of headroom, given the global uncertainty that we face. So, no, I do think there was very clear fiscal logic to this budget.

She asked me three specific questions. Did the Chancellor know that there was £4.2 billion surplus on the 4th of November? Yes she did. On the 4th of November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion headroom before those policy choices were accounted for, meaning that once those policy choices were accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion before any additional headroom was built. And the Chancellor had been extremely clear that she intended to build more headroom. She asked me. If she wanted more headroom.

Why didn't she say so? Well, I suspect I suggest that the noble Lady goes back and reads her speech from the 4th of November, because she specifically said that she wanted to build more headroom, to create a greater margin, a great against events. She asked me about the FCA. Well, that, frankly, is a matter for the FCA to decide. I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Kramer for her comments. She said that this budget process had been dominated by perhaps more process questions than normal.

I totally agree with her. It's been dominated by process before, during and after the budget speech, and I do have some sympathy with her pleas for a return to purdah. It certainly make my life more easy and would would have made life easier for me in the run up to the budget. She also praised Richard Hughes for his record of public service, and I agree entirely with her. She asked whether the contents of this review rises to the level of criminality.

And I think, as I said in the statement, that the right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the Other place, we have only just received this report, and we should take time to consider it. And the Treasury Select Committee should take time to consider it. She gave some suggestions about how other countries run budget processes. I'm not sure that we will be reforming the process quite that extent, but I do, as I say, fully have full sympathy with what she says in terms of it's very important and we do that.

We take the budget process extremely seriously and we take budget secrecy extremely seriously. My Lords, my Lords, this, this,
20:06
20:07
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about me, and I'm grateful that I have his full confidence. Do I agree with him in what he says about the him in what he says about the Chancellor? It will not surprise him that no, I do not agree with him. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent completely honest and consistent with the public and everything that she has said. He says that no one believed the £22 billion black hole.

believed the £22 billion black hole. I think it may be living rent free in his head, because he has probably mentioned it more times probably mentioned it more times than anyone other than me in this house. So I think probably on that, house. So I think probably on that, that measure alone, it has been extremely successful. He said that that he feels misled. I'm sorry that he feels misled. But the Chancellor said absolutely nothing. That was misleading. As I say, she has been completely honest and consistent.

She said set out in advance what her priorities were and she delivered on those priorities. She set out in advance that a productivity downgrade would mean lower tax receipts, and it did mean £16 billion lower tax receipts. She said that she intended to build more headroom, and she built more headroom to £21.7 billion. She was clear in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and the budget shows those policy choices cost £6.9 billion. She said that there would be challenging decisions needed on tax and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years, amongst other taxation decisions.

So, as I say, entirely consistent with what she said before and what she did in the budget. the budget.
20:09
20:10
20:11
20:12
20:13
20:14
20:15
20:16
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out my message discipline that this despatch box. I'm proud to have mentioned that £22 I'm proud to have mentioned that £22 billion black hole over 50 times. I think the two, the two noble Lords sitting next to each other are the two other members of this House who have mentioned it almost as many times as I have mentioned it. I think every time the noble Lord, noble, should I say apologies, has made reference to the 22 billion black hole.

I have pointed out to him that the OBR review ran up six months before the end of the previous government's time in office, so they identified a black hole and then the party opposite had another six months to continue adding to that hole and continue to conceal it from the OBR. The OBR say in terms that that was concealed from them, that is a very, very serious charge. In terms of what the OBR say about headroom. As I say, on the 4th of November, the Chancellor did have £4.2 billion of headroom before any policy choices were accounted for that we had already announced.

Once those policy choices were accounted for, she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion. I don't think anyone on that side of the House thinks that going to the country with £2.7 billion deficit, rather than any headroom, would be a responsible, a fiscally responsible thing to do given how uncertain the world is around us. It's absolutely right that we increased headroom to £21.7 billion.
20:17
20:18
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend for the points and the questions that he he raises. I had the great privilege of working with my noble friend in the Treasury at a time when Richard Hughes was working for us, and so we both know the commitment that Richard Hughes has to public service. He, my friend, asks about the OBR relationship. I think I should start by saying how strongly we support the office for Budget Responsibility and their ongoing independence. I think one of the very, in fact, the first piece of legislation that was passed by this government after winning the election was to strengthen the role of the office for Budget Responsibility, because we had seen what happens when they are cut out of the process.

During the Liz Truss mini budget, we saw how damaging that is to the living standards of working people, and we're determined that that never happens again. So we have absolute commitment to the ongoing independence for the office for Budget Responsibility. He asked about the letter from the OBR to the Treasury Select Committee. We put the utmost weight on budget security. The OBR did choose to publish some further information, and that is set out fully in Richard Hughes's letter to the Treasury Committee, and the Treasury did agree in advance to its publication.

It is, though, important to maintain a private space between the Treasury and the OBR for the exchange of forecast information and budget policy development, and so we do welcome the OBR statement that this is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intended to become usual practice. Lord Grade. My Lords, I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Grade. My Lords, I want to say that I'm very grateful personally to get a copy of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury statement. He paints a chronology of events and how they happened, of events and how they happened, regardless of when a speculator really about this. And for me, what is important, he says, the is important, he says, the Chancellor was clear on the 4th of November that a low productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the budget that tax receipts are 16 budget that tax receipts are 16 billion lower as a result of their reduced productivity forecast.

And also, the Chancellor did say at the last budget that at this particular budget that the decision they took on welfare will have to be paid for in this budget, which is done, although it won't be done until 20 2930. What will the government do not to be bounced into the decision they took on welfare, which then created difficulties for the Chancellor? And the second question is. There are, you know, Obr's report has revealed that actually it's quite possible that there are other Chancellors who may have faced the same kind of leakage, or BR has been placed for 15 years.

Are all those Chancellors in those 15 years faced the same, especially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kwasi Kwarteng? Grateful for that? That question,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for that? That question, the noble Lord quite rightly says that the Chancellor was very clear that productivity review would mean that productivity review would mean lower tax receipts, and the OBR did confirm that they are £16 billion lower. The Obr's productivity lower. The Obr's productivity review does lay bare the economic consequences of the past 14 years. The OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade, and they did conclude that austerity, Brexit and conclude that austerity, Brexit and the pandemic have weakened the economy by far more than even previously thought.

That does have previously thought. That does have an impact on the public finances, and it does have an impact on growth for the remainder of the forecast period.
20:22
20:22
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Well, the Chancellor is not going to set out the entire budget in advance of the budget. She set out the budget on budget day. But what she did before the budget and what she did at the time of the budget were, as I said before, entirely consistent. She sets out her priorities and then she delivered on those priorities. She said that if the productivity review was to lead to a downgrade in productivity, it would mean lower tax receipts. And it did.

The Chancellor said she intended to build more headroom, and she did. She said in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and she paid for those policy choices. The Chancellor was also clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on tax, and she took several challenging decisions on tax, including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including freezing thresholds for a further three years. Labour. Labour and my Lords. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour and my Lords. I'm grateful to my noble friend for coming to the House and giving us this statement, which is in two this statement, which is in two parts. On the first part, if I may say, some of the comments so far in the exchanges have an element of artificial outrage about them, but we can leave that to the debate about the budget on Thursday. My about the budget on Thursday. My question is about the second part of his statement, which relates to the leak and the information that we've been given about how it seems
20:23
20:24
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:26
20:28
20:29
None Portrait Amendment:77 Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-

government, who then had to renationalise it five years later renationalise it five years later because the service was close to collapse. Well take prisons. collapse. Well take prisons. Private prisons are an average 47% more violent than public prisons, more violent than public prisons, according to research published by The Guardian. Yet still we build The Guardian. Yet still we build more of them with. Of the three new prisons announced by the government prisons announced by the government to to be run for profit.

My Lords, quite apart from the practical quite apart from the practical problems that come with outsourcing, it seems to me to be morally wrong for private companies to profit from prisons or probation or indeed any part of our precious justice system. With this in mind, amendment 77 seeks to address concerns that the Ministry of Justice is preparing to let private companies profit from unpaid work orders, also known as community service. This issue has been highlighted by Napo, the probation staff union.

The union even told me that large, profitable supermarkets and high street bakery companies had expressed an interest in exploiting this free labour. But since then, as the bill has made its way through the other place, the same concern was raised strongly. And still Ministers have not yet ruled out this option. Noble Lord should recall that community service in London was privatised in 2013 and it was an utter disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, a lack of tools and offenders were sometimes crammed into unsuitable and unsafe vehicles.

Napo took action by referring the matter to the International Labour Organisation as a breach of the Convention on Forced Labour. The ILO found in favour of the Union and, as noted earlier, that privatisation collapsed. Now all this amendment does is add a simple safeguard to the face of the bill, which would mean that only non-profit organisations such as charities, social enterprises and local authorities would be able to oversee this unpaid work. I hope that your lordships would agree that this is a sensible and reasonable safeguard.

As we expand this form of punishment. Turning to amendment 135. There are two aspects to this which were previously explored by my hon. Friend Kim Johnson in the other place. First is the call for the government to give serious consideration to taking electronic monitoring out of the hands of the private sector. They have failed us so badly on too many occasions and into the probation service where it belongs. As I mentioned that. Second, as was mentioned at Second Reading, this is a key recommendation from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee arising from its excellent inquiry into tagging, and it is common throughout Europe for the Probation service to be in operational control of tagging day to day.

So why can't we do that here? Now, there may be strong voices in the MoJ who say it's impossible that the state doesn't have the capability to do this, but I would urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to fully investigate the feasibility of insourcing this vital work, examining closely relevant international experience. The second part of this amendment deals with a specific issue that has been raised by the Prison Officers Association, who are concerned that their members will be told to fit tags on prisoners.

Pre-release. As part of this bill. But if a private company like Serco has a contract for electronic monitoring, then surely it must be their staff who fit the tag tags, not hard pressed prison officers. Prison officers, already facing immense pressures day in and day out, should not be expected to take on such an additional responsibility. So I hope in his response, the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to offer assurances that unless the whole tagging system is in a well planned and well resourced way brought in to the public sector, prison officers will not be asked to take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this extra work. My Lords, I beg to move both these amendments. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 17. Insert the following clause the words as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Barber for introducing Lord
20:35
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Barber for introducing Lord Woodley's amendments. He'll probably not be surprised to learn that we on this side, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, cannot support the amendment. I note the noble Lords commitments, but it would simply be a foolish burden to impose more administrative obligations on the public sector. It cannot be right to bar the use of a private enterprise where appropriate, and the emphasis must be on appropriate. That should be for the private. For the probation services is the commissioning body to determine, with the Ministry of Justice having oversight.

Of course, justice system should not be privatised. But the single question here is delivery. That does not mean there are not benefits to be gained from working together with the private sector. That is so, especially as the current system is hugely overburdened. We should be welcoming prudent collaboration with private companies that specialise in supplying such services as communities to community centres, but only where it's right to do so because they're the right people and they pass the test of competition.

We should not be needlessly blocking off an avenue that helps to ease this strain. This amendment is not necessary. The probation service is currently in the process of regaining control of community sentences. Private community rehabilitation companies had their contracts terminated and the responsibilities were transferred to the probation service by the last conservative government, so community sentence oversight and management is already in the hands of the public sector, while private and volunteer suppliers provide support services.

That's how it should continue. We're in a situation where the public sector has responsibility for running and delivering the community sentences, and at the same time can make use of the efficiencies of the private sector for supply on the ground, where appropriate. To ban public sector involvement is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. It would come at the cost of placing undue strain on the probation service. If the Ministry determines that prison officers should fit tags, and here I move from one topic to the other because that's operationally sensible, then that should be done.

And if it deems that it is not appropriate in one prison for one reason, it can it can divide it up. But let's just leave it as it is. So we cannot support either of these amendments. We agree there's merit in demarcating the probation services remit and ensuring that it remains a public service. But prisons are not in the state to be taking on board more responsibilities at this time. Rather than attempting to legislate powers into the public sector, we should allow services to be dynamic.

We should allow the Probation Service and the Prison Service to make their own decisions on the most appropriate basis. They're the ones who have to react to change in duties and changing capacities. Sometimes this will require contracting out the private sector. Sometimes it will not. Merely attempting to close off an option for ideological reasons will not help best delivery of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. Excuse me. I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for
20:39
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

noble friend Lord Woodley for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Barber for introducing them in Lord Wood Lord Woodley absence and giving me the opportunity to clarify the government's position on the issues that they have raised. I appreciate that my Noble Friend's Amendment 77 is founded in concerns that unpaid work will be privatised. So I want to be completely clear and for the avoidance of any doubt, I would like to reassure that privatisation of unpaid work is absolutely not being considered.

The government is clear that unpaid work must be robust and continue to pay back where it matters most, which is to our communities. The government remains open to a full range of potential projects, projects that help our communities. Were any of those have any private sector involvement? It would be within the realms of the current requirement for the probation service to retain ultimate control and supervision. This requirement is unchanged and as I say, we have no plans to change it. For example, it is already possible for a private company to influence the type of projects offenders may complete through nominating suitable projects such as, for example, graffiti removal in a local community.

In these scenarios, it would always be the case that the unpaid work is overseen by the probation Service, and the work undertaken serves a community purpose. And it is that community purpose that I want to stress. We do not intend to privatise the delivery of unpaid work, but we should encourage joining up with local businesses and charities to determine how best to expand projects further and deliver work that has the greatest community benefit. We believe there is sufficient operational guidance already in place to support delivery in a way that benefits charitable state or not.

Not for profit organisations and guards against exploiting any offenders for private profit. Can I now turn to amendment one, three, five and address the concern that my noble friend has raised? It is important to make clear that it is the responsibility of the electronic electronic monitoring field and monitoring service provider, Serco, to perform the duty of installing and monitoring the output of electronic monitoring devices. I note the comment the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst about the commitment to probation being seen as a public service, and he and he also noted that it was brought back.

This community rehabilitation companies were brought back into the public sector by the last government. But of course, it was also the conservative government that put them into the private sector where they failed in the first place. I recognise and deeply appreciate the vital role that the Prison and Probation Service perform, and I want to stress that we that, as my noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister, has said, we see this as crucial to the success of these reforms and we want them to be able to focus on recovering from the from the challenges they face and to become genuinely world class.

The Ministry of Justice has recently launched a pilot to test the fitting of electronic monitoring devices. Before offenders leave the prison gates, instead of at home. Visit. And this. This goes to the third point and my noble friend Lord Barber raised. We're doing this so that we can begin monitoring them immediately in the crucial period just after leaving custody. The approach is being initially tested in six prisons. I therefore want to reaffirm to my noble friend and to to your Lordships' House, that it absolutely remains the responsibility of Serco to install tags at these pilot sites and of probation staff to manage the prison leavers they are applied to.

The pilot will be subject to proper evaluation so that we can take forward the operational learning and evidence it generates to inform future practice. So I hope that reassures my noble friend that that the changes we are making do not change the responsibilities for applying the tags. And with those reassurances in mind, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw. withdraw.
20:43
20:45
20:46
None Portrait Amendment:80 Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

your Lordships' House will know, the Sentencing Council exceeded its powers earlier this year when it issued the imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guidelines to come into effect on April the 1st, 2025. In respect of pre-sentence reports. And this gave this gave rise to complaints of two tier justice, and this was in respect of individuals from, quote, ethnic faith and cultural minority groups. And what we eventually had, of course, as a result of the dispute between the late chair of the Sentencing Council and the then Lord Chancellor, was the sentencing guidelines pre-sentence Reports Act 2025? Now, I don't propose to relitigate the issues around that because that was primary legislation and there were debates, comprehensive debates in both houses about that legislation.

But it is important to remember that it is context for the debate and discussion around the efficacy and the long term future of the Sentencing Council. Lords will know that your Lordships' House will know that that Bill got Royal assent on the 20th of June this year. And of course, the background was that the Sentencing Council wilfully refused to amend its guidelines, despite being asked to do so by effectively this House and the Other place and the Executive and Parliament through the Minister, the Lord Chancellor, as you know, as you will know, my Lords magistrates must follow and and the judiciary such guidelines under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The Lord Chancellor very the then Lord Chancellor, very correctly argued that the new imposition guidelines represented differential treatment and two tier justice. Now the Sentencing Council is an independent non-departmental body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and was created in 2009 and it commenced its work in April 2010. As such, it is, in the great scheme of things, quite a new body, a successor to the rest, respectfully, respectively the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines Council, both since abolished.

The important point is it is entirely the product of legislation and could easily be repealed. That legislation, as it easy as it was created. It's been described by an example by Professor Richard Bellamy in 2007 as an example of, quote, political constitutionalism, unquote, where the protection of minority rights undermines the protection and the neglect of majority opinion. The imbroglio over the pre-sentence reports illustrates the fundamental issues at the heart of my amendment, that of judicial independence and the role of Ministers and Parliament as they relate to sentencing policy, whilst the ability and role of the judiciary to set individual sentences, certainly prior to 1998, has been wide and permissive, Parliament has always had and should have a pre-eminent role, and the upper limits of the sentencing offenders through statute, such as section one of the Sentencing Act 2020.

And that is something that Parliament has always been jealous of in terms of its role with regard to the sentencing framework, Parliament should not involve itself, of course, in individual sentencing decisions. That's for trial judges and magistrates and, of course, appellate courts. But quite rightly, it should and does through Ministers, determine a broad sentencing policy framework. That is the delicate balance between democratic accountability and judicial independence, which the Sentencing Council upset and upon which it frankly transgressed. In supporting the new guidelines, the Sentencing Council violated, in my opinion, the historic and fundamental principle at the heart of our judicial system equality before the law and commendably and to her credit, the Lord Chancellor, as was now the Home Secretary, made that point very strongly in the other place, and throughout the process of the passage of the legislation.

The dispute last year pointed up another broader and wider phenomenon and leads to a democratic deficit, where decisions of non-departmental public bodies and arm's length bodies lack legitimacy and proper accountability to elected Ministers and their electors and taxpayers. To quote the times leader, which was quoted by my former right hon. Friend Sir Christopher Chope in March 2010, arm's length bodies have often been have been followed by Ministers as a way of distancing themselves from contentious issues. Sorry favoured by Ministers as a way of distancing themselves from contentious issues, free of the need to answer to voters, arm's length bodies can go rogue in the face of public opposition.

The Sentencing Council is not unique in being able to ignore the wishes of Ministers and Parliament. My Lords, I don't suppose that the government will support this amendment, but they should certainly commit to ensure that all further sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council should be required to be confirmed by order in Parliament prior to coming into effect. And and it's beyond doubt, and it should put beyond doubt that ethnicity, race, religion and membership of a, quote, cultural minority unquote, is no longer a factor in determining the sentence of a court or indeed pre-sentence reports.

Finally, my Lords, the amendment focuses on not just the concerns of two tier justice, but democratic accountability, the issue of judicial activism, and the proper constitutional balance between the legislative and the judicial branch. Fundamentally, we don't need the Sentencing Council, the Court of Appeal prior to 1998 created judgements or authorities which establish a body of case law refining some of the principles of sentencing to give sentencing judges the ability to make those decisions, and there was little or no evidence of sentencing inconsistency or lack of uniformity or judicial independence being compromised, or indeed a lack of public support or understanding of how sentencing works.

My Lords, for those reasons, I beg to move amendment 80 standing in my name.
20:54
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
For clause 18, insert the following new clause the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall List. My Lords. Perhaps rather. Surprisingly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surprisingly. I found myself in agreement with the. noble Lord. Lord Jackson, in seeking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Jackson, in seeking to remove clause 18 from the bill, but for polar opposite reasons. Lord for polar opposite reasons. Lord Jackson seeks to abolish the Sentencing Council. I wish to Sentencing Council. I wish to protect it from interference. Abolition, my Lords, would be a retrograde step which would retrograde step which would undermine consistency in sentencing and destroy a structure that has and destroy a structure that has evolved over 25 years. It has ensured both that sentences imposed and the impact of those sentences are properly informed by evidence, research and consultation.

So, my Lords, I oppose the abolition of the Sentencing Council. My Lords, I shall seek to explain why. Clause 18, which requires the Sentencing Council to publish a business plan over which the Lord Chancellor appears to be given control, should not stand as part of the Bill. I shall also speak to amendments 81, 82 and 83 standing in my name, which seek to remove the veto that this bill puts in the hands of the Lord Chancellor over the publication and introduction of sentencing guidelines.

First, might I spend a couple of minutes outlining the background to the Sentencing Council, to which Lord Jackson has made some reference already. The Sentencing Council was established by the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act. The act makes provision for 14 members, eight of which are judicial, ranging from at least one Lord justice to a magistrate and six non-judicial, who must be drawn from those with experience of criminal cases in the courts from policy. Those familiar with sentencing and the interests of victims, as well as those who understand statistics and are involved in the academic study of sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders.

My Lords, the DPP is a member. So too is a senior police officer and also a victim's representative. The Sentencing Council produces guidelines or amendments to guidelines in draft. Having conducted extensive research. Those drafts are then consulted upon widely, and in particular, both the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor are statutory consultees. Moreover, and importantly, the Lord Chancellor has a representative who attends all meetings of the Sentencing Council and may speak at such meetings.

The Sentencing Council is by statute charged with monitoring the effect of guidelines in promoting consistency in sentencing and on public confidence. It must report on the effect on prison places and also on resources for probation of its guidelines. And as Lord Jackson has already noted, courts must follow guidelines unless it's in the interests of justice not to do so. My Lords, the Sentencing Council did not spring from nowhere. It was preceded by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, a creature of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act that produced guidelines to which the courts were required to have regard.

But it was a much less sophisticated and less well informed body than the Sentencing Council. And before that, the Sentencing Advisory Panel began work in 1999, and its function was to advise the Court of Appeal when that court was considering producing a guideline case. Before that, the Court of Appeal had no structured help from anywhere. The responsibility for producing guideline cases rested entirely with the Court of Appeal, and in fact they were relatively few and far between, and so those who were sentencing offenders had to delve through a four volume loose leaf work, which was updated from my memory a couple of times a year.

So what followed was much better. Now, my Lords, clause 18 requires the Sentencing Council to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor. After, my Lords, after the beginning of a financial year for approval, setting out what guidelines it proposes to prepare and also identifying its other activities. If the Lord Chancellor approves, the sentencing, council would be required to publish the business case. My Lords, at Second Reading, I asked what this was all about, what its purpose was, what the consequences would be of a failure of the Lord Chancellor to approve.

And but with respect to the noble Lord, the Minister, there was no explanation forthcoming in his response. At the end of the date debate. My my Lords, this provision, clause 18, is frankly pointless. Failure to approve would not prevent the Sentencing Council doing what it planned to do. It looks like an attempt at a control mechanism of some sort, or at least a stick to wave over the sentencing council. Now, the sentencing Council is already under a statutory duty to publish an annual report on all its activities at the end of the financial year, with detailed statutory provisions of what must be contained within that report.

With the greatest of respect to the government, if they are unable to come up with a coherent explanation. Indeed, any explanation of what mischief this clause is designed to remedy and what its intended effect is, it really should not be in the Bill. My Lords, I can deal with amendments 81, 82 and 83. Relatively briefly, they are concerned with clause 19. Clause 19 requires the Sentencing Council to seek the consent of both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice before issuing a guideline, and then allows the Council to issue its guideline only if both consent.

But my Lords be under no illusion this is a Lord Chancellor veto. I am quite confident that no Lord Chief Justice would be interested in vetoing a guideline. It would enable the Lord Chancellor to undermine the work of the Sentencing Council, indeed, stymie it completely, not only by positively refusing consent, but also through inaction. My Lords, in my respectful opinion, this is an exorbitant power which upsets the careful statutory structure. With its roots in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and which evolved in the 2009 act when the Sentencing Council was established.

My Lords, to be frank, I would rather this clause were not in the Bill at all. Again, I support Lord Jackson in opposing that this clause should stand as part of the bill. It strikes at the fundamental concept of independence of the Sentencing Council, free from political control. The Sentencing Council nonetheless is informed through the consultation to which I have referred with the Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and the presence of the Lord Chancellor's Representative at the Sentencing Council of any and all political concerns.

But in a spirit of compromise, these amendments maintain the need for the Sentencing Council to seek the consent of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, but only if both fail to consent would the Sentencing Council be unable to issue its guidance. It thus preserves a safety valve in the very unlikely event that, despite the research, the publication of a draft, the wide general consultation, the express involvement of the Lord Chancellor, his representative at the Council and the involvement of the Justice Select Committee, that if the Sentencing Council persists in a guideline that both the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor think completely wrong headed, they can stop it.

My Lords, I beg to move those amendments. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have added my name to the amendment standing in the name of Lord Burnett of Maldon and to the amendment in respect of clause 18, standing in the name of Lord standing in the name of Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have done so because it is important done so because it is important that we see this as an as a constitutional issue, and I think constitutional issue, and I think it's necessary to go back to the achievement of the last Labour achievement of the last Labour government.

I know there are some who still mourn the loss of the who still mourn the loss of the position of Lord Chancellor, but and tonight is not a time to go into why there had to be change, but why it's important to go back to those times is to see what the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor entailed. In many respects he was, and it was a he save in the case of Matilda the Queen, that the Lord Chancellor acted as the linchpin.

There was a in a person who could bring together the judiciary, parliament and the executive. When that linchpin was taken away, it became necessary to look for a mechanism through which the three separate branches of the state, each with their own independent position, could act and work together, reflecting what is inevitable in a state. Their interdependence, and out of the change that was made somewhat, I think hurried. If I
21:05
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
recall correctly, there was born a series of mechanisms to balance the Constitution. They were. There was the Concordat agreed, which dealt with problems such as the with problems such as the appointment of leadership judges, which was a joint and shared responsibility of the Lord responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. There were then the need Justice. There were then the need to look again at the way the Rules Committee worked, because sometimes one forgets how vitally important one forgets how vitally important it is that the rules work well, that Parliament has its input, the judiciary, all those other judiciary, all those other interests have their input in producing rules of procedure that work.

When you talk to people in other countries, you see what a huge advantage we have here. And I mentioned these, and there are many other instances which I won't weary of Lordships with at this hour of the night, which reflect what is, I feel the spirit that was created by the last Labour government, which endured very well under the last government Conservative Party, but which the which is being undermined by the particular changes being made here now, both Lord Burnett and Lord Jackson have explained how the Sentencing Council evolved, and I don't think it's necessary to go over that ground again.

But what it is necessary to say is that the Sentencing Council was an was born in the spirit of needing to create the interdependent relationships between the three branches of government. And the great thing about all the reforms that were made is that, by and large, they have worked. Of course, when you have three different bodies, they're bound to be hiccups. And there was a hiccup obviously, earlier this year, but one has to look and see what the achievement was and how it worked.

Now, what the sentencing council did was to bring together the respective responsibilities, the parliament setting the framework, generally speaking, until we had the clauses that we examples of which we discussed earlier in the course of the committee, which are of completely unnecessary complexity. Parliaments function normally was to set the broad brush of sentencing policy, and fortunately it's gone away from that much to everyone's cost. The judiciary then passed the sentences, though they previously had, as Lord Jackson and Lord Burnett explained, issued guideline cases to achieve consistency.

And then the executive was involved because, after all, they have to find the money to deal with the punishments and they have to administer the system. And so it is necessary to have the input of all three. If the sentencing framework set by Parliament, the judges do their job and prisons are to work and the penal systems to work as intended, and balancing those three interests, it was essential to have an independent council that that could bring everyone together. There's a great success of this, that it's worked now.

Why did it work? Why was it successful? Well, I recall I must be now in the in a part of 2009, the then Lord Chancellor, Mr. Straw, then Lord Chief Justice, Lord judge, working no doubt about this hour of the night, if I recall it correctly, in their shirt sleeves, was looking at the detailed clauses and agreeing the composition of the Council. It went to that level of detail at the highest level. The compromise was made and a successful institution was created and successful.

It has been because it had virtually completed producing the guidelines. By the time that the row that occurred earlier this year. Now, I would simply say that the idea of a constitutional settlement carefully worked out in the spirit that was born in our renewed Constitution in 2005, is in the actions taken in 2009, was the way in which we should do things. If they are to result in success. Now, there was the hiccup earlier this year, and I do think it's probably right to call it a hiccup.

It really wasn't much more than that. If one looks at it and stands back, and it's a pity it couldn't have been resolved there and then, but it cannot be any excuse for altering the delicate mechanism that was created by the last Labour government. There is no justification for it whatsoever. And so it seems to me two things. First of all, clause 18 ought not to stand part of the bill. It seems an absurd thing to say that the plan, the plan of an independent body, has to be decided by one of the three parties that is involved.

Be a good idea. Maybe if all three were involved in looking at the plan. But why one of them? It makes no sense and tears up the carefully agreed compromise that was struck. And secondly, it would be much better if clause 19 didn't stand part of this bill, because that's another another aspect of this government's desire to tear up for wholly unnecessary reasons, a proper compromise that was made by its predecessors in 2009. However, I agree with Lord Burnett, my friend Lord Burnett, that we should go along in the spirit of compromise, but I regard that as a compromise, and it is one that I would hope the government would accede to and not pursue the destruction, because that's what it is.

Of the careful balance worked out by the late Lord judge and by
21:12
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
out by the late Lord judge and by Mr. Straw. My Lord, sir, I oppose. Preference is quite definitely for both clauses to be removed from the bill. I haven't signed the noble bill. I haven't signed the noble Lord. Lord Jackson's opposition to to clause 18 standing part because his reasoning is rather different from mine. But clause 18 is frankly very strange. It is certainly very strange. It is certainly pointless, just as the noble and learned Lord Lord Burnett of Maldon said.

But it is also with the greatest of respect to the government and the draughters of the clause, legislatively illiterate. I can see no reason in practice for the Sentencing Council to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor for approval as soon as possible after the beginning of the year. One wonders when, as soon as possible after the beginning of the year is supposed to be. But if there is to be a business plan, it is the strange. It is a strange imposition of a new duty on the Sentencing Council that it must declare in advance what it proposes to study, research and support during the course of the coming year without knowing what is coming down the track during the course of the coming year.

But in any event, a business plan is pre-eminently a document for the body that is responsible for it and producing it itself to decide in its own discretion and to determine what it puts into it. Clause 18 demonstrates a serious lack of trust in the Sentencing Council to manage its business. And why should the Sentencing Council submit any business plan for approval by the Lord Chancellor, a member of the government with certainly a an input into the Sentencing Council, but not a decisive or determining input, is it suggested that the Sentencing Council would not be entitled to consider other matters in the year unforeseen at the beginning of the year, if they were not in the business plan, because if it is not so suggested, then what is the point of the business plan? Because it doesn't delineate the responsibilities that the Sentencing Council is going to carry out.

The clause represents an attack on the independence of the Sentencing Council. We've heard from both noble and learned Lords that it was set up by statute to be an independent body tasked with advising sentencing judges on the principles they should apply to sentencing, of course, within the terms of the law as provided by Parliament in statute and the common law. But independently, and its advice to judges that they give so a requirement to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor for approval is an interference with those careful arrangements for the Sentencing Council that were explained by the noble and Lords, Lord Thomas said they were hurried at one stage of his speech, but he also explained how they produced a careful constitutional balance, with late night caution brought to bear and a carefully worked out and delicate mechanism.

Furthermore, the clause is entirely silent on what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan submitted to him. We know it has to be submitted for approval. We know the sentencing plan of Sentencing Council must publish the plan once it has been approved, but there are no known consequences suggested in the Bill. If the Lord Chancellor does not approve the business plan. So I turn then to clause 19. The clause effectively gives the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice an absolute veto over any new sentencing guidelines proposed by the Sentencing Council.

That, again, is an unwarranted interference with its work and with its independence, making it a creature of the government and driving a coach and horses. Through the careful arrangements made at the establishment of the Sentencing Council, which were designed to ensure independence of government which have been respected ever since. Until the recent disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the government, which led to the Sentencing Guidelines Bill. Now, sadly, an act my Lords judges value both their judicial discretion within the ambit of the law and the independence and objectivity of the advice they receive from the Sentencing Council, together with the evidence led expertise of the Sentencing Council, in giving them advice as to the best sentencing practice, and as to the avoidance of missteps in sentencing.

It follows, from what I've said, that I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the Sentencing Council and entirely oppose the abolition of that council advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in his amendment 80. The idea propounded by Lord Jackson is that it is only for Parliament to be responsible for setting maximum sentences, which the Court of Appeal would be the for which the Court of Appeal would be the only safeguard. My Lords, the role of Parliament is quite distinct, not only from the judicial judicial role of judges in passing individual sentences, as Lord Jackson agrees, but it is also quite different from Parliament's from Parliament's role in performing any other function, and Parliament does not have the further and quite distinct role of the Sentencing Council in giving judges advice as to the factors they should and should not take into account when passing sentence in.

In individual cases there therefore, consistency of sentencing and principles based on evidence. So I'd far rather see clause 19 go, but if it is to remain, then the removal of the Lord Chancellor's veto in amendments 81 to 83 represents a sensible compromise that I would hope the government might accept, so that the sentence, the sentencing guidelines would be published as such, unless both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord or Lady Chief Justice objected, that would preserve the judicial influence over new guidelines, and the Lord or Lady Chief Justice could, in the case of dispute, enable the Sentencing Council to do its statutory duty by producing guidelines independently.

And I. I suggest that the noble and learned Lords, Thomas and Barnett, should be congratulated on introducing the compromise. Not a compromise I'd go for, but a compromise that would work. And if the clause is to stand, their wise approach should be heeded.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I must confess that as I read the provisions of this bill, I read the provisions of this bill, it triggered a childhood memory. The late Doctor Doolittle curated a number of very strange and unusual animals, which included the pushmi pullyu, a gazelle with two heads pullyu, a gazelle with two heads which faced in opposite directions at the same time. But why would I at the same time. But why would I be prone to such a memory upon a reading of the provisions in this
21:20
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
reading of the provisions in this particular bill? Let me begin with some quotations from the government. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary. It is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence. The decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case. It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision.

And yet, clause one in the Bill says that the judiciary must apply a presumption other than in very narrowly prescribed circumstances, so that even if a judge wished to impose a custodial sentence of a certain length, they would be unable to do so if it did not fall under a specified exemption or exceptional circumstances. And how did the noble Lord, the Minister, endeavour to bring this together? In the first day of committee? I quote it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence.

Following the appropriate guidance of the Sentencing Council. But this guidance is now to be in the control of the government by virtue of the Lord Chancellor's veto, thereby potentially eliminating any sense of, and I quote, independence, unquote. So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, in which direction is this two headed bill going to proceed, because it cannot walk in two different and diametrically opposed directions at the same time. Is it towards the goal of judicial independence, or is it towards the goal of executive control? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, concluded by saying that these provisions were wrong headed.

I think the provisions are even worse, my Lords. They're double headed and that has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be resolved. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. My Lord, I thank the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble and learned Lords Lord the noble and learned Lords Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for tabling these amendments. And I'm very grateful
21:23
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

for their continued and constructive engagement on the bill. Let me turn first to amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which proposes to abolish the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The noble Lord. Lord Jackson's prediction is correct. I want to put on record that we strongly believe that his right to retain the Council, in view of the continued importance of its work to develop sentencing guidelines. He doesn't look completely surprised. Over time, the council has developed offence specific guidelines covering hundreds of offences, alongside a series of overarching guidelines.

These guidelines have helped bring greater consistency, greater transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process and we welcome that. The Council also holds an important constitutional position, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, within the firmament of our justice system. It bridges the interests and the responsibilities of Parliament, the executive and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice, whilst protecting the important responsibility and of judges and magistrates to make individual sentencing decisions. So I think I'm I'm reflecting what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas said.

For these reasons, I'm afraid we wouldn't support Lord Jackson's The noble Lord, Lord Jackson's amendment, and I would urge him to withdraw his amendment. Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, they have indicated quite clearly their opposition to clause 18 of the Bill and propose an alternative approach. Clause 19. And I'm very grateful for their careful consideration of this, and their concerns have been shared by the noble Lord. Lord Marks. I know that they were experts in this field, and their opinions therefore carry a great deal of weight with the government.

As the noble Lord, the Minister made clear during Second Reading. In bringing forward these clauses, we are aiming to maintain public confidence in the guidelines that the Council produces, particularly in view of the sustained public scrutiny that the Council has been under of late, and that is partly reflected in these debates. Events surrounding the imposition guideline on which I don't propose to dwell. But but I obviously need to reference earlier this year highlighted an example of the issues that can arise where guidelines cover areas of policy that should properly be for Ministers and Parliament to determine.

We are keen to avoid a similar scenario arising in the future, and that's why clause 18 and 19 have been introduced to introduce approval measures that provide greater democratic and judicial oversight of the Council's work. I recognise that noble Lords, including the noble Lord Lord Marks, are keen for more intention. More information about the intention of clause 18. Put briefly, this clause will allow the Lord Chancellor to have a greater say over the guidelines that the Council intends to develop across the year, ensuring any plans are properly reflective of wider priorities across government and Parliament and with the wider public.

I should know noble Lord has has so far mentioned this. I should stress in preparing this clause. We have had regard to similar provision that exists for other comparable bodies across the justice system, such as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Law Commission. So yes, of. Course. Why the. Law Commission. Which is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is. A body that looks at law reform for the government, is to be for the government, is to be equated with the Independent Sentencing Council, which constitutionally balances the three constitutionally balances the three interests. It would be very helpful to have that explanation. And the second explanation it would be second explanation it would be helpful to have is, is it intended that the business plan sets out in that the business plan sets out in detail the what is going to be in detail the what is going to be in the guidelines so the Lord Chancellor can look through it and see if there's likely to be the kind of short sentence or two that occurred in this guideline that is unacceptable.

It would be very interesting to know what the government's thinking is on both of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these points. I do take the point that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do take the point that the noble Lord makes that the Law Commission is different, and that's why I said that we've had regard to why I said that we've had regard to that of. On the second question, that of. On the second question, the noble Lord raises. Perhaps I can come to that in just a moment. can come to that in just a moment. Clause 19 provides that the council can only issue definitive guidelines if the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice each individually approved them.

The individually approved them. The amendments from the noble and learned Lords propose instead that the Council be free to issue definitive guidance unless both the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice indicate that they do not consent. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment and the spirit of compromise that the noble and learned Lord Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas also referred to behind these amendments, I'm afraid we're not convinced that they would be the best way of securing the public confidence in sentencing guidelines that we seek.

This is because they run the risk of definitive guidelines being published and implemented for the use by the courts, even if the Lord Chancellor, or indeed the Lady Chief Justice, had indicated their discontent to them. We consider the current drafting of the clause 19 to be a practical and effective means of achieving our policy objective, because it provides that the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must first be obtained before a definitive guideline can be published and implemented.

I would also like to emphasise that in developing our current drafting, we have sought to reflect the distinct roles and responsibilities that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary, and the careful balance that has been established for sentencing policy and practice. In particular, we are clear that these approval measures do not interfere, and I hope this is obvious, but I should I should stress it with emphasis anyway, that that these approval measures do not interfere with the judiciary's responsibility for setting sentences in individual cases.

So I've set out the government's case. To sum up. We remain of the view that these targeted reforms are necessary to maintain public confidence in the Council and its guidelines. We do, however, recognise and I suppose you, the noble Lords, knew I was coming to the word. However, we do, however, recognise that several concerns have been raised about the circumstances under which the business plan or guidelines might not be approved. I have also watched the the Lady Chief Justice's evidence to the Justice Select Committee and read the transcript of it with great care.

I've also read the report of the Constitution Committee on the bill, and I'm grateful for their very clear, clear comments and reflections. And against this backdrop, and bearing in mind the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lords, which have helped to clarify the government's thinking in the Minister would be happy to engage further with noble Lords on this ahead of Report stage. I hope this is a helpful explanation of the government's position, and can I reemphasize that we do want to continue the discussion? I can't promise to the noble and learned Lord Thomas.

It will be with my sleeves rolled up and late at night. But in the meantime, I urge the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Adonis to withdraw these amendments. Oh, can I just say one final thing on the Pushmi Pullyu point, which I was grateful to be reminded of. The next step for us is to further engage with the noble Lords, so we won't be either

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pushing or pulling. Before the. noble Lord responds. I may have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may have. Missed it, but I'm still unclear about what happens under clause 18
21:32
21:32
21:33
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
it's been a fascinating debate, very fluent and well argued. Obviously, I've been beset by a surfeit of eminent jurists this evening, and they certainly give lie to the the saying that lawyers are the only person in whom ignorance of the law is not punished, my Lords. But I think the interesting thing is, although I agree with the noble Lords on stamp art 18 and 19, that is a logical corollary of the fact that I wish to see the abolition of Sentencing Council, and therefore I'm not quite finding myself coming from the same position.

So I am an example of a push me, pull me. I find myself agreeing with their objective, but vehemently disagreeing with their rationale and reasoning. But nevertheless, two things I would quickly say before I sit down is one. I would slightly take issue with the noble and learned Lord Thomas, because I think it wasn't just. A slightly irrelevant mix up in at the beginning of the year, it was actually quite a constitutional tempest. It's very unusual for the government to bring forward very quickly and effectively emergency legislation to, as a result of the behaviour or conduct of an arm's length body.

So I do think there were serious constitutional ramifications arising from those decisions. Obviously, the government solved that with cross-party support. And of course, I totally agree with the very astute point made by my noble friend Lord King. There is a dichotomy at the heart of this bill about the interference or otherwise of government and the imperatives they're giving to the judiciary, and I think that does need to be resolved by the time this bill gets royal assent. But with all those caveats being ventilated, my Lords, and bearing in mind, as I predicted, that the Minister was very unlikely to agree with me, I beg leave to the House.

Oh, one other thing. May I say I. Of course I meant the Times leader of March 2025, not 2020 2010 for the benefit of the official record. So that was an error on my part. But with that being said, I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
21:35
21:36
21:36
None Portrait Amendment:84 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

much. The question is that clause 19 of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 19, amendment H4 Lord Keen of Ely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I turn to speak to the group of amendments in my name, 84, group of amendments in my name, 84, 85 and 148 A. These amendments concern the publication of sentencing remarks, the collection sentencing remarks, the collection and publication of sentencing data, and the review of the effect of this bill on community and voluntary sectors once it comes into force. The government is, of into force. The government is, of course, of the opinion that the blanket presumption of suspended sentences will lead to less crime sentences will lead to less crime in the long run, and reports have suggested, however, that it will increase offences by almost 400,000 per year.

I certainly hope that the government is right in its assessment because clearly safer streets are is a goal which would unite all noble Lords. But Lords, if we are to assess whether this Bill is anything of a success, we need the data to support it. We on these benches do not and will not simply accept reform based on blind faith. Reform has to be backed by accountability, visibility and evidence. And amendment 84 taking in turn, the amendments concerns sentencing remarks, and we propose that all transcripts of sentencing remarks on the Crown Court be published and be made freely available online for the public to access.

My Lords, sentencing is not just a technical exercise. It is a moment of public judgement. A judge's remarks concern the reasoning behind both why particular sentence was imposed and why it was for a particular duration, and that reasoning is essential for victims, families, communities and indeed the public at large to understand what justice looks like in practice. Without that transparency, justice is done behind a veil, and that is liable to undermine confidence. In a sense, the government agree with that principle.

At least they did when their manifesto was written. In their manifesto, they observed, and I quote, the sentences criminals receive often do not make sense either to victims of the wider public, unquote. I suggest that the publication of sentencing remarks is key to rebuilding public confidence and holding the judicial system to account. It is trite that open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy, and sentencing is to become more complex and discretionary under this bill, especially with the expanded use of suspended sentences and community orders, then public understanding and scrutiny will become even more important.

Research by the International Association of Court Administration has shown a clear link between transparency and sentencing, and public confidence in the justice system. Yet even now, our current system remains opaque. Though sentencing remarks may be broadcast in a limited number of high profile cases, many judgements remain inaccessible. Of course, transcripts are available, but only at cost and only if requested for many victims and their families, as well as third parties such as researchers. That is a prohibitive barrier.

So we must replace selective access with universal and consistent transparency, especially in the wake of this bill. Turning to amendment 85, this would require the courts to report key sentencing data and for the government to publish aggregate statistics at periodic, at certain periods that would provide the public with information on how many sentences are given for which offences their length, as well as offender demographics. If we are to place thousands more offenders under community supervision and expand the the use of suspended sentences, we must be able to monitor the consequences.

Who's being sentenced for what and with what impact on reoffending or public safety? And without such data, the bill becomes a blind experiment and we won't know if it is actually achieving its objectives. But Lords. We must not shy away from accountability or reject the principles which underpin democracy. The laws amendment one four AIDS Day addresses the impact of the Bill on community and voluntary sectors. I'm sure we all recognise that these organisations provide vital support to the most those most affected by crime, whether they be victims or offenders themselves, and often they are the backbone of effective rehabilitation in the community.

This bill's provisions will place new and substantial demands on those services, and without proper oversight, we risk overwhelming charities, community groups and voluntary agencies tasked with delivering critical interventions. Many of the arguments made in support of amendments 84 and 85 apply to this amendment as well. It would require the government, within 12 months of commencement, to publish an assessment of the bill's impact on the sector. And again, that is not some bureaucratic nicety, but a matter of transparency and fairness. My Lords, we cannot turn a blind eye to the practical realities on the ground, and to accept this amendment is to place evidence and accountability at the forefront of this information.

We owe that to this sector and to the wider public. And therefore, my Lords, I beg to move.
21:43
21:43
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
as it were, and glad to have the opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the Moj's work on this at the Constitution Committee, which I'm a member. On the 3rd of September, I asked the then Lord Chancellor about progress in this area and she said, quote, I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy. And also, she said, we're testing market solutions for speed and accuracy.

Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it can be rolled out, she said. It's a long process and has a cost attached to it, but went on to emphasise that accuracy was the problem at the moment. So if the Minister can update the committee, that would be very welcome. The point is not only in general is not only about sentencing remarks. My hon. Friend for Richmond Park and North Kingston, I have to think about the long title of the constituency has been pursuing the matter of transcripts, and she realises that it's this is important not only in sentencing remarks, but full transcripts of trials, because it's victims.

If that's a word I can use when there has been a not guilty finding, victims need help to understand what has happened. So as the noble Lord has has said, access to after the event, to go back and look to see what was said is actually very important. None of us rely on our memories. I think we all look at Hansard, for instance. I think that the publication within two sitting days may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two days. My Lords, I welcome amendment 148 a this bill will shape the 148 a this bill will shape the ecosystems of support that underpin and surround our entire justice system. A recurring theme through
21:46
Baroness Porter of Fulwood Portrait Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)
-
-
system. A recurring theme through both Second Reading and Committee stage so far has been the question of resourcing. While the focus of these discussions has been largely around the probation service itself, we cannot ignore the 1700 community and voluntary organisations that work in this area, both inside and outside of prisons. We know there are many aspects where community and voluntary organisations excel. There are some dimensions. The evidence shows they provide better than private companies or the public sector.

They build social capital, enable trust and often have an understanding of vital contextual points related to specific communities or issues. I'm sure any of us who've spent any substantial time volunteering and working closely with people in very vulnerable situations understands this dynamic in general, this sector in the UK is facing challenges on many fronts. The rise in national insurance corporate giving, stalling increasing overheads across the board, combined with growing demand, are all contributing to what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations refers to as the year of the Big Squeeze.

Clinks 2024 report on the state of the sector makes for sobering reading, and that is the situation as things stand at the moment. If the vision that sits behind this bill is to stand any chance of success, not only do we need to find a way to support and shore up the existing voluntary and community sector, but we need to prioritise expanding its capacity and growing it. This is more straightforward than it sounds. There's a remarkable level of agreement across organisations such as the Charities Aid Foundation, the centre for Social Justice, Clinks and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, to name a few, about the kinds of policies that are needed.

A lot of these are to do with processes simplifying, contracting, commissioning locally and more collaboratively, introducing contract indexation and protecting local specialist funding. Others are about finding ways of attracting more private and corporate donations into the sector, for example, making changes to gift aid and introducing matched funding. Others. As the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report Better Prisons, Less Crime highlighted a practical points about how HMPPS and individual prisons can coordinate better with the third sector. This amendment by itself is not an answer, but it is a prerequisite for bringing the level of transparency and accountability that is needed into this system.

This provides a powerful opportunity if used correctly. We need to understand in more detail the plan for addressing the impact of this bill by requiring a formal report on its impact and on the capacity of the voluntary and community sector to meet any increased demand. This amendment will build accountability into the system. If we fail to monitor the effects of this legislation on the very organisations that underpin rehabilitation and community safety, we risk creating new pressures in the system. By amending the bill to provide for this assessment, the government has the opportunity to send a clear signal here, demonstrating that it believes that policy should be informed by data, and that the community and voluntary sector is a valued partner.

This amendment strengthens oversight, supports the sector and ensures that the promises of this bill are matched by the capacity of bill are matched by the capacity of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the community to deliver them. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord for the and the noble Lord for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I appreciate that these amendments seek to improve transparency and public understanding of the criminal justice system, and this government agrees wholeheartedly on the
21:50
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
agrees wholeheartedly on the importance of open justice. However, we do not consider these amendments are necessary to achieve that aim. I turn first to amendment 84. I'd first like to reassure noble Lords that the government is taking action to increase the openness and transparency of the system in certain cases of high public interest. Sentencing. Remarks are published, are already published online, and sentencing remarks can also be filmed by broadcasters, subject to the agreement of the judge. The sentencing of Thomas Cashman for the appalling murder of Olivia Pratt-korbel was one such example.

The government has recently extended provision of free transcripts of sentencing, remarks to victims of rape and other sexual offences whose cases are heard in the Crown Court, and it remains the case that bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request judge's sentencing remarks for free. We're also actively exploring the opportunities offered by AI to reduce the costs of producing transcripts in the future, and to make transcripts across the system more accessible. But this amendment introducing this additional provision of court transcripts would place a significant financial burden on the courts and divert resources away from where it is needed most in the wider system.

The release of any court transcript requires judicial oversight to ensure accuracy and adherence to any reporting restrictions, and to make sure that other public interest factors have been considered. This amendment would therefore have significant operational and resource implications for HMCTS and the judiciary. It would place extra demands on judicial capacity in the Crown Court and on HMCTS, at a time when the system is under immense pressure. So while we agree entirely on the importance of transparency within the justice system, we cannot accept the amendment at this time.

However, I can reassure noble Lords that we will continue to consider this closely. In particular, I want to explore what opportunities AI presents to improve transcriptions and data. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the potential is there, and we need to find the best way to harness it. And I will write to the noble Baroness Hamwee on the point around data and accuracy. I turn now to amendment 85. Again, we agree with the principle of improving transparency, but not within the necessity of the amendment itself.

This government is committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders. The Ministry of Justice has already taken action to increase transparency on the data published, notably in July. For the first time, the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by Sex and Offence group. We're also working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to establish early identification of foreign national offenders, being able to verify the nationality of offenders ahead of sentencing will facilitate more timely removals, and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced data collection.

We will keep this under review as part of our ongoing work to strengthen the data collection and publication system that we inherited from the previous government. Implementation of these measures may require a new mechanism to verify the information provided, which must be cost effective and prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff. For this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary infrastructure is in place to support it. Our measured approach will continue to support the return of more foreign national offenders, while ensuring maximum transparency for the public.

I am also grateful to the noble and learned and noble Lord for tabling amendment 148 concerning measuring the impact of the Bill on the voluntary and community sectors. I must also thank the noble Lady Baroness Porter of Fulwood, who has championed this subject during this Bill's passage. She made a thoughtful and impassioned contribution at Second Reading and in today's debate, the voluntary and community sector plays a vital role in developing and delivering services to people in our care. The sector supports HMPPS and MoJ by bridging gaps and providing continuity that reduces reoffending, and drives rehabilitation through targeted specialist support.

Many of the services we provide would not be possible without the vital contribution of the voluntary sector, including charities such as Women in Prison, Saint Giles Trust Pact and many others. The Independent Sentencing Review made recommendations for whether third sector can be utilised to support the probation service and offenders on community sentences or on licence. We already work closely with third sector organisations to deliver better outcomes in the criminal justice system. For example, we work in partnership with the charity Clinks through the HMPPS and MoJ infrastructure Grant to engage a network of around 1500 organisations.

In collaboration with Clinks, we have convened a series of roundtables with voluntary and community sector representatives and policy colleagues to explore the review's recommendations and how the sector can make the greatest contribution to probation capacity. I have carefully considered amendment 148 a. However, it will not be possible to fully understand the impact within 12 months, nor based just on data from the first six months of the act being in force. Implementation of the bill's provisions will be phased over time and closely linked to the outcomes of the Leveson review and its implementation.

In addition, the sector's experience will be influenced by the introduction of new commissioned rehabilitative services contracts, measuring the impact within such a short time frame. Amid these overlapping and confounding factors would be highly complex. But again, I want to explore the opportunities that AI presents to collect and use better data in future. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that they will, that they are considered and utilised in the implementation of this bill.
21:56
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Their contributions have underscored the wide recognition across this House that transparency, accountability and evidence must underpin any credible approach to sentencing reform, and these amendments do not seek to frustrate the Bill in any way. They seek to ensure that its objectives can be properly understood, monitored and delivered. And with regard to amendment 84, we heard throughout this debate the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system, and confidence cannot exist without visibility.

Turning to amendment 85, I once again make the simple point that you cannot manage what you do not measure with respect to amendment 148. I too, would like to acknowledge the contribution contribution made by the noble Lady Baroness Porter and her thoughtful and insightful contribution reflected her long standing experience and interest in this issue. At this time I will withdraw these amendments, but I give notice the noble Lord, the Minister, that we will return to this at a later

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point in the process of this bill. Lord Keen is it your lordships withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 85 Lord Keen withdrawn. Amendment 85 Lord Keen not moved. Amendment 86 and 87. not moved. Amendment 86 and 87.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Jackson not moved. I beg leave to move that the house do now resume.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house do now resume. Question is that the house. Be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content the that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to move that the House do now adjourn.
14:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page