Lords Chamber

Wednesday 3rd December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Improving social mobility for careers in the arts and creative industries The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-

My My Lord's My Lord's first My Lord's first oral My Lord's first oral question. My Lord's first oral question. The Earl of Clancarty. Earl of Clancarty.
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: The clearance rate of Gateway 3 new-build applications by the Building Safety Regulator. Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-

Second oral question Lord Elliott of Lord Marland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question on the Order Paper standing in my
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Oral questions: The supply of blood and blood products this winter Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Urgent Question Baroness Hayman. To ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. My
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
None Portrait Oral questions: Budget 2025 commitment to fund SEND budgets centrally and the affect on mainstream schools
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the
15:40
15:40
15:42
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:52
15:53
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendments in this group. But before turning to the specific amendments, I think it's important to understand why the various proposals have thought them necessary in one way or another. Most address concern about the existing capacity within the MoJ, and the very big concern that there won't be sufficient capacity to deal with the new responsibilities arising from the bill. And most, but not all, focus on staffing in the Prison Service and the probation Service. Damning concerns about staffing levels in these two services regularly appear in the annual reports of the Prison and Probation Inspectorate.

In an earlier debate, I mentioned concern about prison officer numbers and pointed out that the prison population has risen. The number of prison officers has declined, and that prison officers are leaving at an alarming rate, 17% each year, and half of those do so after less than one year in service. But as far as the probation services concerned, Ministers themselves have acknowledged that they have inherited, and I quote, a service under immense pressure. And the chief inspector has referred to chronic understaffing.

The bill envisages more sanctioned early releases from prisons and an almost doubling of the number of people being tagged. And that means more people to be supervised. So more work for the probation officers. Now, currently, approximately 7000 officers are doing this existing supervision work, and that number is considered inadequate. As one senior probation officer talking about when things go wrong, put it, it's infuriating when some of us are being told it's our fault we're not doing enough and that we need to up our game.

But actually the workload is sky high. And I want to give, if I may, an example of why this really matters. Just one year ago, 73 out of every hundred released prisoners were being recalled to prison. By June this year, the recall population had reached 13,538. That's the equivalent of nine prisons costing £3.5 billion a year, and most are not recalled for new crimes, but for failing to comply with their licence conditions. And that's often because, frankly, they've no home, they've no income, and they're being supervised by an overworked probation officer.

Preparation for release is minimal and support afterwards is thinner still. And the easy solution for these overworked probation officers when faced with licence breaches, is to get the offenders off their books and avoid any comeback if something goes wrong. By taking the risk averse route and simply send them back to prison. And that's the situation now. But some research has indicated that to effectively manage existing case loads and the new ones that will arise from the bill, an extra 10,000 probation officers will be needed.

Now the Minister will talk about how we can use new technology to help. And he's absolutely right and we fully support him. But that alone is not going to resolve the situation. The Minister will also talk about the thousand additional probation officers already recruited, and about the 1300 additional officers they're hoping to recruit. And he'll talk about the £700 million over four years extra funds to the probation service. Now, my Lords, we don't know how that money is yet to be allocated, but it's certain that not all of it will be spent on new staff.

So it is my contention that combined, these measures will certainly help. They're certainly welcome, but they seem unlikely to meet current and new demands combined. And as I said at Second Reading, I fear, therefore, that we will not have the means in either prison or probation service to achieve the ends. That, my Lord, is the context of the amendments in this group, which fall into two categories. The first group is amendments, which call for regular reports on capacity issues, and the second group are members that, in effect, prevent the main measures in the bill being enacted until proof of adequate capacity to deliver them, or that they will deliver what is intended, is provided now in the first category.

Reports on capacity issues. My amendment 88 serves as a clear illustration. It requires an annual report from the Lord Chancellor on prison population predictions. Projections for the supply of new prison places, information of prison service staffing and information on probation service, staffing and case loads. Now my Lord, such reports have been produced from time to time in the past. Indeed, there was one last year, but the report last year had something additional within it. It included a very specific commitment by this government that there would be a statutory requirement for similar reports on an annual basis.

So I confess I was surprised not to see that commitment appear in the bill. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will assure me that the government is still committed to this type of annual capacity report on a statutory basis, that its failure to be included in the bill was an oversight, and that it is grateful to me for giving them the opportunity to rectify the oversight, and I hope, therefore he will be supporting this amendment, and I hope he'll look equally favourably on other amendments in this group calling for reports.

My noble friend. Baroness Hamwee amendment 110 z b on an annual Report on the availability in Prisons of education and vocational provision and the training of staff to deliver them. My noble friend Baroness Hamwee, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, amendment 139A on a report on resources of the Probation Service, including regional resources, and their 153 on a report about the operability of the driving prohibition. Driving prohibition provisions in the bill.

My own amendment 110 z b on an annual report looking specifically at probation service resources to implement electronic monitoring or tagging provisions. And finally, and very importantly, given the announcements yesterday on the removal of trials by jury in certain circumstances, amendment 93, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, this requires the Secretary of State to undertake and then publish an assessment of the potential merit of removing the cap on sitting days in Crown Court in relation to sentencing hearings.

Now, my noble friend will talk about this amendment and why it is a better way forward than yesterday's proposal to reduce trials by jury. I will only just point out that the need for some action is urgent. Crown courts are facing a record backlog, with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed unless something is done. A suspect charged today can expect a trial in late 2029 or even early 2030. This is clearly unacceptable for both the suspect and the victims.

And of course, some of those people are on remand in prison. Increasing prison capacity. Now, the second category amendments are about various requirements capacity or delivery probability. Before enactment of the main measures in the bill. My own probing amendment 137 and associated amendments is perhaps the most obscure ringing in my ears as I was drafting. It was the probation officer who said workloads are sky high and other probation staff have reported impossible caseload. So, my Lords, it seems sensible to get some measure of an acceptable caseload for each of the different roles of a probation officer and then set a maximum.

And that would, of course, focus minds on the number of staff needed. But, my Lords, I'll be the first to admit that the noble Lord Woodley and the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb have come up with something less complicated and, frankly, more encompassing. Their amendment 138 proposes that until the Inspector of probation is satisfied, there is sufficient capacity in the service to deliver those aspects of the bill likely to increase demand, then they can't be implemented. My noble friend's Baroness Hamwee and Lord Marks will no doubt speak to amendments 153 and 154, and the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst will speak to 155.

But I just point out that all three require reports before implementation on the practicality of different aspects of this bill. My Lords, it is clear that across subject to caveats, general support for many, but there is also wide scale concern about the capacity of the MoJ, especially within the prison and probation services. To deliver them. The noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, for example, when discussing my amendment, when we were just discussing the bill on including gambling disorder considerations within the criminal justice system, said the onus, therefore, is on the government to demonstrate that the noble Lords well-intentioned amendments can be accepted if possible and then implemented.

We would like this to be the case, but only if possible. And that is the concern that many of us have. The Minister's offered a separate session to demonstrate his confidence in delivery capacity once the bill is enacted. And that, of course, is very welcome and we look forward to it. But if he is so confident, then none of the amendments in this group should be of any concern to him. So I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but in particular I hope he will support my amendment 88, since it merely requires the government to stick to its promise to deliver a statutory annual capacity report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 19. Insert the new clause as 19. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. Would you?
16:04
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you? I'm closing. My apologies, I was waiting I was waiting for a colleague to jump in. Well, late though it may be. It's very difficult to follow that. Outstanding contribution has just been made by Lord foster. It was absolutely exhilarating for me actually listening to it, you know. But I rise to speak on my amendment 134 on probation capacity. My Lords, it really is crucial, bearing in mind that I raise this as a consequence of the issues raised with me by the probation union Napo.

The amendment seeks to give, as has been mentioned, the probation service watchdog Realty, and I do mean real teeth. Currently, only the people running local probation units can trigger special measures. And what's called the prioritisation framework. This has given rise to accusations they're actually marking their own homework. And so my amendment seeks to share that power with the Chief inspector of probation. Prioritisation is an important safety valve to stop the probation unit from being swamped. But sometimes an outside perspective is needed to gauge this accurately and honestly, for obvious reasons.

And it is widely accepted that probation is under extreme pressure. There is no doubt at all about that, and this bill will only add to those pressures. Officers are trained to assess risk, but they must be given the space and time to do that properly. If we want to avoid reinforcing the risk averse culture that Lord Frost has just mentioned, that's causing so much damage to the service, and it's damage that we can do without the Lords. At this point, I would like to I'm sure the House will join with me, pay tribute, pay tribute to the probation officer who so shamefully was stabbed in Oxford last week whilst supervising an offender.

Thankfully, the officer and I commend his bravery and fortitude. He was not critically injured, as I say thankfully, and we wish him a complete and fully supported recovery. But beyond the immediate harm caused this incident, the second such attack recently after another officer was stabbed in Preston in August, underscores the increasing risk faced by probation officers and as the crisis for prison violence spills over into probation. Not surprisingly, staff morale and retention have collapsed, made worse by over a decade of real terms pay cuts.

While caseloads, again, as we mentioned, have soared to unimaginable levels and worse is yet to come. As has been mentioned, the Lords, this amendment also seeks approval from the Chief Inspector before any extra pressure is placed on probation from within the bill. This simple, simple safeguard should address fears that the service may be unfit for purpose or otherwise, if it was unprepared for the extra work coming its way. I would also like to place on record support for the other amendments in this group on capacity, which all seek to place perfectly, perfectly reasonable safeguards, such as maximum caseloads for probation officers and annual reports on probation, resourcing and tagging operations, all on the face of this bill, preferably, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can appreciate the merits in these suggestions and those in my amendment 134, which, as I say, have come directly from staff on the front line, directly from staff on the front line, and I look forward very much so to his response.
16:08
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Rise to support amendment 134. And I would like to say to Lord foster, noble Lord foster, that was a very passionate speech. And I do feel that this issue that's come up several times does need more emphasis. It's incredibly important. And although I support very much support, the intentions of the sentencing bill, I do feel that we can't avoid at least acknowledging the strain already placed on the probation service. And if we are going to put new demands on probation, then we must first be confident that they can meet them.

The latest report from the National Audit Office makes that painfully clear. It makes painfully clear that the service is struggling with staff shortages, rising workloads and unsatisfactory outcomes. Only 79% of target staffing levels for qualified probation officers have been met, leaving around 1500 vacancies across England and Wales. Ten of 12 regions are operating beyond full capacity, and almost half of local delivery units are now rated red or amber for performance. So in that context, asking Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation to confirm adequate capacity before we actually put pressure on it is a necessary safeguard.

And if we want these measures in the bill to succeed, our probation service must be set up to succeed. And this clause. Thank you for the kind words, Lord foster about it. I'm a complete passenger on this, but this clause does ensure that, and that's why I'm pleased to second it.
16:10
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I speak to amendment 93 E in this case, the capacity is that of prison officers. The amendment calls for an annual report. But as we discussed on the first day of committee, this can be wording which is really only a mechanism to introduce an issue. And in this case, it's probing amendment seeking assurances about activities and about the need for prison officers to support those activities. It's common sense that activities in prison are important.

Nothing of what I say is intended to downplay the work of probation officers, but this is just a different focus. Activities which are the word which we used a lot last week, purposeful and so including in particular educational and vocational activities, which too often are either not available or not available sufficiently, they wouldn't all be delivered by prison officers, but they need their buy in and support. I've raised this because I've become aware, as others will have been, for longer than I have, about the shortage of prison officers and aware of the strain on them.

The work to be attractive needs to be more rewarding and to have its professional status recognised. Purposeful activity. What I mean by that is meaningful, rehabilitative, not performative, should be central to time in prison in order to reduce re-offending and transferable skills be taught. But we know that activities are start from a low base, are inadequate in in number and I guess in type as well. But activities are cancelled because of chronic staffing shortages.

That basic numeracy and literacy is not available. As a result of this, and as the Sentencing review said, the MoJ should prioritise purposeful activity as a core function of the prison regime, ensuring that work, education and rehabilitative programmes are protected from disruptions caused by staffing shortages. This will require a strategic focus on maintaining consistent activity delivery even in the face of staffing challenges. This was one of the recommendations which was accepted in full by the MoJ.

So this amendment has two focuses. The activities themselves, officers. officers.
16:13
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I will deal first. I'll speak first to my amendment 93, which would remove the cap on sitting days in the Crown Court for sentencing hearings. This was an amendment moved by my hon. Friend Monica Harding in the House of Commons, and I'll then move on more generally to sitting days and the other amendments in the group. The. There has been, I suggest, a somewhat surreal argument in this House and elsewhere about the number of sitting days, given the appalling background of delays in Crown Court hearings, particularly with trials delayed sometimes, as we've heard, to 2029, which has amounted to a denial of justice, as well as a delay in justice.

And our wish is to see everything possible done to reduce court delays. And that's clearly important in the context of my amendment. Also, in sentencing hearings, just as in respect of contested trials, we would like to see more done. And I've said this before in investigating evening and weekend sittings for sentencing hearings. I know they've been trialled in part and that hasn't been pursued. But one advantage of sentencing hearings being held in the evenings and at weekends is that because they're involve less people attending court than trials, there are significant opportunities for using resources more wisely, wisely.

And they have the advantage of not cutting in to the working day of those offenders who have found work because they don't have and they don't have to get time off work to attend such hearings. With the lengthy and difficult explanations that that necessarily involves to employers and others, and such hearings would free up courts for use in the working day and, of course, court resources for trials. Certainly, one accepts that staff would have to work out of hours to cover them, but that is not an insuperable obstacle.

Another advantage of increasing sitting days for sentencing hearings is that because they are far shorter than trials, a considerable number can be held within the space of a day, and such hearings. Involve less people attending them than trials, and there are significant opportunities for using resources more wisely. For example, the CPS routinely send just one advocate to conduct a series of sentencing hearings at a given court on a given day. That could be much more coordination with defence advocates and solicitors.

To encourage courts to try and arrange for advocates, with several pending sentencing hearings in a particular court to have numbers of them heard on the same day. So it's, I suggest, well worth an assessment of how far sentencing hearings could be removed from with within the cap on sitting days. More generally, I would argue that we shouldn't be operating a cap at all, but the Crown courts should be sitting as many days as capacity could allow to cut the backlogs, and that would involve a significant increase in the sitting days.

The important point is that all these cases have to be heard eventually, except in the unwelcome case, which we should discourage, that witnesses abandon contested cases for want of a timely trial because they give up hope of their cases being heard quickly. However, in the generality of cases, there is no saving of resources to be made by deferring trials. The delays merely make those trials less. Just as recollections fade and as events become further apart from the hearing and the disposal.

That's also true, of course, of delayed sentencing hearings, just as it is of delayed trials. And we should be doing everything we can to keep courts open as much as possible. That means undertaking necessary repairs as quickly as possible, ensuring that court staff are available, and that we have sufficient criminal advocates, judges and recorders to do the work. As the noble Lady, Baroness Levitt, as the Minister said last night in the discussion of the statement on criminal Justice, we need more advocates and the government say they're committed to solve the problems caused by the shortage, but there is a great deal more that can be done to cut delays and backlogs, which we have discussed at great length in this House.

And even if the government are right to blame the delays on the previous government, and I believe they are, they must nevertheless show themselves the determination and the courage and make the money available to make good the shortages and bring down the waiting list. And that means moving, I suggest, from a cap to a target and not being complacent or congratulation or self-congratulatory when there are incremental increases in days sat. The increases need to be radical, and certainly the issues should not be met.

As we discussed last night, by denying the right to jury trial to many defendants, as the government presently intend, and I suggest that suggestion is contrary to generations of adherence and admiration by members of the Labour Party and by Labour governments of the principle of jury trial. And it is deeply disappointing to see those principles abandoned. Turning then, to the other amendments in this group, I support everything that my noble friend Lord foster has said on his amendments relating to prison, population, current and predicted prison capacity on the probation service and its need for resources.

I know the government has taken on board that there is a shortage of resources and a need for more resources, but it doesn't sit well with the government to blame the opposition for what they did in government, and then not to increase the resources to the level that is needed. And we have severe concerns of which I've spoken before, about whether the extra money currently available for promotion will be sufficient to meet the extra demands that are made upon the service by the provisions of this bill.

Noble Lord. Lord Foster also spoke of staffing of the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Probation officers, individual caseloads, and he said much about tagging. I agree with him that the noble Lord Lord Woodley and Baroness Jay may have found a simple way in amendment 134 of delaying implementation to make the point, but there is considerable merit in the point Lord foster made that underpinned his case that regular reporting is crucial if we're going to improve not just sentencing, but the criminal justice system as a whole, Baroness Hamwee and amendment 93 E has spoken of the need for rehabilitative activity, education, and that is an extremely important point that has run through the debate so far in committee.

And I know the government has the gist of it. I know the government has the commitment to it, but again, it needs the resources and the determination to make it real. Lady Hanleys, amendment 119 on digital sentencing management a sentence management raises an important point that's been discussed recently in several debates and discussions of the context of accidental releases. And the noble Lord. The Minister has promised a move to more use of technology to control releases.

And I'm bound to say, and listening to what he has had to say, many of us have been amazed by how much sentence management is still dependent on paper records, and in that case, it is no wonder that mistakes are made. It also causes the reliance on paper records, a lack of coordination as prisoners are moved from prison to prison, and that process is worse given the current overcrowding and bad coordination of prisoner movements and of prisoner management.

Causes mistakes and increases the capacity for further mistakes to be made. Digital management is also vital for efficient management of probation, and I know in a memorable phrase, the noble Lord, the Minister said he wanted to see probation officers, every one with a computer on their desk, and that is particularly important in the context of broader opportunities for more offenders on community sentences, because those those offenders will now be undertaking more education. We hope more training programmes, more addiction support, and that also needs to be digitally managed to make sure that it works.

It's important for probation officers and indeed for defendants themselves, many of whom will have smartphones and computers, to have a coordinated digital management and reminder system to ensure that what is planned and organised actually happens on time and in the right place, and is then properly monitored after these activities have been undertaken. Digital systems. Digital systems are simply much better at ensuring that that happens. My Lords, I speak to two further amendments in my name, 153 and 154, which were also moved in the Commons, not moved in the Commons to ensure that driving prohibitions and restriction zones do not adversely affect the ability of offenders on probation to attend their employment, education or rehabilitation programmes.

My Lords, we discussed the principle of this on Monday and I accept the noble Lords assurance that the imposition of these restrictions will be carefully tailored so as not to have adverse impacts on those activities. And I add that a digital management system, again, will avoid conflicts that much more efficiently, efficiently than a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper based one. My Lords, I am grateful to all
16:25
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. If there's a single theme in these amendments, it is this we cannot go on legislating for increased demands on our criminal justice system without ensuring that the system has the capacity and is resourced to cope with them. Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord foster is a straightforward attempt to put the government's own commitments onto a statutory footing. If the government is really serious about being transparent about prison capacity and probation caseloads, is there? 2024 Annual Statement on prison Capacity Claims, then it should have no hesitation in agreeing to Parliament to receive that information on an annual basis.

It is not possible to plan sentencing policy responsibly without understanding the number and the pressures, the numbers and the pressures on the system that must administer it. Several amendments in this group, 93, 93 and 93 address the issue of Crown Court sitting days. These backlogs have consequences. They have consequences for victims awaiting closure, for defendants who are waiting to clear their name, and for the overall ability of the system to move cases towards sentence. Whether the cap on sitting days should be lifted entirely or adjusted specifically for sentencing hearings is a legitimate question, and an assessment of the merits is the very least that the government should provide.

Turning to amendment 119, the name of the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, which calls for digital tracking of offenders progress and providing for the sharing of data of offenders progress between the courts and the agencies. This is plainly a good idea and we support it. We urge the government to take it on board and to give teeth to the new court powers. It's difficult to think of any sensible objection if we move offenders out into the public from the prisons, we need to know how they are doing.

Good, accurate data informs good policy. The House has also heard important contributions on the impact of new sentencing and community based powers on the Probation Service. The probation service itself already strains under unimaginable, unmanageable caseloads and severe shortages. Shortages of staff. That is why we support amendment 134 and 137, amendment 134, and the name of the noble Lord Lord Woodley and the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb would ensure that provisions in the bill, which are likely to drive up demands on probation, are not to be brought into force until the Independence Inspectorate is satisfied that the service can meet that demand.

It would also empower the inspectorate to trigger a prioritisation framework for local areas that is not disruptive, it is responsible. It recognises that probation officers cannot be asked to do more and more with less and less resource, and without their being, in the end, a serious risk to public safety. Amendment 137, again from the noble Lord, Lord Foster would require the Secretary of State to establish maximum caseload limits before commencing major parts of the bill. If the government believes that probation has to shoulder more responsibility than the government must give probation, the capacity to succeed.

Turning to amendments 139, a 149, 150 and 152. These are all aimed at ensuring proper resourcing again, and the need to ensure that the probation services are not overloaded and are properly resourced for the reasons I've explained, that is absolutely right and necessary. The final amendments in the group 153 and 154, both from the noble Lord Lord Marks, raise another important point the ripple effects of sentencing policy on rehabilitation conditions, such as driving prohibitions or restrictions.

Own requirements may be appropriate in many cases, but they must be introduced with a clear understanding of how they will interact with an offender's ability to access employment, education or treatment. My Lords, before I conclude, I briefly address amendment 155 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie. This is a simple but necessary drafting amendment to ensure that section 16 should not be, and will not be brought into effect until the report on the Practicability of Enforcing Restriction Zone Requirements that is introduced by new Electronic Chronic Electronic Monitoring Provision is laid before Parliament.

It is a matter of basic good order. Parliament should have the relevant evidence before the provision is commenced, not afterwards. My Lords, the amendments in this group do not seek to frustrate the Bill. They seek to ground it and make it work. They ask the government to confront the reality that without adequate court time, without adequate prison places, without a functioning and properly staffed probation service, the good intentions of this legislation simply cannot be translated into safer streets or reduced reoffending.

If there are not the proper resources, then the provisions of this bill will. In fact, as we have pointed out throughout the debates on this bill, have resulted in the number of prisoners being released temporarily, but only temporarily, and then a subsequent increase in the prisons, because there has not been the necessary port for effective use of non-custodial sentences. That will add to the pressure on the prison system. More people going into prison, not fewer.

That, of course, will cost the capital of building new prisons. It will result in more and more people being housed at a cost of 54,000 per year. At current figures, that is something which we want to prevent and that is why we have mounted the objections to the bill in practice and support these amendments. For that reason, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to what has been said today. If government remains determined to legislate extensively in the realm of sentencing, it must also be prepared to legislate for the capacity required to make these sentences meaningful, safe and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effective. Thank you. Mr. responds I wonder whether I
16:33
16:34
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

make it work. Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to begin by thanking noble Lords for giving this House the opportunity to debate the capacity of the criminal justice capacity of the criminal justice system. And of course, I must start by saying that this bill is a necessary step towards ensuring that we have a sustainable justice system. I'll first turn to amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath. I can reassure noble Lords that this government is committed to greater transparency on prison capacity.

We showed this by publishing the first annual statement last December, and we will shortly publish the 2025 edition. But setting the timing for publication and content of the report in primary legislation creates a necessary rigidity. Our goal is to increase transparency without compromising flexibility. I will now turn to the amendments that address the issue of the capacity within the Probation Service. I am pleased that this gives me another opportunity to pay tribute to our incredible probation staff, who work tirelessly to keep the public safe, and I am proud to be their colleague.

I begin by recognising the close interest of probation trade unions in amendment 134, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations, and their input will continue to inform our approach. I also thank my noble friend for mentioning the two horrendous attacks on our probation staff in Preston and Oxford. These are fine public servants who turn up to work to protect the public, and they and all probation staff should not be in fear of their safety.

And I wish both my colleagues best wishes in their recovery. We recognise the Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder, and value their involvement in implementing the provisions of this bill, but it's important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting them towards regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny. While we're sympathetic to amendment 139 A, we fear it would duplicate existing reporting mechanisms and risk delaying measures in the bill that would themselves improve probation capacity.

We already have strong, independent scrutiny and ensure transparency on probation caseloads and staffing through various publications. For example, HMPPS publishes quarterly reports covering probation, staffing and caseloads. As the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan noted, the National Audit Office has conducted a thorough analysis of probation capacity. This is informing a Public Accounts Committee inquiry, but a further statutory reporting requirement, particularly one imposed within three months of Royal Assent, would duplicate existing processes and divert resources away from implementation and capacity building.

But thanks to these established analysis and reporting processes, we are clear about the challenges facing the Probation Service. And thanks to the detailed picture on capacity this data gives us, we're taking swift, targeted action as the noble Lord, Lord foster correctly predicted, I wish to inform noble Lords that we are recruiting an additional 1300 trainee probation officers by March next year, and are working hard to retain experienced officers. We're also investing up to 700 million by the final year of the spending review.

While the detailed allocations of that money are still to be finalised, I can reiterate that my priorities are clear. More people in post digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use, and we're starting to see the benefits of an initial £8 million investment in new technology like initiatives called Justice Transcribe. This cutting edge AI tool has cut note taking admin time by around 50% with outstanding user satisfaction scores. I've heard probation officers are describing it as life changing.

Furthermore, many of the measures in this bill will have a positive impact on probation capacity delaying these essential reforms while we undertake work proposed by the amendment would not be helpful for our frontline staff. Amendment 137 speaks to a similar concern about the caseload that our hardworking probation officers manage on a daily basis. But while I understand the intent behind this amendment, it is important to recognise that not all probation cases are the same. Imposing a fixed caseload limit would not account for these variations.

It would make it difficult to manage workloads effectively across the service, and it would reduce organisational flexibility. It could undermine the professional autonomy and judgement of our valued practitioners and managers. These top down limits could therefore potentially lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks, and would only serve to mask the capacity problems I'm working to resolve on amendment 119. I can reassure the noble Lord Lord Marks and the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee that that the probation service already uses digital systems to effectively manage those under probation supervision.

But there is a lot more to do here, especially using AI. I believe its potential is massive, and I thank them for amendments 153 and 154, giving me the chance to discuss one of my favourite subjects, the rehabilitation of offenders, supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycle cycle of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that the new restrictive conditions protect victims. All restrictive measures must accommodate rehabilitative aims like employment. That way we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims.

So where there is a rehabilitative purpose such as such as driving for employment, practitioners will have the ability to grant permission for this and restriction zones will be developed to ensure an offender can access rehabilitative activities, including employment, while of course also considering the victim's needs. I turn now to electronic monitoring, the subject of amendment 155, 93 and 110 ZB. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord foster and the noble and learned Lord Keen and noble Lord Sandhurst, this is a vital tool for managing offenders in the community, and there will be a significant uplift in tagging alongside the provisions in this bill.

Where appropriate, electronic monitoring will be applied to support monitoring and compliance with restriction zones. When a restriction zone is not electronically monitored, probation will monitor offenders behaviour and any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches if they identify that they have not complied, for example through police intelligence or victim concerns. Our professionally trained staff are experts in this specialist kind of work, but we do not feel a report on the practicality of enforcing restriction zones is necessary.

I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for her amendment 93 E we share the ambition to ensure that that time in custody is used productively to reduce reoffending. Every prison has a legal duty to provide education. This is monitored through the annual HMIP report, regular Ofsted inspections and published prison education statistics. So therefore a statutory requirement is not necessary and I can reassure the noble Lady that I look at the data regularly and I challenge it when I'm not content.

And lastly, I turn to amendment 93 and remind my noble Lords that we inherited a justice system in crisis, with a court backlog at record levels and rising and victims waiting years for justice, we have already taken action to tackle court backlogs and improve court productivity. For this financial year, we are funding a record 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to deliver swift justice for victims, over 5000 more than the previous government funded last year. This will mean more trials and hearings can be heard tackling the backlog of cases.

However, even at maximum capacity, sitting days alone cannot solve the backlog. We need to do things differently. This is why we need fundamental reform, not piecemeal measures. The previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of the criminal courts. We are considering its recommendations carefully before legislating where necessary. This amendment seeks to require an assessment of introducing uncapped Crown Court sitting days for sentencing hearings. However, listing decisions are a judicial function, not an executive one.

It is essential to preserve judicial independence in managing court business. Introducing a statutory requirement in this area could be seen as government influencing judicial listing decisions, which would compromise that principle. I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me. I hope I have reassured them about the seriousness with which this government is taking the issue of capacity, and I reiterate my offer to meet with noble Lords before Report stage. Finally, I must give my thanks to the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath, who has spotted a drafting error in the bill and sought to correct it through amendment 103.

He clearly has a bright future in legislative legislative drafting ahead of him. I can confirm that the government accepts this amendment is needed and will not oppose it. If the noble Lord wishes to move it formally.
16:43
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lordships' House, I will be formally moving amendment 103 at a later stage. In our deliberation, can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which in my view has clearly illustrated my main contention that there are many welcome provisions in this bill, but they are unlikely to be delivered unless we address the very serious capacity crisis that exists within MoJ, particularly within the probation and the Prison Service. But, my Lords, my biggest concern in the noble Lord, the Minister's response, for which I am grateful, is in relation to the very First Amendment in my name, amendment 88.

That was an amendment that sought to give the government an opportunity to put into practice a commitment that it had made at an earlier stage to have on the statutory report every year on capacity, the noble Lord, the Minister, has just said to us that he is not prepared to accept that amendment, whereas I'd hoped he was going to say thank you for drawing attention to having forgotten something we meant to put in the bill. Instead, he's actually told us that he's actually against having a statutory report because it provides lack of flexibility.

Before I sit down there for my Lords, can I just read to the noble Lord his own answer to a parliamentary question? On the 20th of March 2005. The government has committed to legislating to make laying the annual statement on prison capacity before Parliament a statutory requirement in the future. When parliamentary time allows. My Lords, I provided the parliamentary time, but the Minister hasn't taken it up. Rest assured, I will be returning at a later stage to give him another opportunity to accept the commitment that his government has made.

I beg leave to withdraw. has made. I beg leave to withdraw.
16:45
16:46
None Portrait Amendment:89 Lord Woodley (Labour)
-

grateful for the opportunity to make the argument for resentencing again. To your lordships, although I am under no illusions none that I am under no illusions none that the noble Lord, the Minister, is ready to announce a U-turn from this Dispatch Box at least not yet this Dispatch Box at least not yet to wipe this shameful stain off our justice system once and for all and for good. I have no wish either to flog a dead horse. But as I said at the Second Reading, I believe it is absolutely important for us to continue scrutinising the government's position on this industrial scale.

Miscarriage of justice Ministers have consistently refused to consider IPPS resentencing, which the Justice Committee and the Other place called for as the only solution. The only solution to this terrible injustice. To put it bluntly, Ministers are still defending the indefensible, and the will must see this for what it is. Inexcusable excuses was more people die, yes, die and more people give up hope. And this must stop action, not warm words will be the most important thing going forward.

And in this debate, my Lords, I particularly want to hear the noble Lord, the Minister's objections to the kind of IPC IPP exercise described by my amendment, which has not been presented to Lordships' House in this form before. Crucially, what's new, what's new is that the court can impose a secure hospital order if it thinks this is necessary for public protection and also impose any kind of extended supervision post-release. Again, for the same reason, the Lords, it is widely acknowledged that the IPP sentence itself has caused harm, to put it mildly, to many of unfortunate souls have received problems between the years 2005 and 2012, and it is understandable that the parole board might have concerns about the poor mental health of some of the people whose cases they are considering, but simply wrong.

Simply wrong. A great injustice that this poor mental health in many cases caused directly by this long discredited and abolished sentence passed by this Parliament, is being used to condemn anyone to indefinite preventive detention, stuck in prison where their mental health is just going to get worse. As I said, more suicides and more hopelessness. Noble friends from across the house have previously described this as a gulag sentence, and they're of course, correct. The noble Lord. The Minister has previously claimed that the parole board is best placed to decide whether an IPP prisoner should be released, but there is no evidence of this beyond the justification originally used to create this torture sentence in the first place.

It's too slow and too laborious. In spite of recent helpful changes, no natural justice dictates that it should be the courts, the courts, not the parole board who are empowered to make this decision. For this cohort, that distinction lies at the heart of this injustice and is the reason why IPP sentences were abolished over a decade ago. But what about public protection? The Minister and his officials will, of course say, well, the secure hospital backstop, which I'm talking about originally a suggestion by my noble friend, the Lady Fox, as an amendment to my private member's bill, is an elegant solution to this conundrum.

If the resentencing court considers someone to be mentally ill, too mentally ill that is to be released, then it can transfer them to a secure hospital where they can receive the therapeutic resources necessary for recovery. And on release, all former IPP prisoners will have the supervision and support considered necessary by the court. Another key safeguard to protect the public, which should address the concerns previously expressed to us all, expressed to us all by the noble Lord, the Minister.

That's why I am proposing in a nutshell, an IPPS resentencing exercise with the secure hospital backstop and public protection right at its very heart. So I sincerely look forward to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, the Minister's response, and I therefore beg to move. Proposed after clause 19, insert
16:51
None Portrait Chair of Committees. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 19, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.
16:51
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. The real issue in this debate is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The real issue in this debate is do we persist with the so-called action plan? And I pay tribute to what the Minister has been able to do with a flawed idea, and we have to decide now, how do we deal justly and remedy the injustice. And I think it's useful to reflect there are people who have never been released, for example, one who got a nine month tariff. He's been serving 20 years. There's another who got 330 day tariff served 17 years, another who got a six month tariff and served 16.5 years, and another who got a three year, five month tariff, who served 20 years.

Those are the realities. And you judge the seriousness of what they did by those tariffs. And I shall come to the misunderstanding at the heart of the MoJ about the problem they're facing. And we've got the deaths. And I think it's important to look at to to recall that this involves people committing suicide, and we should not walk away from that. There were 9 in 2023. There were 4 in 2024. The population was down. But it might be explained by by the hope that had been engendered.

And my concern now is if we don't act now, we will have and I use this word deliberately, blood on our hands. We cannot shirk the responsibility for rectifying an injustice. And what an injustice this is. And there are. Maybe we should turn in due course to look at the two strikes injustice. But that's for another day. Let's concentrate on IPPS. We need a just solution. And the noble Lord Lord Woodley has put forward. And I don't want to add to the time that we're going to take and my views on resentencing.

That is one option. But the hard league put forward and I've put into an amendment another proposal. And very simply it is this to to order give the parole board the power to direct and require them to direct release of all of these people within two years. And the noble Viscount Hailsham was put forward an amendment to that to suggest giving the government a power to apply to the parole board. But whether you take the resentencing exercise or this, this must be the last chance of doing anything.

If we funk it now, we funk it forever, and we allow the action, the so-called action plan, to trundle along for years and years, not remedying an injustice. Now, why do we have to do that? There are five points I wish to make. First, the sentence is accepted to be wrong in principle by absolutely everyone. How can we as a nation continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle and rests on the fallacy of thinking? You could predict human behaviour.

There is no justification for continuing this sentence. It is simply unjust. Secondly, and it pains me to have to say this there is a complete misunderstanding of this sentence, partly because it was imposed so long ago. People have moved on, and when you're looking at the action plan, I think it's important to look at what was said in the IPP annual report for 2024 to 25. The sentence was described in these words. It was intended as a means of managing high risk prisoners who were convicted of an offence where they would be liable to imprisonment for life, but the court did not consider the seriousness of the offence was such to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life, that is, a complete misunderstanding of the sentence, and how can you have any confidence in a plan when people don't understand the sentence they're dealing with? And I regard this as a very serious problem with this plan.

They, having looked and had the privilege of being able to look at a number of cases of recall, it is plain that those who are dealing with this don't understand the problem that exists now, except when the error was pointed out that the department accepted that error. But it is, I think, important to see the harm that kind of statement does. It puts the position of these prisoners on a false basis. They did not commit serious offences of the kind that was described, many of them as is illustrated by the tariffs to which I have referred committed offences that are not in the same league by any imagination as those who are sentenced to life imprisonment.

And they some of them were sentenced for sentences where the offence was no greater than five years. And one will note that the government thinks that five years is the kind of crime where you do not deserve a jury trial, so please will we try and understand what we are dealing with, recognise that what we have done is a great injustice. And then one turns to another argument, and that is the argument that these people are dangerous.

I do not. If we look objectively at the problems of many of these, they are not. But the test is high and one has to accept that if you lock someone up for a very long time for an offence that is not that serious, you are likely to do them damage. And that, I think, is the accepted psychiatric evidence which everyone which those who won't accept. We must do something about ignore for a reason I cannot understand, but it's worse than that.

Why are these people subjected to the increased risk? Because they have been locked up under this unjust sentence. And I think in all humility, and I don't seek to blame either political party for this. We made a mistake. And in the case of the Post Office, we've done justice. In the case of blood transfusion, we've done justice. What's wrong with our system of justice where we cannot do justice for those we've unjustly imprisoned? And it is something to which we have to address our minds? I very much hope we will have a cross-party solution.

I'm open to any suggestion, but the action plan is a failure. It will not deliver justice in time and we must do something different. And then it seems to me there is a fourth argument that's important. If any of these offenders who are locked up, it had the good fortune, and I say good fortune to liberally, to have committed, to have been sentenced before this sentence came into effect, or were sentenced afterwards, they would not be subjected to this horrendous sentence from which they cannot escape.

What conceivable justice is there that we've discriminated against a group of people and refuse to acknowledge our wrong in doing so. Now those are arguments to do with justice. And what hope that justice is central to this bill? We actually call this part of the criminal justice system. But can I turn to this bill, which is meant to be, in a sense, a utilitarian bill, and one can praise it for that. Now, we're going to come later this evening to to amendment 122.

A how many of you will stay? The course is another question, but that deals with the with the issue of foreign offenders, and we're intending to deport them so that we have prison places. We won't punish them. They can go free. What justice is there in a system that will seek to allow people who are foreign to escape punishment? When we cannot look at the utilitarian advantage of seeing if we can release these 2500 people either who've never been released or are back on recall from prison, the justice should be that we will deal with our own people first.

Free up the prison places, and if someone comes here to assassinate someone or shoplift or deal in drugs, those should be punished and we should use the prison places for them. There are all the arguments and powerful arguments, but the one thing I have no vested interest in any solution, but what I have a vested interest in is justice. And this government is not doing justice. My Lords, it's extremely difficult to rise to speak after
17:01
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
two such very powerful speeches. The noble Lord Lord Woodley has The noble Lord Lord Woodley has advanced again the resentencing option, which was, of course, option, which was, of course, originally proposed by the Justice Select Committee. In the other place, under the chairmanship of sir Bob Neill, when he was a member of Parliament on a unanimous of Parliament on a unanimous cross-party basis, and therefore cannot be dismissed as some sort of reckless and trivial proposal. It's reckless and trivial proposal.

It's a proposal that should be taken with great seriousness, but I'm not going to elaborate further on it now, because of course, the noble Lord has had a private. It has been stated already, the noble Lord has a private member's bill which is still extant, which would give it effect. But the proposal from the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd is new. I think it's fair to say at debate in your Lordships' House. And it emanates, of course, as he said, from a report produced by the Howard League, there are two points in which what the noble Lord said that I would just like to present in my own way, if you like.

The first relates to the action plan. The action plan actually has been excellent in many ways. It has achieved a great deal. But as I said at Second Reading, the difficulty with the action plan is that there is a number of people, a large number. We nobody can put a figure on it. But consensually there is an idea that it is several hundreds, maybe nearly a thousand people who are the hard cases left after the action plan has done the work it's been doing and has resolved the issues in relation to the, if you like, the low hanging fruit, and we're left with several hundred people for whom I think it is clear the action plan is never going to be a solution.

And if there is no other way out for them than the action plan, then effectively the government is saying that they will stay in jail until they die. Because what else is there? There is no other route out. But the noble and learned Lord has presented a proposal which would help. Now, he says, the parole board would set a date two years after they. The process would be that the prisoner applies for parole, is refused to parole. But then, as the parole board, would that point be obliged to set a date to up to two years later, on which the prisoner will be released and it could be represented? And this is the second point I want to make.

It could be represented that this is effectively an automatic release that follows two years after they have failed to achieve release, but that is not the wording of the amendment. And I draw noble Lords attention to the wording of the amendment in subsection 56B, where it says the Parole board may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoners release. Having set the date may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoners release at the specified future date as it considers necessary.

Having regard to its duty to protect the public. This is not a reckless and automatic release that follows without any effort on anybody's part from the decision to refuse parole. I think the essential idea is that the machinery of the Prison service, the probation service, should be brought together, energised under the direction of the Parole board to provide those tailored services that tailored support the education, the courses, the other measures that are necessary in order to ensure that that person is safe to be released.

That is the objective here. Remember many of the many of the people who are in that group, who who will not be released through the action plan, many of them are in that group because they have ceased to engage with the system, having been through the effort to achieve parole in the past and having suffered the severe psychological blow that can arise from having been refused and knocked back, there are many of them who simply won't go through that again.

But if you could offer them a date, if you could say to them, here is hope in two years, if you do these things, then perhaps we can get that engagement. Perhaps those people for whom otherwise there is no exit could be engaged and brought to be released with the approval of the parole board and with the support they need to get them to that place. And if that support turns out to be expensive and difficult and require a superhuman effort on the part of the Prison Service and the probation Service and the other organs of the state and the Ministry of Justice, if it is expensive and difficult to provide, provide, is that not the least we owe them now? So that is why I would say that I really hope that noble Lords will be able to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and that the government will be able to relent.

It might need some work in detail, but the principle behind it is something that I hope the whole House will be able to support. There are also amendments if I turn to them briefly in this group. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Blunkett, which relate to the parallel and in some senses almost deeper scandal of DPP prisoners. The only difference noble noble Lords will be aware between DPP prisoners and IPP prisoners essentially, is that DPP prisoners were sentenced when they were under 18.

So these are people who were sentenced when they were under 18, who are still in prison, and they should not be. Almost certainly they should not be, but they are. And the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lord Blunkett deserve support. And finally, I would like to come. And here I feel like this is very much an anti-climax. I would like to come to my own amendment, amendment 109, which, by comparison with those put forward by the noble Lord Lord Woodley and the noble and learned Lord guide, is is almost bloodless in its in its technical insignificance.

It is a very, very modest proposal indeed. It is entirely administrative, and I'm very much hoping that the noble Lord, the Minister, will support it. It is what it would allow IPP prisoners who are in the community already serving a licence. It would allow them annually to apply to the parole board for the discharge of that licence. Now, in the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we reduce the statutory period of the licence dramatically and we made it easier for people to be discharged and hundreds, hundreds of prisoners have had their licence terminated as a result of that.

It's been the most significant step in the in the removing the scandal of IPP prisoners made so far. But there are these administrative difficulties that if you miss out on your discharge, you have to wait another whole two years before you can be considered again. And what I am simply doing here is introducing the idea that you could apply, and I would expect nobody would do this unless they were supported by their probation officer. You can apply after a year, not after two years.

You can apply after a year to have your licence discharged. There is no threat to the public in this. Remember, these people are already living in the community. All that the amendment does is give them permission to apply for something. The decision whether to discharge their licence, not to release them from jail because they're in the community already, the decision to discharge their licence finally would still rest with the parole board, so there is no risk to the public at all in doing this.

It is a modest administrative change that will help some, not many, but help some prisoners get rid of the stigma of this sentence sooner and resume their lives in the community as free subjects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My contribution this evening is brief only because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brief only because. There's a long evening ahead for many noble Lords on the front bench, and no lack of enthusiasm and commitment to continue working with other noble Lords who have spoken
17:11
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
other noble Lords who have spoken this evening to get this mess sorted out. So I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Woodley, who's taken up the cudgel so strongly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, whose commitment could not be doubted after his contribution this evening. And the noble Lord Lord Moylan, who has hunted with me for a very long time now, it seems like since I came into the your Lordships' House, I will speak in a minute to amendments 116 and 117 in my name.

But I just want to say, I think that the three contributions that have been made already illustrates both the urgency of getting this matter resolved once and for all, and also have put all three members have spoken, put their finger on one of the tragedies of the IPP sentence, which, ironically, was in part intended to deal with the two strikes that Lord Thomas mentioned and the tragedy of the reflection in the action plan wording that Lord Thomas read out of what was actually intended originally, but was never the bill itself and its interpretation.

One of these terrible twists of life which we've now got to untangle. And I think the main issue that I picked out is that of those who have been in for so long, that their mental health is inevitably deteriorated. And as Lord Thomas said, psychiatrists have accepted this in a way that wasn't foreseen back in 2003. We should have done, they should have done, but they didn't. And I can only say on the amendments that have been moved by my friend, noble friend Lord Woodley and Lord Thomas, that if we could build in a formula which allowed the transfer of some of those prisoners to a secure medical setting for support to be given.

I'm not talking about Broadmoor or Rampton. I think there needs to be an intermediary alternative. Then it might be possible to accept the two year imperative, the which would go a long way to to meet what my noble friend Lord Woodley is seeking to achieve in his amendment as well, which is to move this on rapidly. And I would put to my noble friend on the front bench, whose commitment to helping is unequalled, and I pay tribute to him because listening and responding is not easy from the front bench.

I know it because I was there for eight years. All kinds of constraints around you, but I just think that he is an individual who understands what we're talking about, and perhaps with some creativity, we could think of a way of achieving this on my modest amendments, I'm trying to relate to Group seven this evening from amendment 110 onwards, to what we're doing for prisoners generally, in terms of having a 56 day fixed period on recall.

But we're not doing it for IPP and DPP. As Lord Moylan said, we should be just dealing with DPP once and for all. I mean, it's a scar on me that we ended up with those who were under 18 being caught up in this and we given the number, we can surely deal with it once and for all for them, but also to have some continuity if it's good enough for prisoners who are not on IPP, DPP to have a fixed period of recall, what is the difference in terms of those who find themselves caught up in this spider's web? So I would ask my noble friend to consider that from the front bench between now and report on Lord Moylan amendment 109, I think we could build on it.

I think we could actually go further. We could accept the the reference that he refers to, which was in the previous legislation. But because of the very important changes that were achieved by members of this House and the previous Justice Secretary, well, Justice Secretary Barwon, we are in a position where we could actually extend that progress by reducing the licence period. And I hope that my noble friend from the front bench would accept an amendment on report that would help us to achieve that goal by working together.

I think we can take the next step. Here is the danger, though. The more we raise the hopes of those who are languishing in prison or have been returned for long periods of time because of breach of licence, not because of committing another crime, the more we are in danger of inadvertently accelerating what Lord Thomas described as the tragedy of people taking their own lives, we tread a very narrow path here of fighting like mad to actually ensure that we can bring about real change without raising hopes that actually are then dashed.

So it's a line that I hope that my noble friend, Lord Timson, will help us deal with.
17:17
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Possibly. in saying that I'm the only peer here with previous judicial experience to have actually conducted a statutory resentencing exercise, and perhaps I could explain how that came about and what it meant for me when I became Lord Justice General of Scotland. That is the Chief Justice in 1989. It was not the practice of judges to state a tariff when imposing a life sentence, whether discretionary or mandatory, that was simply open ended. And it was my job as chief justice to advise the Secretary of State when the time had come for the president to be referred to the Parole board for consideration for release.

It was done on a system whereby civil servants sent the papers to me, and then I had to conduct a paper exercise. And, in effect, tell the the Secretary of State how much longer the prisoner would have to serve before it was time for him to be released. It was a different world. The prisons were not crowded, and they came to me. Usually when the prisoners served about 11 years and my tariffs were. My advice was usually to extend them by 3 or 4 years so that they were being referred to the Parole Board, but really quite early compared with what happens today.

But it was a paper exercise and I found it extremely difficult. There were about 50 life prisoners I had to consider. I was provided with enormous files which described their conduct in prison, as well as the original offence itself, and in order to equip me to understand them, I visited all the prisons in Scotland except one which was too far away, and I also spent several sessions attending the parole board to understand how the world worked. So I had to quit myself fairly well to understand the job I was doing.

Until about three years into my office, the law was changed and in the interest of transparency, it was decided that that the Chief Justice in England and Wales and myself in Scotland should actually establish a tariff. And that would mean no longer it would bring to an end the the system I was using, because from then on, judges were going to be producing a tariff when they passed their first sentence. So that was a system that I worked with for a while and had to give up.

It's with that background that I am extremely interested in the very well crafted amendment which the noble Lord Lord Woodley has, has advanced, and indeed the noble Baroness Neville-Jones has joined with us, with her, with him. And I've looked at it rather carefully. It seems to me that it requires the resentencing judge to look at four issues. The first of all, what the notional determinate sentence should have been for the offence or offences which were committed, and that have thereby identifying the tariff which would be applied for the purposes of reference to the Parole Board, and then the carefully additional point as to whether a hospital order should be should be substituted, which is a very safe and very important safeguard in working through the system that he's describing.

And then thirdly, if the if the prisoner might appropriately received a life sentence, whether there's a risk of committing a further serious offence resulting in serious harm, if the prisoners would be released. And fourthly, if that is the case, whether the IPP sentence should simply be confirmed. As I said, it's very carefully crafted. It has public safety in mind as well as the the interests of the prisoner. But I think we have to be quite careful as to what this would mean for the resentencing judge.

It might experience, because I think he or she would need to be equipped with a great deal of information, not only about the original offence, but also about what has happened to the prisoner since then. Considering whether a hospital is required or if it's a life sentence, whether the service to the public requires the IPP sentence be confirmed, and the the workload on the judges is something that I think the noble Lord the Minister, might like to bear in mind in considering what to make of this this proposal, because I suspect that the volume of material would be very considerable, and therefore judicial time needs to be found for that that evidence to be assimilated understood, and then a decision taken, what is not clear at the moment, because I think this is for the committee that the noble Lord Lord Woodley has suggested should be set up, is how the exercises to be conducted.

But I assume that it's going to be a paper exercise rather than a hearing in court. But just to be determined, I've assuming that it would require a written decision to be given that wasn't required of me at that time, but I suspect nowadays a written decision would need to be given. And of course, there's always the risk of appeal or judicial review. So the decision taking exercise has got to be very carefully conducted. In my case, in dealing with the cases I had to deal with, I had to give up two weeks of judicial time to conduct the exercise, which I had to carry out.

I think that one has to assume that at least one day of judicial time per case would be needed here, because otherwise the, you know, the decisions would be open to be set aside because they've not been properly considered. And the whole point of Lord Woodley is amendment is the safety of the public is being protected by the care which would be taken in this exercise. So I think one has to bear in mind not only the nature of the exercise, but the the time that the judiciary would have to commit to it.

Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that that this is not a very, very good way of finding an answer to the problem we're faced with. But if the noble Lords Minister is not inclined to adopt it, I would very much adopt the proposal by the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. And and if that does not succeed, then there is, of course, Lord Mountevans amendment, which I would support that. I hope that I've heard of some support, some some interest to give some background to Lord Woodley, some amendment which has my support.

But but I suggest it has to be seen in its full context and what it really means for the judges who have to conduct the exercise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the expert contribution of the noble and learned Lord Lord the noble and learned Lord Lord Hollick. And as my noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb signed amendment 89, I would say that I think that that judicial
17:24
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
that I think that that judicial time, if it's necessary, needs to be allocated because society, the government, we have a responsibility to people. We've put in this impossible situation to find a way out. And this what that amendment does is implementing the Justice Committee recommendations. It's a great pleasure to follow all of the noble and noble Lords who've taken part in this debate group thus far, many of whom are veterans. As the noble Lord Lord Blunkett said in trying to sort out this mess.

Now, I didn't speak at Second Reading in this group and I apologise for that. But as I said, my noble friend Baroness Jones signed this amendment and she is very much regrets that she has to be somewhere else at the moment. So your Lordships' House gets me instead. But I did actually personally speak on the same issue of IPP prisoners at the Victim and Prisoners Bill Second Reading debate in 2023, and I said then that that was that. It was an extremely knotty and long running problem.

And I think that is what we've heard and what's been reflected here. But I think we can see even from that debate back in 2023, the power and the force of the debates. We've heard of, the contributions we've heard in this debate today. The noble and Lord, Lord Thomas, not perhaps someone usually given to such language speaking about blood on our hands. The noble Lord Lord Woodley spoke about creating gulags. We abolished this sentence in 2021 because it was wrong, yet the people subjected to it are living with its consequences every day.

And we have a responsibility to sort this out. There is, of course, also the practical point that if the government wants to reduce the prison population, here is a group that should be at the forefront of looking at how to do that instead. In fact, far too many of them are in prisons wholly unsuited to their progression. 30%, the latest figures show we cannot claim to be serious about reducing the prison population while leaving this situation to fester. This amendment, I would say amendment 89, there's others in this group that take us some way forward, but I think this is the best one.

This is the bare minimum of justice for a small, relatively small group of people who were handed a sentence that Parliament has already acknowledged was a mistake. And just one final reflection. What's really behind this tragedy is a reflex, a reflex we've seen from far too many politicians over far too many years under pressure. The reaction is lock them up or lock them up for longer. And that's a reflex that we cannot afford to allow to run loose in future.

I just.
17:27
17:29
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
his finger on something very important when he said to us, we must be careful about giving hope and then dashing it. But, my Lords, without hope, what is there? And that's the point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas was making. And it's why I have rarely sat in this chamber and listened to such powerful speeches, and I was very happy to hear once again that the noble Lord, the Minister, welcomed this because he's so involved with rehabilitation.

And the problem for a lot of these people is that there isn't any rehabilitation. And that's why I think we really have to act. Now, I'm not going to recap everything I said at Second Reading, but I do want to pick up one point. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, spared some time to me to talk about joint enterprise, which in some ways is connected to this, and I've had a further discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has some more ideas which I hope the noble Lord Lord Timpson might be prepared to hear.

But I think, given what I've heard here, and as I say, I've very rarely been so moved by something the I used to work, as I've told noble Lords on the Koestler Trust, where we used to take arts into prisons to try and get give people some hope. And I shall never forget managing to get a guitar to a man who wrote to me afterwards and said, thank you so much for this. If I had had this means of expressing myself when I was 18, I would not now be serving life for murder.

So this ability to look forward, to hope, to actually communicate with other human beings is so important. So like other people have spoken, I do beseech the Minister to try to come to some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy ending, to this very sorry affair. My friend. My Lords, in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend. My Lords, in this country, we really have our hearts
17:31
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
country, we really have our hearts broken when in places in the world where there are dictatorships and people who are incarcerated year in, year out, not even with a case being heard. And we find that quite appalling. We find that quite not very good. When I was sent to administer justice in the northern part of Uganda, where quite a lot of people had been locked up because the president, Amin, did not want them around. And I arrived there and they said, no, you can't hear those cases because the president has told us we shouldn't do this.

Now, I had been trained in the English way of looking at justice. I couldn't but hear those cases. And my first job was actually to hear those rather very, very hard cases. And then finding out actually there was no evidence why they should be in prison. And I remember nine of them. I took them into my chambers and I told them, I'm going to keep you locked up, but I'll tell you which day you are going and I'll announce it in court.

And when you've already left the country that they have been discharged on this particular thing, on grounds of this, and that went on for four months, then I got my time when there were no soldiers in the court observing what I was doing. And you knew that if I released them, then they'll be killed. Part of my falling out with Amin had to do some of those cases. It isn't easy to deliver justice, and Lord Blunkett was quite clear that some of this and I have met quite a lot in Birmingham and in the whole of the Province of York.

When I visited prisons. Their stories are leave you really sometimes saying is this, is this the mother of democracy? Is this the mother of the workhorse work? Is this how we treat people, particularly those who committed crimes when they were when they were young? They've looked at possibilities. And then what has happened? Hope is dashed, is dashed, is dashed. So I just want to plead with the noble Lord, the Minister, instead of may they withdraw their amendment.

That may be the language, in order that it doesn't necessarily become a start. But I think what needs to happen, and we were very good at this, my noble Lord, is a dialogue, a dialogue with people who got very good ideas so that we solve this once and for all. Those men left me actually sometimes very angry, so I can understand why the noble Lord and Lord, our Lord Thomas. Said, if we don't do anything this we've already got blood on our hands, because a just society is shown by how he deals with those who are very vulnerable, those who are very weak, those who are very helpless.

They have been put there for years under Her Majesty's pleasure. Now under the King's pleasure. Something has to be done. And my view is the noble Lord should, I think, call a group of people who've got good ideas, have a real conversation, and not go through our motions of I ask and noble Lord to withdraw their amendment because you are postponing an injustice that's not on.
17:35
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. The speeches in. This debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have been comprehensive and committed, so I have little to add to them. All noble Lords have spoken, have spoken passionately spoken, have spoken passionately and persuasively about ending this scandal. I use the word scandal. scandal. I use the word scandal. It's been rightly called a disgrace, a stain on our system and many a stain on our system and many other things. The noble and Leonard Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd passion for justice shone through every sentence of his speech, and I every sentence of his speech, and I believe, has to oblige this government to end this appalling, appalling injustice because we've been guilty in a country dedicated nominally at least, to ideals of justice, of the grossest of injustices in this case.

And it must end, and it must end now. And we do have a chance to end it now, completely and forever. We thought we'd abolished IPPS in the Laspo bill when we stopped any new IPP sentencing sentences being passed. My noble friend Lord McNally, then Minister of State, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, Secretary of State at the time, believed that the power to reverse the burden of proof in that bill would be exercised so that we'd never have the long tail of IPP prisoners who've now served way beyond their tariffs, as we do now.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd explained how unjust it was that IPP prisoners were treated unlike any other offenders. For those prisoners, we have abandoned any principle that the punishment should fit the crime in favour of a system of preventive detention, with a heavy burden placed throughout on prisoners to prove their fitness for release after their proper punishment. Often very short punishment had been completed. The principle of punishment fitting the crime has been ignored, and that's been illuminated by nearly all the speeches today.

So I suggest, has the illumination extended to the complete ineffectiveness of the action plan? In the case of many IPP prisoners, however well intentioned it was at the time, those prisoners could end up, as Lord Moylan pointed out, imprisoned for the rest of their lives under the action plan. If they fail to qualify for release under it. So the sensible way to end this now is to accept one or more of the amendments before the Committee to ensure the early release of all remaining IPP prisoners, and to end their risk of recall within a reasonable time span.

I don't mind which amendment is adopted. I note that after his detailed and learned analysis, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was broadly content to endorse any of the solutions proposed by Lord Woodley and Baroness Jones by Lord Moylan and Baroness Fox, or by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas Baroness Fox and myself. I'm sorry, I meant Baroness Jay. I also am content with any of those solutions. The important thing is to persuade the government now to accept one of them, and finally to put an end to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this injustice. My Lords, I'm. Grateful to all noble. Lords who've spoken.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords who've spoken. and. Very. Necessary debate, and also to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Necessary debate, and also to those who tabled amendments before us, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, us, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the noble and learned Lord Thomas of my noble friend Lord Moylan, and of my noble friend Lord Moylan, and the noble Lord Lord Blunkett. These amendments reflect a shared recognition across parties and across this House that the legacy
17:40
17:40
17:40
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
observed, a stain on our justice system. Under our system of system. Under our system of criminal justice, we do not detain and imprison people because we perceive that they are probably or even certainly going to commit a crime at some indeterminate and crime at some indeterminate and uncertain point in the future. But, my Lords, that is essentially the my Lords, that is essentially the basis upon which we detain IPP prisoners in custody after they prisoners in custody after they have served the prison term of their original offence.

It is, of course, worrying that many IPP prisoners may present a serious risk to the public if released. However, under the logic that flows through much of this very bill, the government must be prepared to advocate for society to accommodate such a risk by community supervision rather than endless detention. As the noble Lord Woodley observed. The Justice Committee's 2022 report described the IPP system as irredeemably flawed, and he seeks to give effect to their recommendation.

Whether or not members support that specific mechanism, it is beyond dispute that thousands of IPP prisoners remain trapped in a system never intended to endure, with outcomes that the state itself acknowledges are simply wrong. My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises another vital point the ability for prisoners on extended licence to seek annual review after the qualifying period, and whatever one's view of automatic termination on mandatory timelines, there is clear force in the principle that people must not be left without a meaningful hope or a clear route to progress.

The noble Lord Blunkett moved his amendments 116 and 117 on the question of recall and automatic release, and again, many noble Lords will be uneasy that individuals can be recalled indefinitely for minor technical breaches long after tariff expiry, and this again points to the need for clarity, confidence and proportionality in the present system. It cannot simply be risk aversion that dictates outcomes. My Lords, the amendments in the name of the Lord. Lord, I'm sorry the noble and learned Lord Thomas have come gif and supported by others, propose a future release mechanism whereby the parole Board can set a specified release date subject to compliance with directions.

And my Lords, this recognises the reality described by countless practitioners that progression can only become possible if there is a clear destination and a structure to reach it, and amendment 130 then introduces a safeguard, enabling the Secretary of State, if necessary, to seek variation to protect the public. But, my Lords, no one in this debate has suggested that risk can be ignored. But equally, nobody advocates arbitrary release of dangerous offenders. But every proposal brought to the House today has an element of public protection embedded embedded in it, where members may differ, is only on the most responsible and principled route to resolve a system that all agree has patently failed.

The point is not to choose the easiest path, but the right one. The public is entitled to a system that protects them, but then IPP prisoners and the families of IPP prisoners are entitled to justice and to fairness, and the rule of law should produce finality. Indeed, it must produce finality. My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for the seriousness with which they've approached this debate, and I look forward to continued constructive engagement as the bill proceeds, and to the necessary outcome that justice demands, not just for IPP prisoners, but for our collective conscience.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to now address the amendments very powerfully tabled on the imprisonment for Public on the imprisonment for Public Protection, or IPP sentence. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that I also feel very passionately that I also feel very passionately about. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley for his tireless efforts on this issue and tireless efforts on this issue and for his amendments which seek to resentence all IPP sentence individuals. I am also grateful to
17:45
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
individuals. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord Faulks reflections on the requirements of a resentencing exercise. And I'd also like to express my thanks to the noble Ladies, Baroness Bennett and Baroness Ludford, for their thoughtful words on this important issue. I hope it is clear that the reason for not resentencing IPP offenders is to protect the public and safeguard victims. Whilst we are determined to support those imprisoned to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk.

Resentencing would result in offenders still in custody being released, even when the Independent Parole Board has determined, and in many cases, repeatedly determined, that they're too dangerous to be released. Having not met the statutory release test, the noble Lords amendments would allow the court to confirm an IPP sentence for those who might have received a life sentence, but this would not prevent the resentencing and release of those who do not fall within the proposed parameters, but who the Parole board has previously assessed as not safe to be released.

The amendments also provide for the substitution of an IPP sentence with a hospital order. However, the imposition of an IPP sentence. The courts already had the power to issue a hospital order under Mental Health Act if there was evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed. Additionally, if a prisoner now has has a severe mental health need to an extent that detention under the Mental Health Act may be appropriate, they will be referred and assessed clinically to determine whether a transfer to a mental health hospital is warranted.

This has always been available to those serving the sentence. I turn next to amendment 129, tabled by the noble and learned Lord Thomas. This would provide IPP prisoners with a release date within two years. Again, in this circumstance, individuals would be released who have not been considered safe for release by the Parole Board. The noble Viscount Hailsham addition to this amendment provides a limited safeguard. This would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the Parole Board for the release date to be varied or set aside.

However, when considering an application to set aside, the parole board would be required to release the prisoner or fix a new release date at the following hearing. The parole Board already reviews IPP cases at least every two years, and in many cases more regularly. We have to remain focussed on the best and safest way to support IPP offenders as fast as possible to a safe release. It is. It is important to remember that IPP offenders receive their sentence after being convicted of a violent or sexual offence.

Therefore, for any decision that removes the protection of the statutory release test, we must be comfortable with the prospect of these offenders living in our communities. That is what we would be demanding of the public. We know that individuals receive the IPP sentence because they committed a sexual or violent offence. Extended sentences were available alongside the IPP sentence, but the sentencing judge decided an IPP sentence was the appropriate sentence for the offender at the time. Under that sentence, a person is only released following assessment by the parole Board.

There would be considerable risk to the public and victims if we release those serving the IPP sentence who are currently in our high security establishments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hate to interrupt, but would the noble Lord not accept that in many cases, especially with the early cases, especially with the early part of the IPP regime, judicial discretion was almost nil? It was not that the judge determined that an IPP sentence was appropriate, an IPP sentence was appropriate, but rather that the guidelines given to him said that in certain given to him said that in certain circumstances, if this offence has been committed for which you've been found guilty today, taken taking into account an earlier offence for which you've also been offence for which you've also been convicted in the past, and those two appear on a certain table in a certain configuration, then I have no choice but to give you an IPP sentence.

And that is how the sentence was imposed in many cases, so that you had circumstances where two people were being prosecuted for for the same crime, which they'd been carried out together. One of them had a history which caused them, which this table into, into operation. The other did not. One would get an IPP sentence. The other would get a determinate sentence appropriate to that crime. They've both been involved in it. I think that point has has never been fully recognised by the Ministry of Justice, and it's a point of capital importance.

Judicial discretion was not exercised or exercisable. In the case of many of these sentences before. My noble friend from the Front bench replies, perhaps you'd also reflect that this actually took place on a Court of Appeal ruling two years after the implementation of the act in 2005, and that judgement then determined the the hearings and therefore the sentence granted by judges consequent on that appeal. Court ruling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Lord for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Lord for that helpful comments. And this is this explains why this is such a difficult and important area, and difficult and important area, and that is why we need to keep the public safe. But we need to keep working with as noble Lords to try working with as noble Lords to try and do what we can to address this situation we're in. And I welcome situation we're in. And I welcome the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley and the Right Reverend Lord Lord Sentamu, as to Reverend Lord Lord Sentamu, as to the importance of supporting IPP offenders, we.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

offenders, we. I set the history of all of this out in a judgement, and if only your officials would read and understand, we wouldn't be in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mess we are. You have been placed in. I can't remember.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't remember. Well, I will take that away. The noble and learned Lords comments noble and learned Lords comments and read again the the comments. But that is also why the quarterly But that is also why the quarterly peers meetings we have on IPP are so important to discuss all these so important to discuss all these topics. We must do all that we can to support all IPP prisoners to reduce their risk and progress towards a release decision, but I would not be doing my job to protect the public if they were to be released without the independent be released without the independent Parole Board deciding it is safe to do so.

My hope is that every IPP prisoner gets the opportunity to be released and have a successful life in the community, but we need to do this in a way that sets those prisoners up for success in the community. And the government's view is that any change that removes the protection of the statutory release test is not the right way to do this. I am aware of the criticism of some parts of the IPP action Plan, including those raised by the noble Lord Lord Marks, but it remains my view that the steps we're taking through it are the best way to support this.

Progression is contributed to a 10% reduction in the IPP prison population. In the 12 months to the 30th of September 2025, and the number of people who have never been released fell by around 14% in the same period. Since the publication of the first Action Plan in April 2022, the unreleased IPP population has fallen by 39% and is now below 1000. And the focus that I and colleagues have on the on the IPP Action Plan is one that I just need to do more and more work on, and to see where we can add improvements all the way.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his amendments, which seek to allow the Secretary of State to make provision for the automatic rerelease of those serving an IPP or DPP sentence who are recalled to prison. The noble Lord will be aware of the deep respect I have for his ongoing commitment, drive and tenacity to do all he can to support those serving IPP sentence. I greatly value his contribution to today's debate, as well as the thoughtful insights and individual cases he raises with me outside of the House, and I appreciate that noble Lords have questioned why we are introducing fixed term recalls for offenders serving standard determinate sentences, but I do not accept this change.

For IPP offenders, there are two crucial differences the threshold for recall and the level of risk the offender poses. IPP offenders can only be recalled for behaviour or breaches of the licence that are causally linked to their offending. That is a high bar and a higher bar than for recalling prisoners serving standard determinate sentences. I must remind noble Lords what that means. In practice. It means that the Probation Service no longer believes that controls available in the community are sufficient to manage that offenders risk to keep the public safe, and that the public is therefore at risk of further sexual or violent offending.

A fixed term recall for IPP offenders would not provide sufficient time for an individual to demonstrate that their risk had reduced, or to, or to receive the required support to reduce their risk before being automatically rereleased. This would put victims in the public at risk. And while we will return to the question of recall in more detail later in this debate, I must remind noble Lords that we have built significant safeguards into our fixed term recall changes. These mean that many offenders who pose a similar risk to IPP offenders recall to prison, are also not eligible for a fixed term.

Recall. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a power for the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP prisoners, where it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should remain in prison. This is referred to operationally as a release after risk assessed recall review or Ras recalled. IPP offenders have already been rereleased using this power when they were due to wait for a number of months before their scheduled oral hearing before the Parole Board. The revised IPP Action Plan, published on the 17th of July this year, now includes a commitment to enable swift rerelease following recall through real, where it's safe to do so.

This means that HMPPS are considering all IPP offenders recall for being out of touch, or in relation to allegations of further offences for Ras, and are trailing an extended referral period to allow more time to consider cases for potential use of Ras before referral to the Parole board, I respectfully suggest that this power means we already have the ability to do what the noble Lords Amendment seeks to achieve. Quicker rerelease of recall of individuals where it's safe to do so. I'm also grateful to noble Lord Lord Moylan for his amendment and for my noble friend Lord Blunkett reflections of this on and on the ongoing interest in this important issue.

The noble Lords Amendment seeks to allow a prisoner whose licence is not terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the relevant qualifying period, to make an annual application to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period by reducing the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board and introducing a provision for automatic license termination. This automatic provision provides greater certainty to offenders than the annual referrals about when their licence will terminate, which is also important for victims.

These changes have resulted in the number of people serving the sentence in the community falling by 65%. Furthermore, at the four year point after initial release, if supervision is not suspended or the licence terminated by the parole board at the end of the three year qualifying period, probation practitioners can further consider applying for suspension of supervision at their own discretion, and we must also consider the potential effect on victims of going through an additional parole board review just a year after the last one.

But I acknowledge that the noble Lords Amendment would preserve the role of the Parole Board in this process, and I am happy to have further conversations with him and other noble Lords on this point in the coming weeks. I want to thank the noble Lords for their work on this important issue, and I hope that they assured not only of the work that we're currently undertaking, but our absolute resolve to make further progress. For those serving IPP sentence, I will continue to work closely with noble Lords and look forward to seeing them at the upcoming Round Table, and to discussing the points raised between now and the Report stage.

I amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the end of the. Lords Minister sits down. Could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords Minister sits down. Could I ask him, does he agree that the concept of us imprisoning concept of us imprisoning individuals on the grounds of a perception that they may commit a crime at some indeterminate point crime at some indeterminate point in the future, is utterly anathema to our whole system of criminal justice?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice? Our expert probation staff who manage the risks in the community, are experts in determining the risk are experts in determining the risk that that offenders, including IPP offenders, pose, and it is therefore their professional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judgement and their decision, whether they recall someone or not. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd just like to take this opportunity to make please to apologise for my stumble at the
17:58
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-
beginning, my inexperience in the process here going away. But I'm quite certain, having listened to all of the contributions, some of you very emotional contributions and indeed some heart rendering contributions, it didn't change. The tremendous contribution has been made by each and every noble Lord in here. This afternoon I was heartfelt as I was sitting here, as I know that we have dozens and dozens of hundreds of IPP families, family members, maybe even some prisoners who are watching this today, hoping for maybe more than the Minister has just said.

I'll come back to that in a moment. But nevertheless, if you listen to Lord Thomas's Lord Moylan Lord Blunkett and indeed all the other Lords that have contributed the experience that I was listening to was absolutely unbelievable. And, Minister, it's a shame, really, that whilst you've listened to it, you've actually come up with exactly the same answer that I predicted at the very beginning, which is more and more reasons why we can't do the right thing. There's no doubt at all about that in my mind.

More excuses for allowing people to suffer in prison, and more reasons why we're going to see more people, unfortunately, take their lives with no hope because they're still in prison service and serving sentences. They're they're. If you actually look at where we are in your own contribution, Minister, you said that your efforts was to make sure that we protect the the public. And I absolutely, wholeheartedly supported that. That's why my amendment for resentencing clearly identifies, you know, the safeguards to the public being at the very forefront of all that we that we wanted to do.

But it's not too late. I intend to continue to work with all colleagues and comrades in this room to turn around and try and convince yourself to talk with David Lammy and others to do the right thing on behalf of this particular group. And I would implore you on behalf of those families, on behalf of those prisoners, on behalf of all the contributors here this afternoon, to go away, rethink, re-evaluate, reassess and to come back, hopefully, as this goes along with a completely different response than you have given us again today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Lordships pleasure that amendment 89 be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. I Amendment by leave withdrawn. I understand the Minister would like to revisit some comments he made earlier. So, Minister, if you would like to take the floor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like to take the floor. With leave of your lordships, I'd like to clarify my comments regarding amendment 88, tabled by regarding amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord foster, we've already committed publicly to legislation to legislate legislation to legislate legislation to make this a statutory requirement, and that commitment stands. We are, however, concerned that setting the precise concerned that setting the precise timing for publication and content of the of the report in primary legislation may create unnecessary legislation may create unnecessary rigidity.

But I hope he's reassured that we share the intent behind this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I thank the Lord, the Minister, for what he's just said, Minister, for what he's just said, and could he just assure your Lordships' House that if he's not prepared to accept my amendment 88, prepared to accept my amendment 88, he will be bringing forward his own amendment at some later stage in amendment at some later stage in our deliberations to bring into effect the commitment that he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just repeated from the front bench. We may not bring forward amendment, but we will be amendment, but we will be legislating as to make sure this this happens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Lord Dannatt brings us on to the next substantive group, which is beginning with amendment 90, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames.
18:01
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords do pass. This group comprises amendments 90, 91 and 92, in my name and in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester. I should say at the outset that I'm extremely grateful to her, not just for adding her name to these amendments, but for also for to her, for her commitment to fairness and evidence in sentencing and criminal justice generally, which she's shown over a great deal of time in this House. I'm also grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for their help in preparing and presenting these amendments.

My Lords, the three amendments together, 1991 and 92 would establish a new panel on Sentencing Policy to advise the government on sentencing and on reducing re-offending, to be called the Independent Advisory Panel on Sentencing and Reducing Re-offending. And the new panel would, of course, be completely different from the Sentencing Council, which exists for a different purpose as an independent body to advise judges on sentencing within the framework of the law passed by Parliament. The amendments would implement recommendation 9.1 of the Independent Review of Sentencing, chaired by David Gauke, which has inspired the greater part of this bill.

The Independent Review was keen to get away from the focus in sentencing on punishment, and the further idea that punishment meant imprisonment and immediate imprisonment or incarceration. In the face of all the evidence that imprisonment is so often ineffective in reducing re-offending. The review highlighted the inescapable fact that the increasing use of imprisonment and the imposition of ever longer sentences has led to the prison capacity crisis, which this bill is partly directed to. Addressing. The report recommended the establishment of an independent panel to focus government on maintaining a sustainable approach to sentencing.

The review saw this independent panel, which it recommended as an external body of experts, to give the government access to evidence based expertise and to give both the government and the public impartial advice on what works in reducing re-offending and therefore cutting crime. These amendments would implement and take forward that recommendation, and I'm bound to say that it must be the hope that these amendments and this new panel would bring about a change of approach on the part of the press and the public to sentencing and to the treatment of offending in general.

Amendment 90 would establish the new panel with a duty to report annually to the Lord Chancellor, and it would be the Lord Chancellor who would appoint the Chan. Importantly, amendment 91 would require the Lord Chancellor to refer to the panel. Government policy Proposals on sentencing and on reducing reoffending, where there were significant resource implications of those proposals, the panel would advise the government on the evidence drawn from research in this country and internationally on what works in reducing re-offending, on the value for money of government proposals, and of the likely effect of government proposals.

The Lord Chancellor would be bound to respond to the reports of the panel and to lay both the report and the response before Parliament, so it is to be hoped and predicted that Parliament and the public would be better informed about the thinking and the evidence behind sentencing policy, which is so often misunderstood at present. My Lord, these proposals mirror proposals by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, the think tank Transforming Justice, the Sentencing Academy, the Prison Reform Trust and the centre for Justice Innovation they represent.

I suggest, a missing item on the agenda of sentencing reform, and I urge the government to accept these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
18:06
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 19. Insert the following new clause in the words as printed in the marshalled list. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords. I rise to add just a few brief comments. I'm aware of time and comments. I'm aware of time and there is a lot to get through. I simply want to wholeheartedly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord. Lord Marks. Thank you for your kind comments as well. I have believed for many years that we need more independence when it comes to sentencing, not less. And indeed, my own submission to the Sentencing Review to David Gauke focussed on this and as has been said, followed the Justice Committee's recommendations.

I really want to underline that they followed the Justice Committee's recommendations in its own inquiry on public opinion and that under standing of sentencing, and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Marks, for for using that language about a change of approach, because it is so important that we get away from doing our legislation based on a public narrative, which is not based on evidence. What's been called the penal populism, how do we enable the government to remain focussed on maintaining a sustainable approach to custody and facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation, without the constant pressure from that public narrative, which is what is affecting the way we are doing our sentencing at the moment.

And so I simply want to say that the aim here with these amendments, the principles of independence, is to support Ministers to be able to make objective, evidence based policy in the midst of all the pain and loss that comes through crime. And perhaps I would just add that when I was in the Netherlands a couple of years ago, looking at their criminal justice system, they were absolutely horrified. Ministers there were horrified that actually the public can so affect the way that Ministers act, that people can beat their path, a path to the door of Ministers.

And that then affects legislation because they've decoupled, they've decoupled that the way that Ministers make legislation. And actually the independent factor, and this is what we want to do here. So I look forward to the noble Lord. The Minister's response and I wholeheartedly agree with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I thank. The. noble Lord Lord Marks and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, for moving these amendments. Collectively, they seek to introduce an independent to introduce an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The stated purpose of this panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources.
18:10
18:11
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
would provide greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on the criminal justice system. I do absolutely understand the sentiments behind these amendments, and we do recognise that this bill represents a big change to sentencing in the future, and the government will need timely advice from voices of expertise and experience and some of some of the organisations that the noble Lord Lord Marks referred to are ones that I've worked with myself and, and hold in the highest esteem.

The government doesn't believe it is right to legislate for a new statutory panel at this stage. But but let me say a little bit about how we do think we can take forward the spirit of this. There are already many advisory and oversight authorities for prisons and probation, many of them with statutory remits. However, however, we we will certainly continue to consider whether the creation of a new advisory body is the appropriate mechanism to ensure greater scrutiny and greater effectiveness of the impacts and outcomes of policy and legislation in this area.

While we while we're considering this recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review carefully, and I hope I've made it clear, we take it very seriously, we cannot we don't support an amendment at this time, as I hope the House will understand. Creating such a panel requires a good deal of thought about its purpose, responsibilities, and how it could fit in within the panoply of organisations that already advise the wider criminal justice system. It's already a Rubik's Cube, and as noble Lords will know, the government is undertaking undertaking an ongoing review of arms length bodies and this sets out clear principles, including ministerial policy oversight, avoiding duplication.

And that's very important and improving efficiency. So we're not clear that the creation of such a body in statute as this amendment would, would do, would, would quite align with these aims. So while we do not accept these amendments today, I do want to assure the noble Lord Lord Marks and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester, indeed the whole House, that the government will continue to consider this recommendation. And with regard to the noble Lord Lord Marks observations about improving the understanding of the press and the public, and indeed the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, we are certainly in the market for anything that will improve the understanding of the press and the public of the way that the criminal justice system works, and in particular sentencing policy.

So I hope this reassurance of our of the seriousness with which we take the spirit of the of David Gauke recommendation, and indeed the amendment enables the noble law to withdraw their amendments at this stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Lemos for his response Lord Lord Lemos for his response and for his understanding. I am, however, disappointed that he isn't prepared at this stage to commit to
18:14
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
prepared at this stage to commit to putting this recommendation into the statute. It seems to me, as it seems to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester to be a very important feature of the recommendation. And if his concern that we should continue to try to inform press and public of what sentencing is about, and of what government policy on sentencing and reducing re-offending is about, then the formation of this body is very important. And if the formation of this body is very important, why shouldn't it be sanctioned by the statute? And so, while I do wish to withdraw my amendments, our amendments at this stage, I do so only on the basis that the noble Lord talked about my withdrawing them at this stage.

I don't say that. That doesn't mean we won't come back with them at report. If the government hasn't changed its mind. Because for my part, I see no reason why they shouldn't be in this otherwise extremely worthwhile bill. Now I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 91 Lord Marks not moved, and the same with 92 and 93 not moved. Amendment 93 a Lord Jackson of Peterborough 93 a Lord Jackson of Peterborough not moved, and 93 B Baroness Neville-Rolfe not moved. Turn then to amendment 93. See Lord Russell of Liverpool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Liverpool. My Lords, I'm glad to see we're picking up the pace slightly. I think the last group was a fairly brisk 13 14 minutes, so let's hope we can keep this up and get the noble Lord, the Minister, to bed at a half decent hour. And of course, we're missing the joys of hearing about the somewhat shaky condition of the American Constitution by being here in the chamber. At the moment, this amendment is linked to
18:16
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
amendment 34 that we discussed last week. And again, this is as a result of working in cooperation result of working in cooperation with an organisation I mentioned last week called the Marie Collins Foundation. And I would like to Foundation. And I would like to start just by referring to some statements by various bodies that illustrate the nature of the problem. This amendment is seeking problem. This amendment is seeking to to flag up. This is from the 2023 report of the College of 2023 report of the College of Policing and the NPCC.

In its national analysis of police national analysis of police recorded child sexual abuse and exploitation, and the quote is within the online space, perpetrators of sexual grooming are most commonly adults aged 18 to 29 years. This highlights the risk posed to children in the online space by adults looking to abuse and exploit them. Abuse of children by adults is more likely to be hidden and requires a strong law enforcement response, focusing on pursuing perpetrators as well as a response to focussed on prevention.

The next quotation I would like to use is from the National Crime Agency this year, in its National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime, we estimated in the National Strategic Assessment the National Strategic Assessment 2024 that between 710,000 and 840,000 adults in the UK pose varying degrees of sexual risks to children. That's a pretty horrifying total. However, police recorded crime does not effectively reflect the full scale of online offending, as one offence can relate to multiple instances of child sexual abuse material and the most serious physical offences recorded, instead of any precursor, online offences such as grooming.

And lastly, and this is hot off the press. As of yesterday, the part two of Angiolini inquiry, which is pretty horrifying reading for those of you on Lordships who haven't on page 173, in paragraph seven, subparagraph 49, which is under the heading The Effect of Pornography and Social Media, what Dame Angiolini says is there needs to be recognition of the link between perpetrators, online behaviours and their behaviours in the physical world. They are directly linked together.

The key issues in this area are, first of all, an overreliance on non-custodial sentences. In 2020, 80% of those sentenced for sexual communication with a child avoided prison. It is the magistrates courts rather than the criminal courts, which dominate the outcomes. Online. Child safety risk is escalating rapidly. The Internet Watch Foundation reported an 830% rise in child sexual abuse material on the internet since 2014, making 2024 the worst year on record. And this phenomenon, which I think I introduced your Lordship to the acronym last week, taxa, technology, technology, technology assisted child sexual abuse.

It lives in the shadow of of child sexual abuse and is really under under-recognised. Now we all acknowledge. And the reason we're talking about this bill is the capacity on prison places. But one of the factors in this particular area is offenders can effectively strategize what the outcome of their offence might be, because if they have a sufficiently heinous offence with a lot of class A material, for example, on on their computers, rather than going to the criminal court where it is quite possible they might get a custodial sentence, what they can opt to do, and many of them do, is they opt to plead guilty, which automatically means the case goes to the magistrates court, in which case the sentencing powers are much more limited.

So this is a tactical way in which it is possible to get out of jail early by pleading guilty and opting to go to a magistrates court, and that is causing a lot of concern, particularly, as you might imagine to victims. There is also a coverage gap to do with the unduly lenient sentence scheme, because that only reviews Crown Court sentences. So if a magistrates court with a particularly unpleasant case decides that a custodial sentence is the right way to go, there is no appeal mechanism under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to challenge that.

And there is indeed a misconception of harm. I think the this type of of online abuse is regarded as less serious than contact forms of child abuse. While there is an increasing amount of research which links quite directly that those who start off abusing children online are particularly statistically likely at some point to then go on and actually do it physically. So in terms of what one would like to see happen. The first is improved parity and sentencing range for this particular type of of egregious sort of online abuse, so that the technological abuse of a child has parity with the physical abuse of a child, or they are brought more into balance because at the moment there is a cure imbalance between the two.

Secondly, I think expanding the ideally the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include all offences of this type so that they could also be looked at if a magistrates court has given a rather lenient sentence. I think in an ideal world, one would like to prohibit the use of suspended sentences for these kinds of offences, many of which are deeply unpleasant. And also, I think, to prohibit the use of what is called good character mitigation in in many of these cases, I think it is very hard to use good character mitigation when an individual is found, as is the case in some cases, to have more than a thousand examples of class A child abuse material on their, on their, on their, you know, on their computers.

The noble Lord last week, in response to discussion about amendment 34, mentioned that in terms of mitigation or the ability to challenge the sentence, and I quote from the Minister, he said, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous, it is possible for the offence to be challenged under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. However, that does not cover the cases that I mentioned that go through the Magistrates Court. And finally, just 1 or 2 examples of what happens when individuals go through the magistrates court.

So an 18 year old from East London who had 183 category A images, got a two year community order, a 62 year old from Cumbria had 503 category A images. He got an eight month sentence, suspended for 18 months and 200 hours of unpaid work. A 26 year old from Norfolk had 69 category A videos. He was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 12 months and the list goes on. One of our more energetic newspapers, The Sun, profiled a large number of these individuals under the usually slightly sort of brash headline, but basically it said something is wrong with the system if this is what is happening.

So, my Lords, I think I've explained the background to why I have brought this amendment forward. I do think it's something that it would be really helpful for us to look at in more detail. The Minister indicated last week that I'd be interested to hear more about this particular foundation and what it does, and if he's willing, I would very much like to follow up his invitation to go in and talk about this in more detail, to try and lay out what is actually happening and the imbalance that there is currently in the system, which is allowing a lot of really deeply unpleasant men to get away with virtually no type of sentence whatsoever.

And on that basis, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 19, insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. The noble Lord reminds me of a
18:26
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:28
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
unduly lenient sentence scheme so that victims of technology assisted child sexual abuse and where the victim is a minor, their next of victim is a minor, their next of kin should be able to refer sentences to the scheme, regardless sentences to the scheme, regardless of the level of court where the sentence has been passed. Lord sentence has been passed. Lord Russell explained the rationale for his amendments amendment eloquently and eloquently and with clarity. His detail was illuminating. This His detail was illuminating.

This is a narrowly framed, an entirely reasonable proposal. Technology assisted abuse does not respect borders. It does not respect ages. It is often complex, cross-jurisdictional and deeply traumatic. It cannot be right that a victim's ability to challenge an obviously lenient sentence depends on the court level at which the matter has been disposed of and in which the perpetrator was tried. This amendment would close that gap and ensure parity of access to this important review mechanism for victims of what are, in fact, some of the most serious and distressing offences dealt with by our criminal justice system.

It would, we believe, stop the system being gamed to the advantage of the offender and to the disadvantage of the victim. It strengthens accountability without weeding, widening the scheme beyond its existing remit. My Lords, this is a practical, victim centred improvement and we urge the Minister to give it serious consideration. I ask, if not, why not?
18:30
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell, Liverpool, for this amendment and for raising awareness of the Marie Collins Foundation on the first day of committee, and I'm looking forward to meeting with the with the representative, also with the noble Lord from the foundation on this matter. I think in the coming weeks, the unduly, unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any person to request that the Attorney General consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review if they believe it is unduly lenient.

And I've actually been listening to some very interesting podcasts to to learn more about this topic. This amendment would create a specific rights for victims of technology, assisted child sexual abuse offences, and where the victim is a child for their next of kin, to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Even where the sentence was imposed in a magistrates court. Currently, the Unduly lenient sentence scheme covers all indicative only offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery, as well as certain specified triable either way.

Offences sentenced in the Crown Court, including stalking and most child sex offences. Parliament intended the unduly lenient Sentence scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion expansion of its scope must be approached with great care. The Law Commission is currently reviewing criminal appeals, including the range of offences within the scheme, and expects to publish recommendations in late 2026 when it comes to sentencing for child sexual offences, the data shows significant variation by offence type. Around 20% of offenders convicted for sexual offences against children receive an immediate custodial sentence.

This rises to approximately 70% for the most serious crimes, such as sexual assault of a child under 13, familial sexual offences and possession of indecent or prohibited images. These patterns have remained broadly consistent over the past five years. As I've noted previously in committee, sentencing decisions in individual cases are for our independent judiciary, guided by robust Sentencing Council guidelines that already address technology enabled offending. For example, the guidelines require courts to consider intended harm even where no actual child exists, and to take account of aggravating factors such as image sharing, abuse of trust and threats.

Whilst I fully recognise the importance and severity of the issue raised by the noble Lord, given the exceptional nature of the Unduly lenient Sentence Scheme and the ongoing Law Commission review of criminal appeals, I respectfully asked the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment. amendment.
18:32
18:33
18:34
None Portrait Amendment:94 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

Keen of Ely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. It will not surprise the noble Lord, the Minister, that I noble Lord, the Minister, that I broadly support the principle underlying clause 20 of the Bill. If prisoners can prove that they If prisoners can prove that they have made positive steps towards rehabilitation, then we would not oppose the principle that in those circumstances there are arguments to releasing such offenders early.

to releasing such offenders early. But my Lords, this regrettably, is not the outcome that clause 20 will not the outcome that clause 20 will give effect to. On many occasions during Second Reading and committee. The noble Lord, the Minister, has made reference to the and I quote earned progression model unquote and to the Texas system under clause 20 as drafted, there is no such reward for good behaviour or evidence of meaningful rehabilitative steps. The independent House of Commons library briefing is quite clear on this point.

The release point is a default automatic release date, and the only way it will not apply is if a prisoner has been subject to additional days for proven misconduct before a judge, the Lords. That is not earned progression. It is automatic release with a very low threshold of eligibility. There is no assessment of behaviour, of remorse, of work or of engagement with treatment programmes. There is no review by the Parole board. There is no evaluation of risk. There is only the clock.

The Lord Chancellor said that the public can be reassured because the most serious offences, as he termed them, will be excluded. But the ministry's own data confirms that offenders convicted of rape, child grooming and attempted murder will be eligible if such offences are not within the government's definition of serious, then I must ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to outline exactly which offences are considered serious. Every rape of a child or an adult, every victim of grooming, every life shattered by serious violence represents profound and enduring harm.

On what basis are we telling victims that these crimes do not count, and that they will meet their offenders at just one third of their custodial sentence? My Lords, this is not a technical or procedural matter. It is a question of fundamental justice and of public protection. It is also a question of whether this House is prepared to legislate knowingly and deliberately, to reduce prison time for such serious offenders. The bill is drafted would cut custodial sentences for more than 60% of rapists and over 80% of offenders convicted of child sex offences.

It would allow those convicted of stalking an offence of one of the with one of the highest re-offending rates and a well established connection to homicide, to be released automatically after serving only one third of their sentence, and it would do so without assessment of risk and without any evidence of rehabilitation. Amendment 94 would exclude from the early release provisions of clause 20 those convicted of the most serious sexual and violent offences, including rape, child sexual abuse, stalking, grievous bodily harm, and causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult and ensure exclusions for other serious offence categories, before these drastic changes to sentencing come into force. The Lords, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the other place were in rare agreement over this amendment. It was almost like a recall of a coalition concern. And in that other place, the Lords. I understand that 65 out of 71 members of the Liberal Democrat Party voted in favour of it.

My Lords were told the justification for these provisions is prison overcrowding. But the emergency powers that already exist to manage emergency capacity pressures have been installed and are not to be removed. The measures in this bill will be permanent. They're not temporary. They are a long term shift in sentencing policy that will reshape the criminal justice system for a generation, because we've spent much time earlier in committee arguing against the presumption of suspended sentences. But clause 20 deals with a far higher category of offenders.

Those have been put into custody for several years, but will now automatically be released at the one third point, the government proposes to release an estimated 43,000 offenders into the community who would previously have been imprisoned. As with many other clauses in the bill, clause 20 will place more pressure on probation services if implemented, and they already face a shortfall of 10,000 officers. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust warns that the system is already at breaking point, and that releasing thousands more high risk offenders without necessary supervision poses a serious threat to the safety of victims and to public confidence.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that allowing perpetrators back into communities after only 28 days is, and I quote, simply unacceptable. The victims commissioner has warned that victims will be left feeling unnerved and bewildered. These are not political opponents of the bill, my Lord. These are respected, independent authority. Speaking on behalf of victims and the public at large, the Howard League warns that earned release models are undeliverable without a functioning rehabilitation infrastructure. Yet prisons remain impoverished and dangerously unstable.

Drugs and violence are rife. Education provision has been cut by up to 20, I'm sorry, 60% in some prisons, and half of prisoners receive no education or employment support at all. In that context, early release cannot be earned because there is nothing meaningful meaningful with which to earn it. My Lords, every member of this House understands the need to reduce pressure on the prison estate, but public protection and public confidence must remain at the forefront of legislative change.

The public expect that those who commit serious crime face real punishment and real consequences. More than 6500 of the most serious criminals, including rapists, stalkers and violent attackers and even murderers will qualify for early release. Although the public do not expect Parliament to legislate to let these criminals out after one third of their sentence. Every time a victim reads in the paper that the person who raped them or attacked them has been released early. Every time a family sees a person responsible for death of a child or a relative back in the community, far sooner than they were told originally, will create fissures in the rule of law.

Public confidence matters because without it, the justice system loses legitimacy. Amendment 94 is a proportionate and necessary step to ensure that early release is not granted to those whose crimes are simply too serious to justify automatic release. It represents the minimum safety measure that this House must insist upon. The government must accept that such serious offenders should not walk free after serving one third of their sentence, and do so by default. And if we do take that step, then we are going to lose sight of what our justice system is all about.

I urge the government to reconsider and to support the amendment in the interests of victims, in the interests of public protection, in the interests of public confidence, and in the interests of the integrity of our justice system. I beg to move.
18:43
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 20, page 38, line seven. At the end, page 38, line seven. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. I thank the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for this amendment, which seeks to exclude a wide range of offences from the new release provisions. Under clause 20, the offence is listed as serious crimes. offence is listed as serious crimes. While some are in scope of the progression model, many perpetrators of these offences will receive life or extended receive life or extended determinate sentences, so would not be in scope. I must start by pointing out that two of the pointing out that two of the offences rape of a child under 13 and sexual assault of a child under 13 are already completely outside of the progression model.

Those convicted of these offences can only be given life and extended determinate sentence, or a sentence of. For offenders of particular concern. There are more than 17,000 prisoners serving extended, determinate or life sentences. Those convicted of the most serious crimes. We are clear that these offenders will be unaffected by these reforms. Under clause 20, offenders sentenced for certain sexual or violent offences will be released at the halfway point of their sentence. They will spend even longer inside if they behave badly while in custody up to their full sentence length.

This approach, inspired by the effective reform in Texas, reflects incentive schemes widely used across the United States and is the single biggest measure to preserve prison capacity. In the bill. I must remind noble Lords of the context of why this measure is needed. When this government came into power last July, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. We were days away from running out of places entirely, days away from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, days away from the criminal justice system, failing to deliver the one thing it was for delivering justice.

If prisons run out of space, we fail victims and compromise safety. Without prison, space, victims are denied the justice they deserve, and a stable prison population allows for a better regime and outcome for prisoners. We must always. We must ensure there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. Our reforms will ensure that those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences, and that it is only possible if there is enough space to house them. These measures will be crucial in ensuring we never reach breaking point again.

And I must also respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in our prisons than ever before. The proposals for the progression model in this bill are the result of extensive work by the independent Sentencing Review. All proposals, including the new framework for release, have been thoroughly considered. Excluding certain offences from the changes would also make the system more operationally complex. It increases the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations, and I hope it will also reassure my Lords that once released, offenders will be subject to a period of intensive supervision, with the presumption that they can be electronically tagged and also recalled into custody.

The highest risk offenders will continue to be actively supervised until the end of their sentence, and all all offenders remain on licence, with the possibility of this recall if they breach the terms of their licence and public confidence is vital. Having no prison places is the worst situation for victims. So, my Lords, I hope I've explained why the government's approach is the right one. I urge the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response. However, he has done nothing to However, he has done nothing to reassure us that clause 20 is drafted is in fact an earned progression model of any kind whatsoever. And these are not temporary changes to relieve prison temporary changes to relieve prison overpopulation, but permanent changes to our justice system. And changes to our justice system. And my Lord, we will, I suspect, return to these at Report stage.

But in the meantime, I seek leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the meantime, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. We then turn
18:47
None Portrait Amendment:94A Lord Bach (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I rise to speak to my amendment 94. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Which touches on an issue that arose in a number of important arose in a number of important speeches at Second Reading, one in particular, by the noble Lord Lord particular, by the noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere. I want to also thank the Prisoners Education Trust for their advice with this amendment. It relates to the issue of earned progression, which all noble Lords know is at the very heart of the worthy intentions of the government in this bill to restore our criminal justice system so that it can once again in time with the again the envy of the world.

The issue is what the earned progression model means, or perhaps ought to mean now and in the future. And it is one of the few differences in approach between the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review and the policy of the bill we are debating the executive summary of the independence Sentencing Review or is at page ten says this. While it is for the government, I'm quoting what it is for the government to decide which of the review's recommendations it will accept.

The review considers it. Its recommendations as a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other. I believe that the committee would say amen to that statement. The Esr's superb report produced so speedily and clearly, along with the Minister's own convictions, experience and obvious passion are the catalysts for this. Once in a generation long and long overdue changes to our outdated penal system, it's not unknown for there to be differences in matters like this, even in matters of serious importance.

Here, though, and this is important to my amendment, there is goodwill on all sides, and in no way is this amendment intended as anything other than a friendly and hopefully helpful contribution. And it's obviously right when scrutinising the Bill, as is our duty, that these differences are openly debated. Put simply, the Isor argues at page 57 of its report, and I quote, the criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules.

Actions which violate violate prison rules. And they're then set out and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings would result in the offender's release point being pushed back. And it goes on. The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatment and or training obligations. Where these are available. The review holds. This review holds the view that as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for own release should become more demanding.

The bill, on the other hand, argues that the criteria for maximum early release work work would be limited to complying with the prison rules. Once those are complied with, the maximum discount will be available. The arguments for the ISR stronger criteria are well known. I mean set out at Second Reading here and if I may say so, say so in an excellent speech at the Third Reading in the another place by my hon. Friend Lindsay Farnsworth, member of Parliament.

At the Third Reading on the 29th of October. I can summarise those arguments one. The danger of too many recalls if no purposeful activity has been undertaken by the offender. Secondly, no need for positive effort by the offender who knows that they will be released if they do nothing wrong. And thirdly, of course, the even greater pressure on the probation service. These are attractive arguments to me and I think to to many others. But the government's response must be listened to and I anticipate it is to say, to not to oppose the principle that earned progression should involve something more than obeying prison rules, but to say that the reality of the present position, bequeathed, as it undoubtedly has been, is that for the prison system to function in the near future, it is necessary and vital to ensure that prisons are never put under such pressure of numbers.

Thus, the wider criteria, the weaker criteria. Forgive me, the government proposes this is an important issue, my Lords, but one in which people of goodwill will want this new system to work and can see the arguments and strength of the arguments on both sides of the case. That's important. That's why it's important that a way through is found both now and in the future, and one must be found for the and one must be found for the future anyway.

This amendment, my amendment suggests that on the face of their bill, on the on the face of the bill, there should be a statutory reminder that in due course, regulations should be introduced to alter the criteria for participation in purposeful activity. Indeed, at in the other place, the Minister said that the government would like to go further. There are alternatives to my proposal in my amendment and we may hear about them in due course. Two urgent points needed to be made before I sit down.

Firstly, there needs to be an increased, even further increased effort for the amount of purposeful activity to be increased across the board as a matter of urgency. Most particularly, I pick out education. So crucial to any future success, and I would like to ask the Minister, please, who responds? What cuts? It is rumoured cuts have taken place in that in that budget, the education budget. What's the truth of the matter in terms of cuts, the present time? And my last point is this all this argument again places extra concentration on the probation service, as this committee has heard time and time again, that service is at the heart of any success or failure of this brave new scheme.

And that should
18:55
18:56
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
of Elie just reminded us, allows early release at the one third point without any real rehabilitation having been earned, rehabilitation having been earned, a prisoner will earn early release at the one third point, merely by behaviour which avoids additional behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of the prison rules. For example, offences against discipline, threatening against discipline, threatening abusive or violent behaviour or possessing unauthorised articles. possessing unauthorised articles. The 1970 1967 act experience That's the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the Criminal Justice Act 1967 teaches us that release is only truly earned if the offender engages in meaningful, purposeful engages in meaningful, purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and or training obligation.

Where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. This amendment Lord Marks amendment recognises that the state of capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to purposeful activity is severely limited, and that early release cannot currently depend on engagement in purposeful activity. So it proposes an enabling power so that when the time is right and staff capacity issues allow, provision can be made for purposeful activity to be taken into account in deciding early release.

At the one third point of the sentence, not least to give prisoners an incentive to undertake purposeful activity which they otherwise will not have. This is something I previously supported and indeed suggested at Second Reading. However, it raises issues of fair and equal treatment of prisoners and the quality and consistency of the regime that's available to them. I listened carefully to the debate on Monday in relation to the noble Baroness. Lady Neville Woolf's amendment on mandatory purposeful activity for custodial sentences, and it was clear there are concerns about the impact on prisoners who are unable to take part in many forms of purposeful activity due to learning or physical disabilities, as well as problems with the estate having insufficient resources to provide such opportunities.

The noble Lord Lord Marks amendment, therefore, has the potential to create unfairness for prisoners who are not offered such opportunities or cannot take them up for reasons beyond their control. But I am very interested to know the Minister's view, especially on when this sort of change might be feasible, since it's obviously sensible when resources allow. I now turn to my amendments 95 and 128 amendment 95 for certain serious violent or sexual offenders, the bill retains an automatic release point of 66% without an opportunity for earned release at the halfway point.

This new clause brings this cohort into the scope of earned release. The Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise his or her discretion at the 50% point in the sentence, to refer the case to the Parole Board for consideration of release. It thereby gives effect to the recommendation of the ISR that a progression model should apply to all prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence. This amendment, and my next one relating to Ed's prisoners, do not create the same risk of unfairness that I mentioned in relation to the noble Lord Lord Marks amendment, since the Parole Board would consider a much wider range of factors than purely purposeful activity.

For example, whether the offenders worked on addiction issues, have they addressed their offending behaviour? Will they be honest with their offender manager, etc. It's worth briefly recapping on where different cohorts of prisoners will stand as regards release, because it's phenomenally complicated and how people calculate sentences on paper with papers. I have no idea. Currently, the progression model in the bill sets a minimum release point of one third for those serving an SDS sentence who currently have automatic release of 40% or 50% for SDS prisoners serving more serious offences who currently have a release point of 66%, the majority will have a 50% minimum.

However, my new clause would affect a cohort of certain serious violent and sexual offenders who are subject to automatic release no earlier than the 66 point of their sentence, unless additional days are imposed, in which case it will be longer. These are adults serving sentences of four years or more for certain violent and sexual offences, and against children serving seven years or more for certain serious violent or sexual offences. Why should we make any favourable changes for this category? People will ask well, if such prisoners are denied the opportunity to be referred to the parole board at the halfway point, then against the status stated purpose of the bill, it creates an incentive for prisoners sentenced for more serious offences to disengage from rehabilitative opportunities.

Why bother if it makes no difference? Amidst the overcrowding crisis, we mustn't lose sight of the overarching purposes of sentencing, one of which is to reduce reoffending. This amendment provides an important opportunity to incentivise rehabilitation and a reduction in risk, at the discretion of the parole Board for the most serious cohort of determinate prisoners, bringing the parole board back to its original function of overseeing the safe and early release of determinate prisoners. This new clause blends fairness and consistency with careful oversight.

Offenders serving these sentence have been recognised as particularly serious, should be encouraged and incentivised to reduce their risk with the opportunity of a referral to the parole board at the halfway point of their custodial sentence, rather than being released automatically at the two thirds. Such a mechanism would not, as some may fear, let people off for serious offences. The parole board would need to be satisfied they were safe to be released. It would not be automatic release, but it would recognise and reward those who have taken themselves to task to, to rehabilitate in in the lengthier time available to them.

This is what this amendment would achieve. Turning to amendment 128 on extended determinate sentence prisoners. The majority of people serving editors currently become eligible for parole after serving two thirds of their custodial term, and every two years thereafter, with eventual automatic release at the end of the custodial term on extended licence if they are unsuccessful in gaining parole earlier. This new clause would create a power for the Secretary of State to refer to the Parole Board, a prisoner serving an extended determinate sentence at the earlier halfway point of the sentence, instead of the two thirds point.

If the Secretary of State is of the view, there is a reasonable prospect that the board will direct release. It's therefore in line with the is our recommendation. As the review affirmed, this measure would improve incentives for rehabilitation and enhance the effectiveness of measures to address the overcrowding crisis without in any way changing the public protection mechanisms that currently apply to prisoners. 1 in 10 people in prison is currently serving an editor's sentence. The average length of such a sentence is nine years, with many serving far longer than that.

It's a serious oversight that measures to address overcrowding are ignoring 10% of people in prison. That is, nearly 10,000 people who are serving an average of nearly a decade. Furthermore, all the signs point to the contribution of the editors sentence to prison overcrowding only getting worse. There are almost five times as many people in prison serving editors as there were a decade ago, when the number was just under 2000. Now it's well on track to reach 10,000. This trend is likely to continue and increase further as a result of the changes in this bill.

This edits editor's sentence is a public protection sentence, but in statute, the parts intended to fulfil its public protection function are the involvement of the Parole Board and the extended licence period, which can be up to ten additional years on licence in the community. It's rarely less than five. The custodial term of editors is set commensurate with the offence, not with public protection concerns, so there are no public protection concerns in statute to justify referral to the parole board at the two thirds point, instead of the halfway point.

Under the provisions of this new clause, and in line with the recommendations of the review, the Parole Board would still engage in exactly the same careful, reasoned, and deliberate decision making that it currently does at 66%, offenders would who fail to secure their first release at. Beg your pardon, no doubt many offenders would fail to secure their first release at 50%, but there is no doubt that many would satisfy robust public protection criteria at that point, as much as they would at two thirds point.

The lengthy custodial term served by most editors prisoners mean that serving half of it would still be enough to participate in rehabilitation and incentivise them to engage constructively with programmes and interventions. The experts in prison imprisonment are also clear about the real world consequences of inconsistency between prisoners. It's counterproductive to have a substantial proportion of prisoners in any individual prison denied an incentive, which is extended to others. People respond to incentives and who and people who conclude they have nothing to lose are less compliant, predictable or engaged in regimes and rehabilitation.

A genuine forward thinking investment in both reducing the prison population and protecting the public would recognise and accommodate this reality. In conclusion, this new clause in no way reduces public protection, but it does enhance opportunities for incentivising rehabilitation and safely tackling overcrowding, while avoiding the negative consequences of the government's decision to reject the recommendation of the independent review and exclude editors prisoners from early release who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry would. My Lords, I'd just like to stand up and apologise. I
19:07
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
like to stand up and apologise. I didn't get to speak at Second Reading, but I'd like to support Lord Fox amendment for earned release and that in addition to compliance with the rules and early release, there should indeed be meaningful, purposeful activity for irrespective of how we look on prison, a prison sentence, whether as a punishment or sanction or indeed an opportunity for a deterrent to deter people from doing so, or indeed to avoid them coming back to prison and purposeful activity.

Engaging in it would certainly help recall whether recall from early release or recall from re-offending. And it is, for all kinds of reasons, very important to stop the revolving door of somebody being released from prison and coming back for one reason or another, or for re-offending. I thought I'd mention here, in support of Lord Marks amendments, some work we did at the think tank where I'm research director on. We called a jailbreak, but we looked at schemes for what should happen to prisoners once they were sentenced, and amongst the various proposals we saw which worked, a 1 to 1 adviser, from the moment the offender came in to the moment the offender was released, who saw that they had an education, which of course has been mentioned before, and that they had engaged in meaningful activity.

And this could involve, my Lords, might be interested to know one firm in Sheffield which taught them how to make umbrellas and promised them a job and release, and another meaningful activity. If the noble Lord, the Minister, will forgive my mentioning it was Timpson's which trained them in the craft of of of shoemaking and repairs, and also offered them a flat when they left, and so they could live in a new place with a new life to start and cut off from the previous life and contacts in a often in a criminal world.

Now these things depended on engaging in meaningful activity, but they certainly contributed to avoiding recall, whether on early release or on, as a result of re-offending.
19:09
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords Amendment one, 39C is rather different regarding the adjudication system. Not for the first time, The Archers has drawn to Aficionado's attention issues, which we hadn't really considered before, and adjudicate. The adjudication system is or was a current one. I can't say that I was able to listen to every episode, though I make quite an effort to do so, but it in that situation, the offender coming towards the end of his sentence, had a weapon planted in his cell and was very worried that he was going to be on the wrong end of adjudication and his sentence would continue.

I and that the current system is handling much larger numbers than it would have occurred to me. In a three month period last year, there were almost 69,000 adjudication outcomes, and punishments rose as well. Additional days were imposed more than 1500 times. One reason why I was interested in this was about the consistency between prisons, and indeed between different governors. The Minister has told us that he gets reports about education and activities. I don't know what comparative records are kept by the MoJ about adjudication outcomes.

I'm sure that they are, and I don't know whether there's any comment he's able to make tonight about this, but I was interested to because I did read, I couldn't track it down. Again, a concern about the quasi judicial nature of these decisions without an appeal and without any of the other protections one might normally see. And again, if the Minister has any comments that he's able to share, he has no warning of my asking these questions. So it's probably not fair to expect anything tonight.

But I would like to place the concerns on the record, and perhaps he can write if he's anything or the MoJ has anything to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say after this evening. Thank you, my Lords. This has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. This has been an interesting group because when the concept of earned when the concept of earned progression was originally floated and considered by the government,
19:12
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and considered by the government, considerable stress was laid both on the Texas model and on the concept that there should be an element of earning release, rather than simply being told that you'd be released unless days were added. And I agree with the proposition that the concept of earned progression should involve a combination of reward and deterrence. To put it informally, there should be carrot as well as stick. And I also agree that the bill is drawn, and I'm sure the noble Lord agrees as well.

Introduces a scheme of early release, provided that no delay on release has been imposed for a bad behaviour. And having thought about this, I accept that it is a difficult challenge to import into the bill more opportunity to earn release by engaging with opportunities for rehabilitative activities in the wider sense, and certainly the difficult to do so without damaging the government's desire to ensure that the prison population is limited and reduced. For my part, I was attracted by Lord Carter's amendment and in particular by the way in which he introduced it and his reasoning, which would give the role a role to the parole board in recognising a prisoner's earning release.

And while I found many of the noble Lord, Lord Bach's arguments persuasive, as indeed I always do, I remain concerned by the element of compulsion in the amendment that would prevent some offenders from earning release through no fault of their own, if they were unable, for whatever reason, to participate in rehabilitative activity. So I will be very interested to hear the noble Lord, the Minister's response, and for our part, on these benches we would welcome proposals from the government to introduce a measure of incentive to the earned progression model.

At the moment, what does happen when days are added is that there is a quasi judicial determination by a district judge, as I understand it, and one would hope that such a district judge hearing an added day's case would always take into account a prisoner's progress towards rehabilitation. But it may be that that could be further developed to introduce some statutory element whereby added day's hearings would always take into account any progress that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the offender has made. My Lord.
19:15
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I rise to speak in support of the amendments before us as they seek to turn the government's seek to turn the government's Earned Progression Scheme from a superficially attractive promise into a credible and responsible model for rehabilitation and consequently, for public safety. As currently drafted, with release contingent only on the absence of serious misconduct. The provision does not amount to earn progression at all. It is simply accelerated release by default, and we know from recent evidence that meaningful rehabilitation in prison, such as education, vocational training work, is far from universal.

Only this year did the government cut the provision of education services for prisoners by 20%, and for some prisons by up to 60%. The Justice Committee's 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisoners are not engaged in education or employment programmes, and many remain confined for 22 hours a day in those conditions, expecting that prisoners will earn their release by default is neither realistic nor responsible. In in that light, it is not only reasonable but imperative to link early release to engagement in meaningful activity.

And that is what amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord Bach seeks to do. It insists that one third release point is conditional on participation in meaningful activity, and that would ensure that early release is genuinely earned and that it is based on reform rather than simply time served. Equally, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter seek to embed an earn progression principle for both standard and extended determinate sentences, rather than treating release as an automatic milestone after half a sentence has been served.

This makes the model proportionate and conditional on real change rather than automatic and unearned. And my Lords, if we accept the bill without amendments to the proposed progression model, we knowingly legislate to release on terms we cannot expect to support rehabilitation or protect the public. And frankly, that is not reform, that is risk. But if we do accept the amendments in the name of Lord Carter, we reprioritise a system that balances the need to manage prison populations with the social imperative of reducing reoffending.

So I thank all the Lords for their submissions on these matters and for the amendments moved by the noble Lord Bach and the noble Lord Carter. I now look forward to hearing from the noble Lord at the Minister in reply.
19:18
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and the as well as supported by the noble Baroness Lawlor as well. And thank you for your kind comments too about my previous work. This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the bill by regulations, so that no prisoner is released after serving one third of their sentence, unless they've earned release through purposeful activity if they are able. I want all prisoners to be in work or education.

However, we need to be realistic about what is possible in different types of prisons. Currently, there isn't equal access to the full range of classes and employment required to meet the prisoner needs and to confirm education. Our education budget has been increased by 3%, but unfortunately that buys us less education. So it's sort of one is up and the other is down. But there's there's a lot of we can have another conversation about how we how I, I've got other things I can do to improve things.

I think in that area, we also need to be mindful that many prisoners may behave well, but still struggle to engage with some activities. There are high levels of mental health, trauma and neurodiversity that should be considered, and we often need to meet these needs before engagement with education and work can be productive. As noble Lords know, this is an area I'm passionate about and I believe positive change is necessary, but I think it is better achieved through gradual operational and policy improvements rather than legislative measures.

I also agree about the role of the probation service, and how vital it is to the ongoing support of offenders after release, and I thank my noble friend Lord Carter for amendments 95 and 128, which address the question of release points for some more for more serious offenders regarding amendment 95, I must clarify that clause 20 of this bill already sets an automatic release point of halfway for these offences. Of course, if other if other if the offender behaves badly, they could have days added to their sentence.

And it's essential that the progression model can be implemented quickly and effectively. The best way to do that is via a system which we know works and is legally robust. The existing adjudication system. The noble Lord, has also raised an important question about prisoners serving the Ed's sentence through amendment 128. It would allow the Secretary of State to refer offenders serving serving in Ed's sentence to the Parole Board for consideration for release at the halfway point of their custodial term. At present, offenders serving this sentence, the Ed's sentence are referred to the board after serving two thirds of the custodial term, which is a statutory requirement, and I acknowledge that the noble Lords Amendment is similar in effect to recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review that the extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the the parole eligibility date to be brought forward to the halfway point.

But the government rejected that recommendation on the basis that for an offender to receive an extended determinate sentence, the court will have decided that they are dangerous. There are offenders who have committed serious offences such as rape, other sexual offences or violence against the person and to impose an EDS. The courts will have decided that there is a risk that there was a risk of them doing so again in the future. This is not the case with standard determinate sentences. Having seen all the evidence, the trial judge will have imposed a custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the offence.

Prison is the right place for dangerous offenders such as these. Our firm view is that they should not be able to achieve an early release through progression, and should remain in prison for as long as they do now. And I'll briefly turn to amendment 139 C in the name of Baroness Jones, and I can assure the noble Lady that we monitor the performance of the adjudication system, and it remains under constant review. And I do get regular data by prison, but I'm happy to write to the noble Baroness Hamwee on the on the answers to her question.

We have effective scrutiny structures in place through His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and via independent monitoring boards. They're able to provide valuable insight into the operations of the prisoner adjudication system and to reassure noble Lords. It is something that on every prison visit I do, I ask questions about the adjudication system. As noble Lords are aware, I am passionate about this area and have routinely pressed for improvements, but my view is that this is best achieved through existing monitoring and scrutiny rather than legislation.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. My Lord, I'd like to thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I'd like to thank the Minister and all other speakers in this interesting debate that we've this interesting debate that we've had on this really important part of this bill. Thank the noble of this bill. Thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lorna, for her support and the opposition front bench as well, and also Lord Marks bench as well, and also Lord Marks too, although I have one remark for him before I before before I sit him before I before before I sit down.

The he accused me in the nicest possible way of wanting this
19:23
19:25
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-

Withdrawn. Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. The question is that clause 20 stamp out of the bill, as many as are content to the contrary. Not content with The contents have it. The question is that clauses 21 and 22 stand for the bill. As many as are that opinion will say content to contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 22, amendment 95 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved. The question now is that clause 23 stamp on the bill, as many as are of that opinion, was a content contrary not content.

The contents have it in clause 24, amendments 9697. Lord Foster not moved 98. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe not moved 99 and 100. Lord Foster not moved 101. Lord Balfe. Not moved 101. A Baroness Prashar. Not moved 102 Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Not moved 103 Lord Foster of Bath. Moved formally. I understand that that it's all right that he moves it for me. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it in 104 Lord Jackson of Peterborough not moved at 105. Lord Foster not moved just one little second. 106 Lord Marks not moved 107 Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe not moved 108 Lord Foster not moved. Wait a minute. The question now is that clause 24 stamp on the bill, as many as are of that content, the contrary not content. The contents have it. And the question now is of course, 25 stamp part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content and to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it after clause 25, amendment 109 Lord Moylan Baroness Fox not here, so presumably not moved. I'm sorry, my Lords. Rather a lot of paper here. 110 and to 110 z b Lord foster not moved. So the question now is that clause 26 stamp out of the bill, as many as are of that opinion content to the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 26 110 a Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. So the question now is that clause 27 stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that schedule four B the fourth schedule to the bill, as many as are of that content, the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question now is that clause 28 stamp of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 29 Lord Marks 111 to 113.

Not moved Lord Russell of Liverpool 114 and 115 oh. You. Oh, right. Yes. Okay. Yes yes yes I'm sorry. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, so I now rise to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, so I now rise to speak to amendment 118 and the related amendments 114 and 115, in my name. amendments 114 and 115, in my name. And I thank the noble Baroness May of Maidenhead, Baroness Jones and of Maidenhead, Baroness Jones and Lord Polak, for adding their names to these amendments. My Lords, I'm concerned that the provisions in concerned that the provisions in part two of the bill, which allow the automatic rerelease of recalled the automatic rerelease of recalled offenders after 56 days, will put victims of domestic abuse at victims of domestic abuse at serious risk of harm if, as drafted perpetrators of domestic abuse remain eligible for automatic rerelease.

These amendments have the full support of Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and she stated her concerns directly to the Secretary of State, David Lammy. In a letter on the
19:29
None Portrait Amendment:114 Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

11th of November for victims and survivors of crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking their perpetrators, my Lords know everything about them where they live and work, where their children go to school and all of their regular routines. They remain fixated on their victims and escalations in the risk that they pose are consistently in relation to particular individuals. If we think about this provision from the perspective of a domestic abuse victim, they've already likely been subject to years of abuse before reaching the point where their perpetrator is convicted and sentenced.

Safe lives data indicates that victims experience, on average, three years of abuse. Before they access support. They begin to rebuild their life and then their perpetrator is released from prison. The perpetrator begins to harass the victim over the phone, constantly calling and texting them, threatening to turn up at their house. And in light of this escalating risk, the perpetrators probation officer decides to recall them to prison. But after 56 days, the perpetrator is released and the next day turns up at the victim's front door, threatening violence against them.

The perpetrators probation officer once again recalls them to prison a mere 24 hours after their original release, and after 56 days, they are once again released and once again turn up at the victim's house. But this time they make their way inside. My Lords, it's critical that recall remains an option available to probation to ensure that perpetrators who do continue to pose a risk are swiftly returned to prison to safeguard the victim. In the short term, however, as I've just described, automatically releasing these offenders will create a cycle of ever increasing risk for their victims.

Now, the government have rightly included mitigations including exclusions for offenders managed under Mappa categories two and three, as well as offenders recalled because they've been charged with a further offence. However, my Lords, we think these do not go far enough to safeguard victims of domestic abuse. Many domestic abuse perpetrators will not be managed under Mappa. Research and evidence from services that support victims indicate that Mappa is not being used nearly enough to manage domestic abuse offenders, nor will the exclusion of offenders charged with a further offence capture the majority of domestic abuse perpetrators, even those who breach orders which carry a criminal sanction.

My Lords, if we take as an example one of the most widely used protective orders for domestic abuse victims for which a breach is a criminal offence, a non-molestation order in 2019 to 2030 2075 Non-molestation orders were issued, and in the same year 11,900 breaches were recorded by police, and even of those recorded, only 35% of cases resulted in a charge. My Lords, of course, most of these orders in the official statistics will not be in relation to offenders on licence in the community.

But if overall 65% of recorded breaches do not result in a charge, then it is unlikely that most domestic abuse perpetrators being recalled to custody because they pose an increased risk to their victim would have been charged with a breach related offence. And on top of this, domestic abuse related offences take longer to reach an outcome than non domestic abuse related offences, so it is therefore unlikely that domestic abuse perpetrators who have committed a further offence will be charged in time for the further offence extrusion to take effect within the 30 to 56 days of fixed term recall.

So, my Lords, the cycle continues. Our amendments seek to fill these gaps by ensuring that any offenders who are recalled on the basis of contact with their victim and not automatically released after 56 days, but rather a risk assessed and held in custody until their risk to the victim has reduced and can be safely managed in the community. If you take the example of the victim that I described earlier under these amendments, rather than the perpetrator being released automatically after 56 days.

Instead, a holistic risk assessment process would first be completed, perhaps unearthing that the perpetrator had been trying to contact the victim from inside prison, which is quite frequent, deemed unsafe to release, the perpetrator would be held in custody, ideally with provisions put in place to disrupt their offending behaviour through a behaviour change programme delivered in prison when the perpetrator is released. This would be done with a much higher degree of certainty that their risk to their victim has demonstrably reduced.

These amendments will also address some of the concerns which senior policing leaders and probation officials have raised about the knock on impact of the bill on resources within their crucial services, by breaking the cycle of recall and holding serial perpetrators in custody until they can be safely managed in the community. And finally, my Lords, they provide government with the opportunity to hold true to their commitment to halve violence against women and girls by ensuring that victims do not pay the price for the capacity crisis, while still managing pressure in prisons.

I look forward to the Minister's response and hopefully all of us involved in this look forward to working with the government and colleagues across the House to ensure that this bill's reform desperately needed. I think we all
19:35
19:36
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
and that reduces the pressure on the prison estate, but we cannot pursue those aims at the expense. Whoops. I think I'm speaking on the wrong amendment. 14 will be discussing 118 now. Yes, yes okay. Sorry I'm addressing 118. Yes. Yeah okay I, I thought it was but does it. Apologies. So this amendment 118 responds to a serious problem. The automatic release after 56 days of individuals who've been recalled specifically because they breached the licence commission condition relating to the victim of the original offence.

In other words, they've shown as the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, that they are willing, even while unlicensed, to breach restrictions designed to keep that victim safe. This is a behaviour that may indicate continuing risk, which, under the way the bill stands now, will not be assessed before release. The victims, overwhelmingly women in these circumstances cannot be put in this potential danger. The amendment is essential to ensure that there's a victim. If there is a victim related breach, the individual is not released automatically.

If necessary, the case must go before a parole board, an expert, independent body whose very purpose is to assess risk. Now, the government has been very clear through this bill that its aim is to ensure public safety remains paramount. This amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeking to deliver on that aim. By Lord Fowler. I did wish to speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did wish to speak to my amendments one one 1 to 1 one three, although when asked by the Deputy chairman I was, I said I didn't wish to move them, but that was because I didn't realise we'd
19:37
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
because I didn't realise we'd jumped a group. So my my amendment one one 1 to 1 one three. All those three amendments concern recall for a fixed term. And the first point is the question of whether recall should actually be for a maximum of 56 days, rather than a fixed period of 56 days, because, as presently structured, recall to prison is for recall to an automatic release date 56 days after the recall occurs. The purpose of my three amendments is both to make the 56 day period a maximum period, not a fixed period, and to make automatic release subject to the exclusion in those cases where it applies, and in that it has much sympathy with the the amendment moved by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett on behalf of Baroness.

Jones of Marlesford, the process for determining the period will need to be fixed by regulations, but the intention is clear, and I'm happy to substitute A to discuss how substituting a flexible period for a fixed period might be implemented. The fact is that recalls happen for a number of reasons, some of which may be a relatively trivial breach of conditions. I'm concerned, as was my hon. Friend Jess Brown Lord Fuller, the member of the House of Commons for Chichester, who moved similarly similar amendments in the other place by the effect of blanket fixed period of recall, irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, may be inappropriate.

56 days or eight weeks is quite a long time. It may be far too long for a prisoner who faces recall for missing a probation appointment, for example. It would almost inevitably interfere with work where an offender has found work, it would be possible it would possibly interfere with housing and with educational or rehabilitative programs in the community. Community programs are, I understand, typically held open for four weeks. So eight weeks would mean that they were closed. A an eight week recall might have a damaging effect on mental health treatments, which a recently released prisoner was undertaking.

Or addiction programs might be undesirably affected. A shorter recall might avoid that. Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of conditions would do nothing to reduce the prison capacity shortage while it continues, while a shorter recall would mitigate it. Other recalls may be much more serious, and in such cases, 56 days may be too short a period. The 56 day automatic release provision would take effect subject under our amendment 103 would take effect subject to the provision excluding automatic releases in serious cases, so that those who'd committed more serious offences would be.

Would not be automatically released at the 56 day point. That might be particularly appropriate if an offender who'd been guilty of domestic abuse or stalking had been recalled for intimidating, harassing or stalking their victims so that, well, they'd presently be required to be released under the proposals, as I understand them, our amendment would rectify this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool,
19:42
19:42
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords for these amendments, and for providing me with the opportunity to clarify the government's position on recall reforms. The policy in this bill is designed to support rehabilitation and reduce the need for future recalls, but recall remains an essential safeguard to protect the public when risk increases, 56 days provides more time to undertake a thorough review of an offender's release plans and licence conditions, ensuring needs and risks are managed. There is a specific focus on mitigating risks against known victims.

I would like to firstly address the amendment tabled to clause 26 by the noble Baroness Jones. The existing recall test, set out in operational guidance, already provides a clear and robust framework for decision making. It ensures that recall is used appropriately when risk can no longer be safely managed in the community. Legislation is a blunt and inflexible tool and would create barriers to recall where swift action is needed to protect the public. Let me give a brief illustration. An individual on licence for stalking and harassment begins to show a marked deterioration in their mental health.

They commit breaches entering an exclusion zone and making indirect contact with the victim online. None of these incidents, taken alone, would have met a rigid statutory test, such as imminent risk or persistent non-compliance. But viewed together, they clearly indicate they clearly indicated escalating risk. It is important to note that the clause already includes a power for the Secretary of State to amend the recall power in section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, specifically to make provision about the circumstances in which a person may or may not be recalled.

This means, my noble Lords, that there is already flexibility to adjust the recall framework in future, should evidence show that further refinement is needed. For these reasons, we do not think it is necessary to legislate to amend the recall threshold at this time, but I am keen to review what more can be done beyond this bill to bear down on the use of recall and ensure that it is really the last resort. The offences listed in amendment 121 from the noble Lord Lord Marks and the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, are of course, extremely serious.

While some of these cases would fall within the scope of the new recall model, many of the perpetrators of the offences referenced are excluded. This is because they will have received life sentences or extended determinate sentences, and therefore remain subject to standard recall arrangements. This means that their rerelease will be subject to approval by the Parole Board or the Secretary of State. My noble Lords, I also fully acknowledge the risks posed by the offenders highlighted in the amendments of the noble Lord Russell and the noble Baroness Jones.

However, we must balance that recognition with the need for a sustainable system, one that ensures our prison capacity is focussed on those who present the most significant threat to public safety. The new recall system reflects this balance. It is designed to ensure consistent and proportionate responses to risk and non-compliance across all offence types. Introducing the exemption posed by these amendments would undermine that consistency and may not reflect an individual's actual risk level. As I mentioned earlier, before any recall defender is rereleased, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of the release plans and licence conditions.

This will ensure needs and risks are managed with a focus on mitigating risk against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. Offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from these changes. I would like to remind noble Lords that in this area, the bill goes further than David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review and specifies that certain groups must receive a standard recall. This cohort includes those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence, such as in relation to a breach of a civil order.

It also includes those subject to multi-agency supervision levels two and three, which apply to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. Moreover, the framework already provides sufficient flexibility without further legislation. Legislative change. The bill allows the Secretary of State to keep the offender in custody past 56 days in exceptional circumstances, by overriding automatic rerelease and converting a fixed term recall to a standard recall. This would apply if further information after recall reveals the offender now falls into one of the exclusion categories, or if the offender will pose a risk of significant harm to the public by committing murder or specified violent or sexual offences.

Once released, consider an example involving an individual eligible for the 56 day recall period. Their return to custody after attending an address from which they had been specifically prohibited, and behaving in an aggressive and confrontational manner. Shortly afterwards, the probation officer was informed by the police that the individual had now been charged with breaching a civil protective order because this charge places the individual with an exclusion category, we are able to convert the recall to a standard recall. Consider another example.

New intelligence is received during a 56 day recall period, which which indicates that an individual intends to make threats to kill upon release. The individual is assessed that it would present a significant risk of harm if automatically released at the end of the 56 days, like in the example before we can convert the recall to a standard recall preventing automatic release, the Secretary of State has the power to cancel recall if satisfied that the offender has complied with their licence condition.

This is unchanged by the Bill, and I am confident that the safeguards already built into the Bill provide the necessary assurance to address the noble Lords concerns. I therefore, respectfully ask them to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw these amendments. My Lords, can I just ask for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I just ask for a bit of advice on the procedure, because we got slightly out of order in this group. I think order in this group. I think mistakenly, the the first four amendments in this group were originally not moved and then were originally not moved and then were spoken to. So I stood up first and spoke to amendment 114. So I'm not quite sure whether it's me who's quite sure whether it's me who's meant to reply to the Minister if everyone is happy.

Okay. And Jake, you're happy, right? That's if Jake's happy. I'm happy. So. Right.
19:48
19:49
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-

second time and not move it again. That's excellent. Thank you. Okay. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One four moving. Oh sorry. I'm sorry. 114 is moved and withdrawn. I do apologise my Lords. Okay. And 115 is not moved. 116117 Okay. And 115 is not moved. 116117 Lord Blunkett not moved. The question now is that clause 29 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that we say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 29. Lord have it after clause 29. Lord Russell 118 not moved and 119 Russell 118 not moved and 119 Baroness Hamwee not moved.

Okay, I think that's it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think that's 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before. Sorry. What is it, 2030? 2030? Is that right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house be resumed and return. Not before 2030. As many as are of that 2030. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. The benches to change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, questions My Lords, questions on My Lords, questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday the 25th of Commons on Tuesday the 25th of November on Cop 30. So the front benches we have we start with frontbencher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frontbencher. My Lords I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for repeating the statement and may I congratulate statement and may I congratulate him on his recent appointment and welcome him to the front bench. The welcome him to the front bench. The Secretary of State in the other place is fond of talking of United Kingdom as a trailblazer, as the Kingdom as a trailblazer, as the Shadow Secretary of State and the other place outlined, we are, but for all the wrong reasons.

We are the first country to voluntarily close down our own domestic energy supply, and we are the first country to voluntarily hike our own energy bills. We are not an example to the world. We are a warning. Since the Cop summit, it seems that the department has started to come to its senses. Monday's termination of liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique is a welcome step. It was a typically green initiative
19:52
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-
with a well-meaning but in practice, damaging, as LNG gas emits four damaging, as LNG gas emits four times more carbon than the North Sea off our very shores. Those overseas initiatives are used to overseas initiatives are used to prop up a narrative of reduced emissions, while simultaneously causing more harm to the natural world, and they encompass a whole third of our energy system. Sadly, third of our energy system. Sadly, the Second Estate statement demonstrates he has not returned from Brazil enlightened, and the from Brazil enlightened, and the department is still bound to his damaging ideology.

He cites three achievements that he came back from the summit. First, the commitment to continue cutting global emissions towards net zero, which he said needed to be achieved by 2050. It should be noted that the statement also acknowledged that the UK accounts for just under 1% of global emissions. That number has halved in the past 20 years. So the question for the noble Lord Dear Ministers, does he not agree that this proves the United Kingdom has already played our part in this net zero drive? My Lords, unfortunately, this Cop 30 achievement will undoubtedly now be used to justify the continuation of his campaign to utter havoc upon the North Sea industry.

The tired old cliches of a declining basin will be the response of the government, and we have come to expect this narrative. But let us examine the human cost of thousand jobs per month. Companies drawn back from investing, energy bills spiralling I draw noble Lords attention to north of the border with this government is responsible for destroying what remains of Scotland's industrial base. Alexander Dennis Mossmorran Grangemouth going, going, gone. So again, the question for the Minister is it time to accept that we need to face the root cause of this de-industrialisation, namely high energy costs and the effects of government green diktats? The second are the Secretary of State.

Trumpets is a commission to reduce emissions through working with the finance industry. Again, this achievement will not benefit the British people. Investment will not be channelled into reducing bills. No, the government's team returned from Brazil with a pledge to scale up funding for developing countries to $1.3 trillion. It is internationalism at the expense of the British people. The statement mentioned nothing of the 60 billion investment required to build energy infrastructure in our own country, to meet the government's artificially hastened 2030 net zero target of the electricity grid, and nothing of the 3 billion annual government policy cost to turn off the wind farms.

Nothing of investment desperately needed in our nuclear sector. Cutting emissions is a noble aim, but they are undertaking it in a haphazard and ideologically blinkered manner, also detriment to the British people. Thirdly, there is an announcement of not one but two roadmaps one to cut fossil fuels and one to cut deforestation by Lord Jay government already have a roadmap to cut fossil fuels. In fact, John Bolton's nuclear report published last Monday, the government seems to have accepted the recommendations on Monday, but let us see if that translates into a policy U-turn.

Again, question the honourable Minister. Will he outline to the House the timetable for implementation of the Fingleton recommendations in legislative terms, I offer the same argument for the deforestation roadmap. My Lords, one of the primary drivers of nature depletion in the UK is a sprawl of solar and wind farms across our countryside. If the government wants to put a halt to deforestation, it could begin at home. This, unfortunately, means moving away from the endless expansion of solar. The government cannot have it both ways.

Once again, the need to build more nuclear. This summit and the Secretary of State's statement will unfortunately do nothing to help British people with the exorbitant cost of energy, where industrial energy prices are seven times that of China and four times that of the US, even if wholesale energy prices have in the next five years, elicited bills will still be £200 higher per household. That is a direct cost of government policy. No number of multilateral commitments will ease that burden, only a radically different approach to energy and a comprehensive plan for cheap energy will take us forward.
19:57
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister, Lord Whitehead. I pay tribute to his experience and I look forward to working opposite him going forward. My Lords cop is 30 years old and multilateralism, as the frustrating as it can be, remains, remains the only practical means of protecting our shared home planet Earth and progressing our joint efforts to ensure the survival of future human generations. Here in the UK, the Met Office Data Climate report confirmed the UK is warming at approximately 0.25 degrees per decade, with the past three years ranking among the five warmest since records began in 1884.

While some continue to deny the existence of climate change, the last year in the UK we had the worst ever wildfire season, the second worst harvest on record. My Lord, our world is warming faster than we can change our carbon based ways, and even more extreme weather is inevitable. I thank Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who work tirelessly to keep the process alive. It is testimony to global cooperation that despite the challenges, 194 parties united to adopt the text confirming that the global transition towards low emissions and climate resilient development is irreversible, it is important to acknowledge the collective progress.

Since the Paris Agreement has bent the emissions curve, moving projected warming from over four degrees Celsius to the 2.3 to 2 point five degrees Celsius range. However, we cannot celebrate incremental progress when the future of our planet remains in jeopardy. The final text itself, the final text itself, acknowledged that the collective progress is not sufficient to achieve the temperature goal and that the carbon budget, consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, is now small and being rapidly depleted. The Cop text acknowledges there is likely to be an overshoot of the 1.5°C.

The extent and duration of which we must work collectively to limit this is a stark warning warning, and my concern is that governments have failed to grasp the urgency of the climate emergency. Any delay in action will push millions of vulnerable people further into poverty and to climate breakdown. Urgency must be met with decisive global leadership. Yet the UK government's commitment to this leadership has been undermined by a lack of financial support. While the negotiations resulted in ambitious financial targets such as the call to scale up financing to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2025, and the reward target to scale up at least triple adaptation finance by 2035.

The UK's financial contributions failed to materialise. The UK was acknowledged for working with Brazil to help them to develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever facility. This vital funds aimed to prevent deforestation. Yet while that fund secured 59. $5 billion in commitments and was endorsed by 53 countries, the UK government did not contribute. I note the Secretary of State said in the other place that we have not ruled out contributing to investments in the future and we hope that this is the case.

Can I further ask the Minister what non-financial contributions is the government able to make? We also remain concerned about the UK's official development assistance and the cuts to those programmes. These are vital programmes helping those in the front line of climate change to adapt global leadership. My Lords could see the UK as part of the chair of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, working alongside Brazil, using remote monitoring to help detect and using our world leading oil and gas expertise to help fix methane leaks.

The government rightly acknowledges the transition away from fossil fuels is critical and was the hardest sticking point in the talks. Despite a broad coalition of 83 countries backing a roadmap away from fossil fuels, the final text tragically contained no explicit reference to the phase out at home. We welcome the commitment to no new oil exploration in the North Sea. We must. More must be done to bring about energy market reforms, to reduce energy bills and to urgently insulate our homes.

Many parliamentarians, including myself, attended the National Emergency briefing on climate and Nature Crisis last week, which calls for an emergency style Marshall Plan, and I call on the government to engage with and take heed from action. action.
20:02
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the climate crisis is the greatest long term challenge we face. But equally, the transition to clean energy is also the greatest economic opportunity of our time. And the link, of course, between the emissions from energy being some 70% of emissions overall, means that the path to clean energy is an essential part of. Tackling the climate crisis, not just in the UK but across the world. At home, our commitment to clean energy is about energy security, about lower bills and good jobs, and globally, with the UK indeed responsible for just 1% of emissions, working with other nations is the only way to protect our way of life and seize the opportunities of a green economy.

Now we are reflecting today, of course, on the outcomes of the Cop 30 conference in Belgium and more than 190 countries met in Belgium, where the resilient framed Cop 30 has focussed on implementation and the UK worked with Brazil and partners to put forests at the heart of the agenda. They supported global coalitions to cut methane, to phase out coal and accelerate clean energy investment. The negotiations were tough and my Lords, but progress was made on three critical fronts and these, I think, will reflect some of the further questions that I think will follow from this statement this evening.

Firstly, the goal of keeping 1.5 degrees C within reach. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to 1.5 degrees global net zero by mid-century and encouraged countries to raise their targets where needed to support this. And as the noble Earl Russell underlines, yes, we are quite away from that and some of the more faint hearted among us may think that this is a a target we cannot reach now, and it is very difficult, I accept, but the.

Signs are good that there are some possibilities to moving further towards making this target a movable. The new commitments from China, for example, in terms of their air coming into Cop at this stage, China has pledged to cut its emissions significantly for the first time and indeed 120 countries coming so far forward with 2035 NDCs so far, with another large number coming up in the next year, including India. Very important actor in this realm. Secondly, finance for developing nations, building on the Cop 29 pledge to mobilise 300 billion annually and scale towards 1.3 trillion from all sources, Cop 30 agreed to pursue efforts to treble adaptation finance by 2035 within the climate finance goal agreed last year, ensuring vulnerable nations have the resilience they need.

And the UK was very active in that particular area. And thirdly, and I don't think the noble Lord offered, is going to like this very much, transition away from fossil fuels. Whilst a universal roadmap could not be agreed, 83 countries and 140 organisations endorsed the concept that Brazil will launch roadmaps on fossil fuels and deforestation, showing that coalitions of the willing can drive progress even where unanimity is elusive. So the UK very much welcomed that coalition of the willing, and indeed will work closely with the Brazilians to move that particular commitment forward, even though it wasn't in the final communique as far as the Cop itself was concerned and the agreement, the agreement also advanced carbon markets agenda, technology, technology transfer and transparency.

And currently, importantly, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement and multilateral action. And that is just essential right now as far as the crisis we are in is concerned. I'll now address briefly some of the points raised by the noble Lords this evening. But perhaps before I do that, I could just express as a a newcomer to this place, my extreme disappointment and almost distress about the abrupt turn that the party opposite has taken on its commitments on climate change and the all that is associated with it.

And I certainly recollect in my time in the other place, working closely with many thoroughly dedicated members of the conservative side in bringing forward what Britain was going to do about climate change and how we would go forward together to achieve those goals. And indeed, I was a member of the committee which brought in the net zero target as far as U.K. emissions are concerned. And on a noble Lords will recall that that was when the noble Lady, lady May was Prime Minister.

And indeed she is one of the one of our noble Lords who has effectively denounced this pivot away from action and support for net zero as a target for the UK and serious action on climate change. And I'm afraid the noble Lord Lord Offord contribution just thoroughly reflected that pivot this evening and simply didn't address the issues that were there at Cop and what we need to do together, as far as Cop is concerned. So the government's commitment on North Sea gas and net zero is clear.

Our commitment to clean energy is about delivering energy security, about lower bills and good jobs, and 400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. So it is not a threat. This is an opportunity as far as low carbon, a low carbon future is concerned. And indeed, Putin's invasion of Ukraine illustrates the cost of relying on fossil fuels globally twice as much as invested in clean energy across the world now, as in fossil fuels. Renewables have this year overtaken coal as the largest source of electricity globally.

The economics have shifted and the direction of travel is clear, and it is distressing to hear the the party opposite going in precisely the opposite direction. And I do hope that wisdom will prevail in the in the longer term, and that actually we will be back together with the consensus on where we go on climate change for the future. But let me also remind the honourable the noble Lord offered that on nuclear, the government has committed 63 billion in capital funding for clean energy, climate and nature, including nuclear, putting the UK on the path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, creating thousands of good jobs for our country and tackling the climate change crisis.

Now, in relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, the Earl Russell, on 1.5 degrees, we, of course, as I've mentioned, do need greater ambition. Of course we do. But also I think we should recognise the progress that has been made since the Paris Agreement. Yes, the final text did agree on action to take in the form of the emission on 1.5 and the Global Information Accelerator, as well as commitments from countries to net zero that can be built on in respect of Brazil's new built on in respect of Brazil's new fund for forests.

The UK has played a big role in helping to support Brazil to design the TTF. We have a difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have absolutely not ruled, and I repeat that not ruled out contributing to it in the future. We are determined to fund, succeeds and will continue to work with Brazil to help ensure it does so. My Lords, from the message from Bellamy's clear, clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being rebuilt.

They are good for Britain because they deliver jobs, they deliver investment and energy security, they lower bills for families and businesses and they are the only way to protect future generations from the threat of climate breakdown. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I join other noble Lords in welcoming the new noble
20:13
20:14
20:16
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
the possibility of a better, safer, cleaner, more prosperous world in cleaner, more prosperous world in the future. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his comments, and I'd like to pay comments, and I'd like to pay tribute to Secretary of State Miliband for his sheer commitment to working towards Cop 30 building. Let's not forget on the work that the previous government achieved, the previous government achieved, led by the particularly by the noble Lords Lord Sharma and Lord Goldsmith conservative commitments.

But I do note that in the language around coal and fossil fuels at around coal and fossil fuels at successive cops, there's been a great weakening from the phasing out of Glasgow through phasing down to transitioning away and now to a weak plan and pathway. It was Saint Basil the Great who spoke about us always having two different paths, one that's broad and easy, the other that's hard and narrow and within our minds, always vying, working out which path to take, he Basil said the soul is confused and dithers in its calculations.

It prefers pleasure. When it's looking at the present. It chooses virtue with when its eyes are on eternity. If we're serious about keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees, my Lords, and that's an immense task in itself. Would the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that we need to use bold language in the UK to show global leadership and impress those who have walked away from the Paris Agreement that they need to follow the path of virtue. Well, I thank the Right reverend credit for that
20:18
20:19
20:21
20:22
Lord Rees of Easton Portrait Lord Rees of Easton (Labour)
-
-
point of principle, but because I'm one of a number of, well, I'm a former mayor, but mayors around the world who have been urging national governments and multilateral organisations to create the conditions in which we can take action on climate change. I've actually just come back from Rio myself. The C40 Global Mayors Summit, 250 to 300 mayors getting together before Cop, actually, because they were concerned that Cop would not deliver the the impetus for the scale and pace of change that we actually needed.

And those mayors are saying that we want to take action on climate change, not simply out of abstract principle, but because one, we see the huge economic opportunity in it. But secondly, we see the opportunity to avoid huge future costs, both the impact of climate change on our physical infrastructure, be it be cities being on the receiving end of the consequences of climate change, migration, for example. And they're not doing it just because they think it's a nice thing to do.

They in the UK, from Bristol to Glasgow to Brighton, cities across this country are taking action. But what I would say in terms of just bringing a, you know, a question and a challenge, something that was missing from the statement was the word cities. We have been making the case that on the sheer math, 55% of the world's population now live in cities is going to be two thirds by 2050. And actually we need to move to delivery, not just statements and dare I say, not just language.

Can I ask what we can do to elevate the voice of cities and make them a formal part of climate negotiation processes? negotiation processes?
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:28
20:29
20:29
20:30
20:31
20:32
20:32
20:33
20:34
20:34
20:35
None Portrait Amendment:122 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

changes to the probation conditions and terms that applied to that offender's probation. It would,
20:35
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-

offender's probation. It would, however, any such change, be subject to the approval of the
20:35
20:36
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to 122. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames. Concerning the power of the Probation Service to vary residence requirements and associated conditions of supervision. May I begin by saying that we on these benches appreciate the intention behind the amendment? The ability to move an offender from one address to another, particularly where there is a risk to a partner or former partner or family member, is plainly necessary. In some circumstances, the probation service must have the tools to protect victims and to manage offenders effectively.

This amendment seeks to provide a clearer statutory framework for doing so. My Lords, the amendment rightly provides that any such variation must ask the sentencing court within 14 days, must return to the sentencing court within 14 days of the confirmation. That's an important safeguard. The offender and interested parties and the court must all be properly kept in the picture. But we would welcome greater clarity from the Minister how, in practice, the probation service will assess necessity, ensure proportionality and manage the additional administrative and supervisory burdens.

Such powers may create. Probation must also be properly resourced and supported. We are also mindful that change an offender's residence can have profound consequences, not only for supervision and risk management, and indeed for the offender himself in the form of employment, family ties and wider stability that underpins rehabilitation. The threshold for such a direction must therefore be robust, evidence based and truly transparent. In that spirit, I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the objectives behind this amendment protecting victims and enabling better offender management are achievable within existing powers, or, if not, that, the government will consider whether a more tightly defined mechanism might be appropriate.

We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising these issues, and we look forward to hearing the government's response. government's response.
20:38
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it is and should remain the role of the court in sentencing to determine the requirements that should apply to a particular community sentence and how they are varied. And as the noble Lord Lord Marks set out, it is vital that risk is managed quickly and effectively. This is particularly important in cases where, for example, domestic abusers are concerned, where an individual has been sentenced to a community or suspended sentence. Probation practitioners undertake comprehensive assessments to ensure risk is identified throughout an order and managed early.

This means that they can take appropriate action to respond to that risk, ensuring offenders are monitored effectively. This includes, where appropriate, applying to the court, which has powers to vary the requirements of a sentence. This includes powers to revoke a community order and resentence where it would be in the interests of justice. We are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing, so that domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This helps prison and probation services manage offenders effectively and ensures victims are better protected before making a relevant order containing a residency requirement, the courts must.

The court must consider the home surroundings of the offender, and the court can already give probation the power to approve a change of residence when requested by the offender. For example, where an offender would like to move closer to where they were undertaking a programme or to their place of employment, offenders released on licence from a custodial sentence can already be required to comply with residence obligations. These can be varied as required, either by probation or the parole board as appropriate, depending on the offender's sentence.

I want to be clear to noble Lords, if an offender fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an order, they can be returned to court to face further penalties, including custody. I hope the noble Lords will agree that there are sufficient existing processes in place, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
20:40
20:42
None Portrait Amendment:122A Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-

are many positive things about this bill. I have, however, table this amendment with the support of the amendment with the support of the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, because I consider clause 32 to be because I consider clause 32 to be an unsatisfactory aspect of the bill. Clause 32 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable the removal of an offender from prison removal of an offender from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation from the United Kingdom, deportation from the United Kingdom, so that removal can happen at any time after sentence.

Any foreign time after sentence. Any foreign offender on a fixed term sentence would be eligible for deportation without serving any part of their custodial sentence. The government has chosen to go beyond the recommendation by the independent Sentencing Review, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. The review had proposed reducing the removal point from 50% to 30% of the custodial sentence, and that recommendation has already been implemented by Statutory Instrument. The review also recommended that foreign offenders sentenced to three years or less could be removed more swiftly, even before they had served any part of their sentence, but clause 32 does not include the three year limit.

Some of the practical and principle problems with this change in the law were spelled out in an article in The Spectator last August by Professor Ekins from the Policy Exchange Judicial Power Project, University of Oxford. He argued that this change in the law risks creating perverse incentives for foreign offenders who would be able to commit serious crimes in the United Kingdom with relative impunity. Serious crimes would not be treated consistently or as their moral gravity warrants. The new policy is said to have public support.

It is true that the public, if asked, do you want foreign offenders to be deported, will likely say yes by an overwhelming majority. But if the questions are do you want foreign offenders to go unpunished, or do you think British offenders should be punished more severely than foreign offenders for the same crime? I suspect the response would be rather different. To be clear, I'm not opposed to the principle that a foreign offender should be removed after serving time in prison.

The question is whether we as a country should give up on punishing and rehabilitating foreign offenders and instead deport them without any punishment. The review recommended three years as the limit because it considered that foreign national offenders sentenced to three years or less would serve the equivalent of a short prison sentence, and in those circumstances, deportation could be viewed as punishment. Although I must admit that, for my part, I have some difficulty with the notion that deportation itself is a form of punishment where the individual is already liable to deportation.

Deportation cannot be said to constitute a new punishment, but more fundamentally, being deported is simply not the same as going to prison and how punitive deportation is will depend on the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime. As Professor Ekins argues, it is very obviously not true that deportation is a punishment comparable with a lengthy term of imprisonment for offences such as rape, robbery or drug trafficking, or people trafficking. But even if deportation is to be treated conceptually as a form of punishment, I think that three year limit recommended by the review is essential.

The removal of that limit is at odds not only with the idea of punishment, but also with the principle of rehabilitation. Without the three year limit. Some quite serious offenders, including sex offenders who have neither been punished nor, as far as we know, rehabilitated, could be removed to places where they could go on to commit crimes. Are we really going to say it is not our problem? Because those victims, including potentially children, are foreigners when dealing with serious offenders, whether national or foreign, we have a responsibility towards both their past victims and their potential future victims.

The amendment, which I have tabled, seeks to temper the damage that clause 32 would cause. It would add four subsections to section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The four subsections don't necessarily come as a package. Each represents a discrete limit to the new policy. Subsection one A implements the three year limit in line with the Gauke review, and perhaps in his answer, the noble Lord, the Minister can tell us why the government decided not to accept that recommendation.

In the review subsection one B would limit the power to remove a foreign offender from prison for the purpose of deportation, so that it only applied if or when the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the offender to serve the remaining custodial period in the country to which the prisoner is to be removed. This would avoid the injustice of foreign offenders failing to be punished at all for their crimes, and would incentivise the Secretary of State to work to conclude such arrangements with foreign countries.

I do appreciate that the government will view subsection one B as particularly challenging to the objective of deporting the largest number of foreign offenders, because at present only few foreign offenders are sent back through such prison transfer or similar arrangements. But we do not want the government to lose sight of the importance of these arrangements, because they continue to offer the best way of implementing the various policy objectives that are at stake. Subsection one C limits the power to remove a foreign offender, so that he would only apply if the Secretary of State at first considered whether the offenders early removal from prison, maybe without having served any time at all, would be just in view of the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victims and or on the general public.

This change would avoid the Secretary of State removing serious offenders without having to confront the gravity of their crimes, and the understandable outrage their victims may feel at the prospect that those offenders will not face any punishment. Subsection one D deals with the foreign offender who, having been removed under section 260 of the Criminal Justice Act without having served a minimum custodial period, then returns to the United Kingdom. The situation was already addressed in part by a change introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduced the stop the clock provision, which is section 261 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The effect of that provision is that a person who returns to the United Kingdom goes back into custody to serve the remainder of the custodial part of the sentence, from the moment when he was paused to give effect to the deportation until 22. In these situations, for a national, offenders would have only been returned to prison if apprehended before the sentence expiry date. But in the new regime, if clause 32 is adopted without amendment, the Secretary of State would have the power under subsection one to remove again a prisoner from prison for the purpose of deportation, even if once he returned to the to to to the UK.

In subsection one, D closes down this possibility by disabling the power in that in that case, the offender would, of course still face deportation after serving the sentence. I would be grateful if, in responding, the Minister could give us a sense of what the implementation of clause 32 would mean in practice, in particular, how many offenders sentenced to more than three years imprisonment does the government expect would be removed without serving any time in prison? Given that clause 32 creates a discretionary power for the Secretary of State, how is the government going to exercise that discretion? For example, will the government take a different approach for certain offences, and if so, which ones and on what basis? And what about the case of a foreign national who might benefit from the early removal arrangement, and who flees the jurisdiction before trial? Will we still seek to have this person send back to the UK to stand trial, or will we take the view that, given that the person has already inflicted upon himself the maximum punishment that we would conceivably impose for that offence, there is no need to do so.

My Lords, there are a number of three other amendments in this group, and as I understand the amendment of the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee amendment 141 a an amendment, amendment 146 by Lord Jackson of Peterborough would be consistent with with my amendment. And as I understand it, amendment 142 by Lord Jackson would also be consistent with this amendment, because what he's seeking to do is to make sure that there is an automatic order for deportation, but it doesn't necessarily seek that order to take effect even before the sentence is is served.

My Lords, I look forward to the
20:52
20:52
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. A in this group, drawing attention to probing the position attention to probing the position with regard to people who have been victims or survivors of modern slavery or human trafficking, or of domestic abuse. The large majority of black and minoritized migrant women in contact with the criminal justice system are survivors of human trafficking, and maybe or violence against women and girls. This often happens when a trafficker or abuser identifies their vulnerability, often resulting from unmet basic needs like housing, income, healthcare, the criminal convictions will have stemmed very often from the abuse they have suffered, whether they were coerced into offending or acting under the influence of unaddressed trauma.

The. In the case of women, particularly who are. Have been trafficked, the section which and I forget the number now in the modern slavery act which seeks to protect them, we know is not working well. The very fact of deportation adds to the vulnerability to abuse. It often leaves the person subject to it without accommodation or income. It removes community and support networks, many cases leaving them in a place they're not familiar with.

The risk of deportation has a similar effect. Person may be left without ways to meet their basic needs and in fear and, and the fear itself adds to the vulnerability which is capitalised on by abusers. This is particularly true for people who are already traumatised by previous abuse and exploitation. by previous abuse and exploitation. We we know that victims of human trafficking and modern slavery and victims of domestic abuse need specialist support and protection from exploitation and further abuse.

I've used the term she because very often it is mostly it is a she. And we know too that women have particular needs, largely stemming from their own backgrounds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name. And may I amendment in my name. And may I just very briefly comment on the excellent remarks of the noble Lord Verdirame. I too have great sympathy with his comments, and I sympathy with his comments, and I too have read the very interesting article that Richard Elkins KC produced in The Spectator on the produced in The Spectator on the 11th August and the the noble Lord outlines the case very eloquently, outlines the case very eloquently, and I'm I'm minded to support his amendment because I do think it is logical and sensible, and it really goes to the heart of a
20:56
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
philosophical debate about whether the government's proposals the government's proposals essentially forget the raison d'etre of rehabilitation and re-education and, and and punishment. If you if the system is punishment. If you if the system is predisposed just to deport someone, then you're really not then you're really not concentrating on some key aspects of the criminal justice system in regard to incarceration. And therefore, I do think his comments and his amendment is logical. I don't agree with the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee.

I do think, as usual, her heart's in the right place. But I do think that in this case it would gum up the system and it would be misused by, in my opinion, activist judges to prevent the deportation of people who should for the public good and safety and security, be deported. So I can't support that, my Lords, I won't dwell too long on amendment one for two. It it is pretty four and obviously clause 42.

On the deportation of foreign national offenders. My amendment seeks to ensure that all British citizens, including those in Northern Ireland, can rely on their government and their sovereign parliaments in Westminster to enact legislation on their behalf, including clause 42 of this bill, which was passed without vote, as I understand in the other place, however, due to the iniquitous and unfair Windsor framework and the capitulation by the previous government of my party, sadly, in putting it into legislation, thereby making Northern Ireland an effective colony of the European Union, this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland and its people.

British citizens, subjects of the Crown. Taxpayers will again be treated as second class citizens. As a result of this bill. If my amendment is not accepted. Paragraph one. Article two of the Windsor framework effectively disregards the will of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, of this unitary state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in favour of a foreign legal entity and a foreign jurisdiction. Laws over which residents of Northern Ireland have no say, and whose rights, whose fundamental rights are circumscribed and who do not have equal citizenship with UK citizens in England, Wales and Scotland.

My Lords, these people are subject, to quote, the direct effect of Union law, unquote, European Union law made in a foreign parliament designed by a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy and unelected politicians who are who appoint each other by virtue of section seven of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, which gives direct effect to such provisions automatically as part of the UK domestic law. Subject to those EU provisions. And this, of course, trumps all UK domestic law for the Supreme Court has opined, quote, the answer to any conflict between the protocol that is the Windsor framework and other enactments, wherever passed or made, is that those other enactments are to be read and have effect subject to the rights and obligations which are to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section seven brackets.

Two close brackets. Yes, my Lords, a conservative government legislated to make UK law permanently subservient to EU law in a significant part of the United Kingdom. In fact, 300 areas of law across every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. Essentially, this bill before us means that foreign criminals in Northern Ireland have hit the jackpot. If they're EU citizens, they are protected by the EU's Citizens Rights Directive and the Withdrawal Agreement that was signed in 2020.

And if they're not, never mind. They are in any case protected, as would not be the case in Great Britain by enhanced protections under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As activist judges have in the past misused their powers and misinterpreted that particular piece of legislation, it doesn't matter how much tubthumping from excitable Labour backbenchers about the new powers of section 42, they are supporting a bill, part of which holds that we cannot deport criminals, rapists, murderers, burglars, etc.

from a part of our own country. The will of this house and the other place is irrelevant. No one voted for this lamentable state of affairs. The explanatory notes to this Bill are completely silent on the impact of the Windsor framework on clause 42 and its operation in Northern Ireland. No court has yet opined definitively on the specific. This specific sui generis issue. My Lords, the Windsor framework is a constitutional abomination, a stain safety and security of the people of the six counties of Northern Ireland.

My amendment seeks simply to address that matter unequivocally and straightforwardly on the face of the bill. And at the end, I say I have great sympathy for the Minister. This is not his bailiwick. This is a very unusual and unique part of the Bill that I don't expect him to be across and knowledgeable of, but I do think it necessarily raises some very important central constitutional issues about whether this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament is sovereign or not. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. I apologise for my voice. I'll try and keep going. It's not actually hurting the way it sounds. actually hurting the way it sounds. It is. So you don't need to feel too much sympathy. I want to follow on from the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough and supporting the amendment 146 which I have signed. amendment 146 which I have signed. Most of this bill, as noble Lords know, does not apply to Northern Ireland. But this section, part Ireland.

But this section, part four does apply. That means that it's dealing with the very important amendments that we're important amendments that we're dealing with deporting foreign criminals, which I very much support the government's move to do
21:04
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
that. But of course, there's this House needs no reminding. I hope House needs no reminding. I hope three times in recent times this House has passed three bills that it said applied to the whole of the it said applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. And then we discover that the courts have overruled. We had the first of all, the Rwanda bill. The Rwanda Act, the Rwanda bill. The Rwanda Act, then the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct Legacy and the soon to be defunct Legacy Act.

And of course, we've had legal opinion from the former attorney general in Northern Ireland that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also not be able to apply. And of course, we weren't able to bring in the export of live animals for slaughter to the whole of the United Kingdom. It does not apply in Northern Ireland. And we all by now, and I'm very grateful that the the noble Lord, the Minister, probably is hearing this for the first time.

There's been many Ministers have had to sit through Statutory Instruments where we, those of us who wish to bring out the injustices of the Windsor framework, have been able to do so. But of course they are. It is. Article two has been mentioned of the Windsor framework because it does overrule the sovereign Parliament. And it basically is very simple. It says that where EU rules laws are not made in this House, but by a foreign institution, then that means that they overrule what our sovereign Parliament says.

And I think we should all be feeling, whatever the history of this whatever party brought it in, I think we should all be now beginning to realise that this is just not something that is sustainable. So the three pieces of legislation to which I've referred to have been overruled in respect of people in Northern Ireland, in the parts where that legislation offended EU rights and legislation, and we are going to have now we in the Dillon case, very well known case.

Now, the Dillon case, the Court of Appeal decreed that it would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023, because it offended rights supposedly given to victims by EU law, and the relevant parts of the Dillon judgement are now before the Supreme Court, and we will hope to get a judgement on that soon, because that is going to give a very good, I hope a wide, you know, will actually give us some more content to actually see how how we are being affected by the Windsor framework.

So of course, looking at this specific amendment on the issue to do with the deportation of foreign criminals, I mean, as the noble Lord Jackson has pointed out, if you're if you're already an EU citizen living in Northern Ireland and this law comes in, they will have the enhanced protection against deportation. And if they're not from Northern Ireland, if they're not an EU citizen, if they're from somewhere else in the world, and they're a foreign criminal living in Northern Ireland, they're also likely to have enhanced protections that they would not have if they were living in Great Britain because of the importation of the reliance upon the European Charter of Fundamental Fundamental Freedoms.

Now, I don't need to tell noble Lords in this House that the article 19 of the charter affords particular protections against deportation. It states that each deportation must be specifically examined. There cannot be a provision that just automatically gives deportation. And of course, part four of this bill is going to do precisely that. Foreign criminal convicted in our courts. The presumption will be towards deporting them. And I do think that anyone with any common sense must think that it would be absolutely outrageous if we end up with a law that says, if you're a foreign criminal living and found guilty living in Great Britain, you can be deported.

But in another part of our own country, the United Kingdom, you can't. And I think that that is something. So this this is something we need to address. And I know that the noble Lord will probably say that, no, no, the legal advice is, you know, if they've had any from the attorney general, he never seems to want to tell us whether he's given advice or not. But if he has, it'll probably say that, no, it's okay. But they said that on three bills and each time they've been proved wrong.

So you can forgive that. There's a little bit of scepticism about just how, how how this bill will be able to apply to Northern Ireland. It's an important issue. It's not just for Northern Ireland citizens. It's an important issue for the whole of the United Kingdom citizens. And, and and you know, we do we do have to at some stage look at the constitutional issue of can we not in our own country, make our own laws that apply to our whole country? And that really does need addressing? But there's nothing, as the noble Lord Jackson said in the explanatory notes about this, it's been completely ignored.

So the purpose of tonight's amendment is to raise this issue, to make it clear that many people believe that this will not be able to apply to Northern Ireland, and to ask the Minister, the noble Lord Minister, to say very clearly that if this bill goes through, there will be an absolute determination, whatever it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

takes, to make sure that it applies in Northern Ireland. It's always.
21:09
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's always. A pleasure to follow the noble Lady, and it's good to see that even a hoarse and croaky voice even a hoarse and croaky voice cannot silence Baroness Hoey. I rise, and broadly in favour of the amendments within this group, but particularly I want to commend amendment 146 standing in the name of of Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which I think offers a common sense solution to what is a very real problem. Undoubtedly, as has been indicated by the previous two speakers, this is yet another problem that has arisen because of the protocol and the Windsor framework, and it is clear that we do need a much more fundamental solution which actually tackles that relationship and recasts it.

But while we await for that from government and the need to to embrace that, we cannot simply sit on our hands and hope that everything will be all right until then. Because I think this represents a real undermining of the bill itself. Even if you are the strongest supporter of the Windsor framework or the protocol, you have to admit that I think that the application of it in these circumstances represents a high level of overreach. If the rationale behind our current arrangements with the EU as regards Northern Ireland is to regulate trade and to try to protect the EU single market, then the issue of deportation of foreign criminals and immigration stand a mile away from those particular.

They serve no purpose in. Actually what are supposedly the objectives of that relationship. There is a very good reason why issues around deportation are handled on a national basis of whatever nation it happens to be, because if you have a situation which there's regional variations within a country on issues such as deportation, then frankly, that is the a road in which lies madness. And that is what is being threatened by the current position that we are. We are left in the threats that lie before us.

And the government in recent weeks has laid out a range of measures to try and help tackle and be serious about illegal immigration and about dealing with foreign criminals, some of which are contained within this legislation. But if the government is to be successful in its objective, then if it doesn't tackle this issue, it leaves the position fatally undermined. This is not simply a constitutional affront and an outrage. It is a very real, practical difficulty. If we are left with a situation in which this cannot be applied in Northern Ireland, or indeed a defence is offered by foreign national criminals to this to avoid deportation, not simply as at creating a situation in which Northern Ireland is created as second class citizens, but it also leaves the whole of the UK vulnerable on this this issue, because Northern Ireland then becomes simply a back door to those criminals.

It will be a safe haven to either come in from or return to, with a greater level of at least perceived level of protection for those criminals than than would be the case elsewhere. We do need something. Wherever we set the boundaries on the issues of deportation, we need something that applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. So not only is this a practical issue, but as outlined particularly by Baroness Hoey, it is a real issue. And because we have seen on a number of occasions, in particular the the three court rulings which Baroness Hoey has outlined, that this is not, if you like, simply a theoretical debating issue.

This is a practical issue in which the rulings have been made. And if we take, for instance, the Rwanda bill, and there are many in this House who would actually see deep flaws with the Rwanda bill. But the important thing about the about the ruling on that was that the courts said that EU law was supreme on this issue, and therefore it overrode what the position was in Northern Ireland, which meant that it couldn't be applied there, which again rendered the entire legislative process a nonsense.

And if we don't fix this, we are going to be left in exactly the same position. So I would say that there is a challenge to the government. I think they do need to embrace what I think is a common sense solution to make their own legislation work better, and I look forward to the response from the Minister, and I hope that he's simply not going to say this isn't necessary. We are we've got the assurance, because we've been down this road time and time again.

We've got reassurances in this House and the other place on previous legislation, that government was completely confident that this would all be watertight and there wouldn't be a problem. And on each occasion, the courts overruled that position and the government's position was found to be wrong. So I look forward to getting the government actually responding and adopting these this amendment, because I think something of this nature is clearly needed if we're going to solve that practical problem. practical problem.
21:15
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I like to rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough's Amendment 146. As supported as it has been so ably by Baroness noble Baroness Hoey, one measure of a government's sovereignty is it is that it makes the law for its citizens, for the whole country, for its whole territory, and it upholds that law. However, have we, as we've heard this evening, Northern Ireland will not necessarily be included in proposals to deport foreign criminals from Northern Ireland will be subject to the Windsor Framework Arrangements.

Now, whatever we may think about the Windsor framework, and I feel it was a bad mistake by the the conservative administration to move from the temporary arrangements of the Withdrawal Agreement to the permanent acceptance of of arrangements that were regarded by both sides, the EU and northern and the the UK government, as transient and pending the best endeavours of both both parties to get right now. I'm sorry that that didn't happen and we are left with the Windsor framework, but that is no reason that the arrangements to promote economic EU law in Northern Ireland should now apply to the criminal law.

It's a mark of the UK sovereignty that it upholds the law for the whole country. As I said, and I, I really hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will accept this amendment. So the citizens of Northern Ireland can rest assured that foreign criminals will be deported from, no matter from where they come, and that in fact, Northern Ireland, as Lord Weir mentioned, will not become a haven for a disproportionate number of foreign criminals fleeing there because they know they won't be deported.

So for all these reasons,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I can I very briefly go back to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can I very briefly go back to the point on amendment one, two, 2AI raised this point on the Second 2AI raised this point on the Second Reading, and the Minister was kind enough to write to me to explain the pressure on prisons and the the pressure on prisons and the need for places, but I've already suggested earlier this afternoon a far better solution to that. But
21:17
21:18
21:19
21:20
21:21
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to start by thanking noble Lords and the noble Lord and noble Baroness for tabling their amendments, for their interest in this topic and for their considered words. And I would like to reassure the noble Lord Verdirame on prison, on prisoner transfer agreements. This is something that they're very important. And I've a few weeks ago I went to Albania and met up with the justice Minister and the and consulate colleagues there to reiterate how important it is and to see what more we can do.

Our priority is protecting victims in the UK and ensuring that these offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, offenders will be barred from ever returning to the UK. Protecting victims in the wider public. I will address the amendments in turn. Firstly, amendment 122A limiting the early removal scheme and to those to those in receipt of a sentence of less than three years would mean a more restrictive early removal scheme than we currently operate. The noble and learned Lord Thomas's point on foreign national offenders.

You know, there are more than 3200 families who would not be eligible for removal under section 260 because they are serving a fixed term sentence greater than three years. The impact on our ability to manage prison capacity would be substantial. We already transfer prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentence in the home country under prisoner transfer agreements, where they are in place, and however, these are not suitable in all cases and it is important that we retain multiple paths for removal to reduce prison capacity and speed up removals, especially when you consider it costs on average £54,000 a year to house these offenders.

Once removed, fnas are barred from ever returning to UK, keeping victims in the wider British public safe. The early removal scheme remains a discretionary scheme that will not be suitable for all foreign national offenders, and we're reviewing the existing guidance. That includes a range of reasons it can be refused. The stop the clock provision means that those who re-enter the UK, in breach of their deportation order following an ERS removal, are liable to serve the remainder of their sentence here. And I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord, that that we are working with the Home Office to revise the policy framework which underpins the scheme and ensure clear operational guidance is in place before the measure is commenced.

And I am happy to write to the noble Lord on his detailed questions. Eligibility of those who have returned after a previous removal is one consideration, as is the commitment made in the other place to consider those convicted of stalking offences. Turning next to amendment 142, tabled by the noble Lord Jackson, this amendment seeks to introduce immediate deportation for foreign nationals given sentences of at least six months. This would require the government to make an immediate deportation order in respect of persons who have committed less serious offences.

In this bill, we are extending automatic deportations to persons given a suspended sentence of 12 months or less, 12 months or more. We will also increase the deportation consideration threshold to include anyone given a suspended sentence of any length. In this, the government is going further than any previous government in tackling foreign criminality. We have ramped up the removal of foreign criminals, with almost 5200 deported since July 2024, an increase of 14% compared with the same 12 months previous. However, just as we no longer transport convicts the other side of the world for stealing a loaf of bread, we do not think it appropriate to have immediate deportation for comparatively less serious crimes in the way proposed by the noble Lord, lowering the threshold in the way that his his amendment does would result in a disproportionate duty to deport for low level offending.

It would lead to significantly more appeals being made against such decisions, arguing exceptionality. This would increase the operational burden to pursue deportation cases where it is unlikely it will be successful because the offending is relatively minor. And now, turning to amendment 146, and I thank the noble Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness Hoey for their understanding of my lack of knowledge on the intricate details of the Windsor framework. In fact, I think when the Windsor framework was going through Parliament, I was very happily running a shoe repair business.

This amendment seeks to disapply parts of the Withdrawal Agreement and article two of the Windsor Framework in relation to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007. I think that the intention behind this amendment is to seek to ensure the deportation decisions in Northern Ireland can be taken on the same basis as deportation decisions in the rest of the UK. It is the government's view that clause 42 is compatible with article two of the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework. Therefore, we do not agree that there is a need for this amendment.

To reiterate, it is the government's view the deportation of foreign national offenders is not prohibited by these provisions. It is our view that immigration is a reserved matter, and we apply the same immigration laws across the whole of the UK. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness Hoey, the noble Lord Weir and the noble Baroness Lawlor that foreign national offenders, regardless of where they are in the UK, should be no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain's streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.

I note the stated purpose of amendment 141 A, as tabled by Baroness Hamwee, is to probe the effect of clause 42 on survivors of modern slavery or human trafficking or domestic abuse. Let me reassure the noble Lady that the government takes its responsibilities towards vulnerable people very seriously. The Home Office has published guidance on how to identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, where removal of a person would breach the UK's obligations under the Council of Europe. Convention on Action Against Tackling against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Deportation must not proceed. Victims of domestic abuse whose relationship has broken down can apply for permission to settle in the UK permanently. Victims of domestic abuse who meet the threshold for deportation will be considered for deportation in the same way as other persons. I am grateful to the noble Lady for the opportunity to set out the government's position regarding the impact of clause 42 on people who have a reasonable claim to be a victim and survivor of modern slavery, human trafficking or domestic violence.

Such a claim does not amount to immunity from deportation for people convicted of an offence, although in some circumstances temporary permission to stay may be granted to victims of human trafficking or slavery. The changes brought about by clause 42 will not alter this. I would like to thank the noble Lords and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baronesses for this debate and ask them to withdraw their amendments. I'm grateful to the noble Lord,
21:28
21:28
21:29
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
illuminating and actually quite reassuring answer, which those of us who were speaking to one, four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

six are very grateful for. My Lords, I would like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank the Minister for for his answer. I too would like to hear more about too would like to hear more about prisoner transfer agreements. They are the best policy solution in this area, so I'm glad to hear the this area, so I'm glad to hear the government is still pursuing that route. On whether the three year route. On whether the three year limit is more or less restrictive. It is true that it does not feature in the legislation currently, but in the legislation currently, but the key element of the current regime is that foreign offenders regime is that foreign offenders have to serve 50% of the custodial part of their sentence, that 50% has been reduced to 30% following the Statutory Instrument a few weeks ago.

But clause 32, as it currently stands, would reduce the 30% to zero. So in that context, the three year limit would not, in my view, be more restrictive. But with that in mind, I very much look forward to the noble Lord, the Minister's letter dealing with the other questions that I raised. And in due course, I hope we'll be able to meet me and others interested in this amendment to discuss what to this amendment to discuss what to do at report. And with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
21:30
21:31
None Portrait Amendment:124A Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it in clause 35. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. My Lords, I rise to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and speak to the other Moulsecoomb and speak to the other one, 24B to F in this group. And I note also that there is a clause 35 note also that there is a clause 35 not stand part amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord Lord Marks, which, as I understand Lord Marks, which, as I understand it would, has the same aims.

We've just taken different routes to get just taken different routes to get into the same intended outcome. So all of these, there's a whole list of amendments here, but they're all of amendments here, but they're all linked to amendments with one aim, because if we're serious about reducing reoffending and rebuilding lives, we cannot allow public humiliation to be smuggled into the justice system through the back door. But that's exactly what clause 35 now does. It proposes giving probation service providers the power to publish the names and photographs of people carrying out unpaid work as part of their sentence.

Now, what could be the purpose of this measure? What problem is this actually solving? It definitely does not support rehabilitation. It's not going to reduce reoffending. The function appears to be to make humiliation part of the of the sentence that's being given to the offender. And more than that, not just the offender, the people around them, their family and friends. Potentially this is a significant departure from evidence based practice and threatens to undermine the goals we claim to be pursuing.

Now, I note that the Chief Inspector of Probation has warned that naming and shaming offenders is likely to act as a disincentive to rehabilitation, that instead of encouraging compliance, it risks pushing people away from engagement entirely. If someone is planning to turn up to the work and meet the terms of the order, why on earth would we introduce a measure that's likely to be an active discouragement? For that, the evidence tells us that reintegration into their community, into employment is what prevents re-offending.

Public exposure is going to have the absolute opposite effect. Now, probation officers themselves, through their union, have raised alarm about the outcome for families, especially for children who can bear the weight of a sentence they did not commit. We know of cases where children have been bullied, harassed and even forced to change schools because parents offending has been publicly exposed, and this is not just the view of a few organisations, 24 charities and experts, people who are working day in and day out with children and families affected by the justice system have put out a joint letter opposing this clause.

They warned that photographing people on unpaid work and publishing the images online, where, of course, they may remain indefinitely, and we now have photo recognition software. That means we can only expect we'll only get worse and worse in this context. In future will mean that will follow people for life. It risks making it harder to get a job or secure housing. It obviously risks vigilantism and violence, and of course it risks damaging the children. We have international obligations to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child.

We should be considering the best interests of a child in every policy decision. Yet this clause very clearly isn't so. My Lords, I can see some others wishing to speak, so I will stop now. But I think there is very strong and very
21:34
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

unanimous feelings on this clause and the wrong direction it's heading in. Lord Black support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Black support. I beg your pardon? The enthusiasm. Amendment proposed clause 35,
21:35
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 35, page 65. Leave out lines 22 to 20,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 65. Leave out lines 22 to 20, Baroness. Apologies to the to the chair of the Committee and the Committee. I. the Committee and the Committee. I. I support the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle parliamentary Draughtsman, have been appropriately euphemistic in the in the title of clause 35. But they could have they could have drafted naming and shaming of offenders in the community. I oppose clause 35 and therefore support the amendments in that in, in in that vein, because it is contrary to the ambitions of the of the Bill as a whole, because it actually undermines, undermines rehabilitation and therefore the prevention of further crimes, and is out with the philosophy of the Bill.

I hope and believe that the government is better than clause 35. And I know that my noble friend, the Minister, is better than this. He very, with his characteristic humility, described himself as a as a simple entrepreneur who ran a business to, to, to, to mend shoes. But he also ran a business to mend humans, in both cases attempting to save souls. I'm sorry. It's nearly Christmas. It's nearly it's nearly Christmas. It's nearly Christmas. And it's it it it's late.

And there are policies that sit on shelves in Westminster and Whitehall for many, many years. And over the years and the decades, people reach for the shelf and they pull those. And it's very easy to blame civil servants. But, you know, the special adviser class across party class, they have their they have their files on the shelves too. And this naming and shaming thing, I said it at Second Reading. This has been doing the rounds for decades, and our lovely friends, the special advisers, they're not here in the chamber at this time.

They're at the whatever the spectator party or the New Statesman party or whatever it happens to be this evening. But naming and shaming of offenders is a really, really bad idea. Now I want to be. So I agree with my with the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. The one point of difference is I think that if one were to be charitable, one would say it's really important that the public have faith and confidence in community orders, and I do agree with that.

So I would so support an alternative to this approach. Just a slight alternative to this approach that we're not naming and shaming particular offenders, but we are making other taking other steps to make very clear in the community that this was built, this was cleaned, this was done by by offenders serving sentences in the community that would that I think would achieve the best ambitions of this policy without the cruelty and the humiliation that that the noble Lady rightly identifies.

And that's what I would ask my noble friends, the Ministers, to, to take back to the department and reflect upon. And I think that would be something that the government could think about before report.
21:38
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Sir, I have my opposition to this clause standing as a part of the bill, and it seems to me that everything that has been said by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett and the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti is is right. I also agree with Baroness Chakrabarti suggestion that there's nothing at all wrong with saying that work of a particular kind was done by offenders as part of their community orders. What I object to is, as she says, the naming and shaming.

But it goes further than that, my Lords, it's naming and shaming of offenders under supervision by definition, because it's only offenders who are undertaking an unpaid work requirement that are subject to this clause. And I would suggest that the compulsory photographing of such offenders and the photographing of those offenders by probation officers, if you please, and then the publication of those photographs and the names of such offenders would be profoundly damaging. So I like Baroness Bennett regardless, because as likely to damage relationships between probation officers and their clients as likely to undermine offenders within their communities, and make it more difficult for those offenders to integrate within those communities.

The clauses overwhelmingly unlikely to do anything at all to rehabilitate offenders or to reduce re-offending. It is, in short, largely vindictive. Only, my Lord, since one can expect the publication of names and photographs mostly to be by local media outlets, such publication is likely to fuel hostility to offenders who would whom we're trying to rehabilitate among their communities, and to encourage what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester earlier today called penal populism, with what I suggest could only be damaging effects.

My Lords, we completely accept a position put by the noble Lord that community sentences are punishment and are intended to be punishment, but they're punitive in the sense of restricting offenders liberty and imposing requirements that may be onerous on offenders. But they are also and primarily directed at enabling rehabilitation and at reducing reoffending. And for such sentences to work friendly and constructive relationships between probation officers and the offenders. Their clients, under their supervision, and efforts to enable those offenders to be settled in their communities are vital.

These proposals are frankly inimical to those ends, and, my Lords, I have come across no evidence whatever that this kind of naming and shaming will do any good, will reduce re-offending in any way, and I believe it can only do harm. So for that reason, I oppose this clause and I invite the government to abandon it. Thank you my Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm a great supporter of this bill and I. Also believe.
21:42
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also believe. think. They're absolutely. Essential if we're.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To keep people out of prison. But I have to say that. On this particular issue, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On this particular issue, I frankly don't see the point, the positive, any positive point positive, any positive point arising out of this clause. And with my long time ago experience of working with probation officers, I dare say they're not that different now than they were when I was in practice. I can't see the likelihood of any probation officer actually wanting to do this and thinking that it was helpful in terms of making sure that his, his or her client behaved themselves in the future.

I think this is an excellent bill, but I don't think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this clause should be part of it. My Lords. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. Basically to support my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Basically to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for the amendments that they've moved. I amendments that they've moved. I mean, the the powers in this bill currently propose that probation officers will have the power to publish offenders names and photographs alongside details of their unpaid work. And the government rightly argues that there is a need to increase public visibility of sentences being carried out and allow people to see that justice is being done.

I would go further and say it's vitally important that those who are
21:43
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
responsible for sentencing have greater confidence in community greater confidence in community sentences. Now, I am currently the chair of your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Committee. But before Home Affairs Committee. But before I took over, my noble friend was was the chair of that committee. was the chair of that committee. Baroness Hamwee and her committee at that time produced an excellent report, Cutting Crime Better report, Cutting Crime Better Community Sentences. And that made very clear that for a long period very clear that for a long period of time, community sentences had declined, not least, of course, declined, not least, of course, during the upheaval, as we might call it, of the probation service.

But nevertheless there was a continued decline. And when they tried to analyse why that was, in part it was because sentences sentences had lost confidence in community sentences. And the mood was we simply don't think that the orders were imposing will actually be enforced. So my noble friend's committee at that time came forward with a number of recommendations about how to improve it. One of them was, for instance, to make reference to available community sentences within a local area within the Pre-sentencing report.

But another was to do what the noble Lord, the Minister, told me categorically when earlier I moved an amendment talking about ways of improving public awareness of things, he said to me in response that the best way of doing it was to make these schemes actually work, and that's the way the public will begin to have confidence in them. Well, that was the second major recommendation of my noble friends at report, and it certainly didn't include anything there about suggesting, naming and shaming the publication of photographs of names and so on.

And my friend, my noble friend, I'm quite sure, would agree that the recommendations that we have before us in the bill simply are not sensible ways of moving forward. I want to just very quickly give four reasons. Some of them have been touched on why I think it's not going to work, and I note that the two key groups that are involved in this area are both agree these are not sensible. The various leading charities who are going to play a major part in this.

And of course, as we've already heard, the Chief Inspector of probation, they are convinced that first of all, the harms of this will, that this scheme will lead not to a reduction in re-offending, because if the offender lives in the local area following the sentence, it would be much harder for him or her to be able to get housing, or to be able to get a job and to be able to reintegrate within the community. Secondly, in effect, what this does is it extends the sentence that's been given to somebody since the offender can be publicly branded long after the sentence.

It's a form of, if you like, stigmatisation, which is of course, the biggest barrier to being able to move on after completing a sentence. Why do I say that? Well, in the past when we talked about publishing a photograph, we all remember the phrase that, you know, today's newspaper headlines are tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers. That is no longer true when photographs are placed on social media, on the internet, they're there for an eternity. And so there can be real problems of stigmatisation for the individual, but there is also the stigmatisation.

My third argument is stigmatisation of the families. And we've already heard Baroness Bennett has mentioned the problem of children in schools and the way in which other kids can pick on them, the bullying that takes place and so on. But that's equally true. And I'm not being sexist by saying it, but it is very often the mothers who come to pick up children and the stigmatisation they will get when they come to pick up children from school. But the fourth and final issue I want to read is hon.

Members with is that there's very clear arguments being made, particularly by the Chief Inspector of Probation, that this may well lead to a number of offenders not even bothering to turn up. They'll end up then being recalled, ending back in prison, and so or might end up in prison as a result. So all of these are measures that in no way help what the noble Lord the Minister wants is that sentences that help not only to provide punishment, but help in reducing the likelihood of re-offending.

So, my Lords, I really hope that the Minister will think again. I don't believe all I read in newspapers, but I have read that the government is rethinking this. I hope for once the newspapers were right.
21:49
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Once my noble friend said he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thought I would agree, I agree. My Lords. The government has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The government has stated that the aim of this measure is to increase public confidence that justice is seen to be done as that justice is seen to be done as more individuals are diverted into the community. They claim, as individuals are seen to be giving back to their community, this will act as a deterrent against committing crime. The Lords I wonder if there's an element of wishful thinking from the government about this. The ability to take photos of offenders picking up litter is hardly a substitute up litter is hardly a substitute for the prospect of time and custody.

If the government do intend on enacting the substance of the bill, then perhaps any efforts to act as a deterrent are welcome, even if it is a measure as small as this one. However, we would have to ensure that it is exercised properly and with a clear framework around it. Probation officers are already operating under extraordinary strain. They should not be required to improvise policy on a ground such as this, particularly when it has obvious implications for privacy, data protection and public confidence.

There would have to be clear statutory guidance on when a photograph may be taken, what safeguards exist against misuse, and what redress is available if things go wrong. We must also guard, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, against a drift towards humiliation or the selective publication of images in a way that could stigmatise or would stigmatise individuals or particular communities. The Lords of the purpose of clause 35 is to demonstrate that unpaid work is both visible and constructive. Then the government would have to ensure that the practice reflects those aims, perhaps with proper regulation this might be possible, but without proper regulation it really risks becoming another ill defined power handed to an already overstretched probation service.

So, my Lords, we would urge the Minister to commit to setting out clearly the safeguards and practical requirements that are clearly going to be required if a clause such as clause 35 is ever implemented. Yeah, yeah, yeah. implemented. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
21:51
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank the noble Baroness Jones and Baroness Bennett and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Booth for tabling these amendments and for raising their concerns around clause 35 in the Bill. I would also like to thank the noble Lord foster and noble Lord Bach for raising their concerns. To my Lords, I'm sure we can agree that people who commit crimes should show their giving back to society. This clause is about building public confidence in community sentences. Local communities should know that those who harm them are paying back, as well as being able to see the positive work that is being done.

And as my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti pointed out, it is important that they can clearly see the benefits of community payback and have their say on the work undertaken by nominating projects in their in their area. I understand there may be concerns about the potential impacts of this measure, and I want to reassure noble Lords that careful consideration is being given to how this is implemented. I have listened to noble Lords comments today and will take them away to thoroughly consider.

I also want to reassure laws that noble Lords, that publication will not apply. In all cases, there will be exemption criteria set out in secondary legislation. This will be used alongside clear operational guidance on the circumstances where publishing would not be appropriate. The criteria are to be determined, but they may include factors such as specific offence types or personal circumstances which present heightened risks to the offender, their families or others. Probation practices. Practitioners will use this guidance and their professional assessment to determine the right course of action.

We should have confidence that they will only use the power where appropriate, but I can confirm to noble Lords that I have heard the points they have made, and I reiterate that we will reflect carefully before report.
21:53
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Thank you. noble Lord, the Minister, for his response and take encouragement from the phrase, thoroughly consider and hope that the noble Lord, Lord foster, is right, speaking as a former newspaper editor, that yes, sometimes newspapers are right so we can live in hope. But I want to thank all noble Lords who've taken part in this debate. The hour is late, but we've had a very clear and engaged debate, and I think a very, very clear direction of travel, even from the conservative frontbench.

Great degree of scepticism, at least, I think would be a fair characterisation of this clause. 35 just a couple of things to pick out. The noble Lord Lord Marks, I think, made a very important point about the relationship between probation officers and their clients, and I think that's something that really deserves extra consideration. I want to thank particularly the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing both their experience and knowledge, and bravely delivering a clear message from the Government Benches.

And just perhaps finally, to note that of course, we have had both the chair, the current chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, the former chair, the messages are coming to the government from all angles. And of course, we reserve the right to bring this back if necessary. But I very much hope that it won't be necessary to bring this back at report. And in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
21:54
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-

Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 124 B, c, d and E Baroness Bennett not moved, and amendment 124 F not moved. The question is that clause 35 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 36 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it after clause 36, amendment 125 already debated Lord Keen not moved. The question is that clause 37 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 37, amendment 126 already debated Lord Keen not moved. The question is clause 38 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 38.

Lord Jackson 100 and remember 127 not moved. Amendment 128 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved. The question is that clauses 39 and 40 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 40, amendment 129 Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd not moved. 130. Not called. Amendments 131 132 and 133. Lord Foster not moved. Amendment 134 Lord Woodley not moved. Amendment 135 Lord Woodley not moved.

Amendment 137 Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thomas of Cwmgiedd 136136. My Lords, I beg to move an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move an amendment that at this hour of the night might seem one that could have been moved on another occasion, have been moved on another occasion, but that is timing. The purpose of the amendment is a probing
21:57
None Portrait Amendment:136 Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-

the amendment is a probing amendment to deal with a matter that is becoming important across that is becoming important across many areas of justice, and Wales will return on a lot of bills that are currently going through Parliament. And the Minister was very kind. I raised this issue in the Second Reading debate, and the Minister was kind enough to explain to me roughly where the problem is, and I think the problem can basically be described in this way.

There are extremely good reasons to which I shall come in a moment for the devolution of probation to Wales. But the Government in Wales is anxious to have devolution to Wales, but the Government in London does not regard this as something it wants to do. It's certainly not a priority. It sees its job as putting the probation service right first, whenever that may happen. And what I think is very important is that what is happening is the subject of public debate, particularly because the elections are coming Wales in May and the various aspects of devolution are being highlighted by the kind of what one might call friendly family discussions between two different parts of the Labour Party, and that being part of the Labour Party in Wales, and that being the parliamentary party in London.

And it's so topical that in fact, yesterday the research unit of the Senate Committee published a paper on this matter. Now there are three options. First, what I would call the Manchester model. And that is sort of dual commissioning for devolution to Wales. Secondly, there is passing executive responsibility to Welsh Ministers but maintaining control over policy in London. And thirdly, there's the devolution of services and of policy. Now there is a lot of information and rather than try and go through it and explain it all, there is an extremely good paper by the Welsh Centre for Public Policy and another paper by the Wales Centre for Crime and Social Justice.

The probation development Group, which sets out many of the complex considerations. Now the devolution of probation services was the solution that a commission that I chaired on the devolution on, which reported under the title Justice in Wales for the People of Wales, which concluded in chapter four that all devolution, all penal services, including probation, should be devolved. This was an entirely non-political group and included people well known in this area Juliet Lyon, Sarah Payne and and Peter Vaughan, the then the former Chief Constable of South Wales.

Now, why was it that we all came to the view that there should be devolution? First of all? And critical is that in Wales, for some reason, justice is the one area of domestic policy that is not devolved. It's entirely irrational and and is derived from the history of the way in which devolution emerged. But in no other country in the world would you think justice was so unimportant you could leave it to one side and not devolve it with other services.

And what is very, very important is that in Wales, it really is important that justice and particularly aspects of it, including the probation service, are devolved so they can work along the other parts of government. Secondly, one has the benefit in England and in Scotland, and there's known from Northern Ireland here at the moment and in Northern Ireland of being able to formulate policy as an integral whole. You can look at justice policy, you can look at probation policy and you can fit it in with everything else you are doing.

Wales isn't allowed to do that. Thirdly, Wells is rather different and in this respect it's quite important that it doesn't have a big city like Manchester, London, Leeds or Birmingham. In large parts of it are rural and the government services are organised because local government is different and it it suffers, unfortunately, from a very poor economy with large areas of poverty, both rural and. And of course, Wales has its own language. Now there are a number of there's a further reason research has been done, which shows that the rate of imprisonment in Wales is higher than it is in England.

Why that is so is not clear, and it may be that it's because of the way the government keeps its statistics. But there is a really important issue, and it is thought that if probation services could be integrated more, one could address these questions. And more importantly than that, there are many in this country, no doubt a number in this House, who would wish the government to pursue a more enlightened penal policy. And I have said this on many occasions about this country, that's England, that it would be a great blessing if we would stop sending so many people to prison.

And as my two predecessors as Lord Chief Justice, who are with us still and Sir Brian Leveson argued we should go back to levels of punishment and levels of imprisonment that we enjoyed 20 or 30 years ago, because it's the only way that we will ever pay or have sufficient money to deal with probation. Now in England, I appreciate there are very real problems in getting this done, but I don't believe those existed. Wells and we could pursue a proper enlightened prison policy and use the money in a more sensible way and a step along this road.

Now, why isn't this being done? There are two reasons. First of all, I regret to say that some departments keep the view Whitehall knows best. It's a stain on which runs through the entirety of devolution, but it is still a problem in certain departments in London. And secondly, I've alluded to them, but it's not for me to go into the problems in terms of the differences between the Labour government in Cardiff and the Labour parliamentary party and government in London, as to why they can't agree on doing something sensible.

And so that's why devolution is not going forward. What is being proposed, as I understand it, from what I have read, that the Manchester the model thought of from Manchester is to be imposed on Wales, and I am very sympathetic to the position of the Welsh Government because faced as they are, with the control over this being vested in the London government, they have no option effectively but to agree something that I think is contrary to the interests of Wales.

There should be proper devolution, but that's how it is. I would very much hope that the Minister would be able to bring to. This is a probing amendment to try and bring into the public domain what is going on in this area, and I look forward very much to the Minister's explanation. But I should say that this is this is an issue that, like the devolution of police, like the devolution of youth justice, like the problem we're having at the moment in relation to the assisted dying Bill, these problems of not addressing sensibly and with discussion devolution in Wales is, I'm afraid, going to where this Parliament on a number of issues which the differences of opinion between the government here and the government in Cardiff ought to come out into the open so we can have a proper debate.

And I will say now I intend to do that on each successive
22:05
22:05
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshall List. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for bringing this issue to committee. Effective probation practice depends fundamentally on local knowledge, local accountability and integration with wider services including housing, health, substance misuse and skills, and so on. In Wales, these services, in contrast to probation, are largely devolved. My Lords, it is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the current arrangement, the current settlement, best serves the people of Wales and whether the structures we have today genuinely allow probation to work in partnership effectively with the devolved landscape.

The noble and learned Lord has raised an important point. We do not today on these benches, commit ourselves to the specific mechanism set out in the amendment. Devolution of an important part, important plank of the criminal justice function requires proper consideration, planning and above all, collaboration. And I emphasise the word collaboration in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said. Between the United Kingdom government and Welsh Ministers. But we do agree that that conversation cannot be avoided.

It must be approached constructively with regard to the Welsh perspective. Probation in Wales faces real pressures and deserves a stable and effective framework within which to operate. If the Minister believes that the current reserve model remains the right one, the House would expect him to set out clearly how it delivers coherence, integration and accountability and is effective not in theory but in practice. My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for initiating this debate, and we look forward to the government's response.

Probably not for just the one time.
22:07
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his amendment and for his thoughtful engagement on this issue as well as others. And I know he's met with my others. And I know he's met with my noble friend, the Minister outside the chamber to discuss these things. the chamber to discuss these things. The government has committed to undertake a strategic review of probation in its manifesto, and it probation in its manifesto, and it is still our plan to review the governance of the probation Service.

Looking at partnerships across Looking at partnerships across England and Wales, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas mentioned learned Lord, Lord Thomas mentioned the Manchester model. I hesitate to agree with the with the suggestion that it's being imposed on Wales, but I have to say that I'm rather a fan of the Manchester model. In fact, I regard myself as a progenitor of it or one of them. When I was the HMPPS as its lead non-executive director. So that is part of part of what's on offer, as it were.

But it is important that these recommendations are that are in this bill are first implemented and we bring stability to the probation service in England and Wales as it currently is, before undertaking any structural review. So we do. The government does believe this would not be the right time to consider factoring structural, structural changes into the many changes to probation that will be that will arise as a result of this legislation. I do understand that the that the that the doctrine of unripe time is often a fairly feeble excuse for inaction.

But I'm sure everyone in the House recognises that, if I can put it like this, the capacity for change in the probation service with this bill, and what is already the situation, is pretty much maxed out. The amendment proposes devolving probation service, but not the equivalent in relation to sentencing or prisons devolving parts of the criminal justice system in this way will create a divergence between the management of offenders and the wider criminal justice, sentencing and prison framework across England and Wales.

And we know that poor handovers, weak communication or gaps in support during the transition from custody to the community are among the greatest barriers to successful resettlement. So we are we are concerned that some of the changes that might arise as a result of this would create friction in the way that I have suggested. Therefore, any framework in which prisons and probation are separately owned, funded or designated or designed carries a real risk that the two halves of the process fail to connect, particularly at a time of strain.

And when that happens, people leaving prison can all too easily fall through the gaps. So. So that's the heart of the government's view at the moment, that this is not a good time to impose structural change on the probation service. And we want to be sure that we don't create the sort of risks and frictions that I discussed. But we will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to support the local delivery of services by devolved and reserved partners in Wales, and I hope I have given the noble and learned Lords some reassurance, at least sufficient for him to least sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.
22:11
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
And my Lords, first of all, I completely agree with the noble Lord who has responded. It is obviously sensible to devolve prisons and probation together. That's what we recommended. But political reality of the way in which governments relate in Cardiff and in in London, particularly when they're of the same party, made me think at this stage not to put down prisons and probation, but I will rethink that for the next time, because the key to delivering change, and I wish this people here would realise it.

There will be no change effectively to the probation service until we can take some of the money out of prisons and put it into probation. And I'm sure most people who think about it, who realise the government doesn't have any money, realise it's got to come from somewhere, and imprisoning people for sensible and shorter times is a much, much better policy. And I'd like to see that done in Wales and I'm convinced it could be done. So I will think about the suggestion of the Minister that we should put put down both on the next occasion.

The second reason why I said that the Manchester model was being imposed, and it really is a Hobson's choice. That's what I mean about being imposed. You want something will give you a little bit to keep you quiet, but it's not the right model because Manchester is not a country. It's a city in England where people here make decisions on policy. Wales is a different country, a proud and ancient nation. But that's the difference. That's why Manchester is good for Manchester, but not good for Wales.

But in the light of all that has been said, and I hope it may well be that I will return to this, maybe in a slightly different form and wider form of amendment, as suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
22:13
22:13
None Portrait Amendment:138 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of two amendments in my name and the name of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee address the Baroness Hamwee address the addresses. The position of the effect of changes in the law. effect of changes in the law. Amendment 138 would give a right to an offender serving a sentence for an offender serving a sentence for an offence, or which has been abolished, or where the change in abolished, or where the change in the law has altered the sentence that might be imposed, and that that might be imposed, and that offender in such a case would be entitled to apply to the court to give the offender the benefit of the change in the law, and to seek a decision that the sentence should be quashed, or a resentencing on the basis of the law as changed.

Alternatively, an alternative order that was in the interests of justice. My Lords, that's a simple amendment that would entitle an offender serving a sentence to say the laws changed if I were sentenced tomorrow or today, I would not be suffering the sentence that I'm now serving. So please change it. Amendment 139 addresses changes in the law. More generally, it would require the Secretary of State to review and report every three years on changes in the law that would affect those already sentenced, where their sentences would be different as a result of changes in the law.

So it's moving from the particular in amendment 9138 to the general in amendment one three, nine. And the report would cover the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing perceived injustice arriving arising from such changes in the law. The report would be bound to include recommendations for change to address such injustices, and also data on the numbers of offenders involved and the numbers of those still in prison. My Lords, this is an important issue. It's not the most important issue in connection with this Bill, but it is important that as attitudes in society change, so laws are changed and parliament and judges reflect those changes and worse, where such changes would mean or would have meant a more lenient view being taken of an offender's offences, that was that was in fact taken, then that offender should have the benefit of such change and not be denied it.

And it's even more important that a person who's been sentenced for an offence that has been abolished should not continue to be punished for such an offence, which no longer exists, that deals with amendment 138. In principle 139, the requirement to report on such injustices would be, I suggest, of general assistance, whereas amendment one, three, eight is only intended to assist specific offenders who have been sentenced for offences where the law has been changed, the need for the government to report on the implications of such changes on a wider basis would enable a holistic approach to be taken, an approach that would be of general application and that would help inform the government, inform the public and enable appropriate steps
22:17
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-

to be taken to address such move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 40, insert the new clause as printed on the
22:17
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords, these amendments may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these amendments may appear useful in a time where sentencing laws revised with increasing frequency, as illustrated by this bill. A call for transparency and data is also generally welcome. Both amendments reflect a desire to ensure that justice keeps pace with changes in law and society, and I'm sure anyone can support that general intention. And we would invite the government to address constructively the concerns that lie behind these amendments. But it does appear that there may be very real practical issues and difficulties about any such amendment to the bill.

To take one simple example, the bill when it becomes law in its present form, will determine that someone who is sentenced to 12 months or less should have a suspended sentence at the point when the bill becomes law, is everyone then serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, going to seek review on the grounds that the sentence should now be suspended? It does seem to me that there are an awful lot of practical difficulties around that possibility.

And then, of course, we're going to have people reviewing the Sentencing Council recommendations from time to time to say, well, wait a minute. They used to recommend three years for what I did, but they're now recommending two. Could I please have a review? So while well intentioned, it does occur that there could be an immense number of practical difficulties putting aside even the imposition upon the courts to review sentences at regular levels. regular levels.
22:19
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

My Lord, I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Marks for these amendments, which I do understand are seeking to ensure fairness in sentencing outcomes. And his amendments are clearly rooted in in the commitment, the noble and learned Lord Keen said. To ensure the justice keeps pace with society. That said, it is important to recognise that mechanisms already exist to address perceived injustices, including criminal appeals and sentence reviews, and mandating a formal review every three years with accompanying data and recommendations.

Therefore risks duplicating existing oversight functions and placing additional burdens on the justice system, as the noble Lord will appreciate, there are already pressures in our justice system, and it's especially important that we that we ensure that any reforms that create additional burden are proportionate, targeted and deliverable. I would, however, note that the recent Leveson review calls for a full review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to modernise how criminal records are disclosed, and the government is considering this recommendation, and will update the House in due course.

In addition to that, the Law Commission were invited by the government to consider the Law on Criminal Appeals and their consultation has closed on this matter earlier this year and the responses are currently being analysed. We can expect the Law Commission to report to the government with recommendations next year, given that that those pieces of work are in train, I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance that that those recommendations will be will be carefully considered. And while we're sympathetic to the principle that fairness underpins these amendments for the reasons set out, I'd ask him to withdraw.
22:21
22:23
22:23
None Portrait Amendment:140 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 140 Baroness Chakrabarti. Every member of the committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every member of the committee who's still here an espresso at this point. Instead, I will try to this point. Instead, I will try to be short and lively. So clause. This amendment is the only amendment that I tabled to this bill, a bill that I broadly support bill, a bill that I broadly support for reasons that need little explanation at this point. But but explanation at this point. But but this amendment, amendment 140 in my name. And by the way, I also name.

And by the way, I also support 147 in the names of Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Marks of Henley on Thames has been on my conscience. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for signing it, and she, of course, was the first and distinguished chair of Your Lordship's Justice and Home Affairs Committee. This concerns a provision in the in the 1976 Bail Act that I was on. To my shame, I was unaware of until really a relatively few weeks ago.

And and that's notwithstanding being being in this area of, of, of law and policy for over 30 years, and it really is on my conscience, and I think it should be on the conscience of the government and the committee, and that is that that vulnerable people may be remanded in custody for their own protection, even when they are charged with non-custodial offences. And in, in, in my noble friend, the minister's reply, I would, amongst other things like to to know how this is conscionable and how this squares with the government's commitment to to article five of the European Convention on Human Rights that sets very tight criteria for for detaining people.

I was extremely grateful, as always, for a conversation with my noble friend, the Minister and his officials about this two two weeks ago. But I'm always concerned, as a former government lawyer myself, with the with the danger of of resistance to amendments because they weren't invented here. And so I really pleading with my noble friend and other members of the committee to, to to really engage with a scandal. And it's not a scandal on the scale of IPP.

And I didn't speak in that debate to spare the committee's time. But but I associate myself with all the all those who spoke on the IPP amendment. It's not it's not indefinite detention with all the hope lost, but it is about detaining vulnerable people who should not be detained for their own protection in on remand in the criminal justice system. And I'm advised by a coalition of of of NGOs and noble Lords in the committee will have received their their joint briefing in particular justice.

And I'm grateful to Emma Snell, a brilliant young lawyer at justice who has educated me about this provision. But but the coalition is, is is really broad and it's nacro and inquest in the centre for Women's Justice and the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League and so on. Most of the people who appear to be detained for their own protection, including when charged with a non-custodial offence, are being detained because they have an acute mental health crisis.

This suffering from addiction, they're homeless and some of them are at risk from others, and that could be reprisals in the community, or it could be from from criminal gangs and so on. But that isn't none of that is justification for taking someone's liberty, as opposed to justification for keeping them safe and helping them. And this is not something that we would do for witnesses. We would surely put a witness in a safe house rather than detain them for their for their own protection.

So I'm incredibly concerned that we persist with this. Further, the Labour Party in opposition only a couple of years ago, spoke against this. And it's been it's been criticised by all the, you know, all the experts and the independent non-governmental bodies in the sector, the chief inspectors, etcetera, etcetera. And it it really, to my mind, is unconscionable that we should detain somebody for their vulnerability and not for a danger that they are posing to others.

The classic and and other grounds for remanding custody rather than on bail are you will re-offend, you will interfere with witnesses and so on. But the idea that you should be detained for your own protection, or in the case of children, for your welfare, and to my mind is is really something that needs to be, needs to be addressed. Now, to be fair to the government and in the in the mental health bill, the the government has already proposing that this should not be on mental health grounds alone.

And that is that is progress that is necessary. That is, that is that is to be commended. But necessary is not sufficient because there are other vulnerable people who will not be diagnosed as being vulnerable because of a mental health condition. And as I say that that that could include vulnerable women, homeless people and people who fear reprisals from from criminal gangs and they should be made safe. And there are provisions to make them safe in other ways.

The idea that we as a political community, and we as a society can only care for people and only protect people through detention and through and through coercion, is really something that I think the committee to, to move away from. And certainly this bill is in its
22:30
22:30
22:32
Lord Robathan Portrait Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sewell I just rise briefly to speak to amendment 147, noble Lords will be well aware that in earlier debates I have argued that what we do, whether it's custodial or non-custodial sentence, of course, is about punishment, but it also should be about taking steps to reduce re-offending. And I've argued that, therefore either the police or the probation service must put in place measures to help with that, and they would include things like education skills and also measures to help people with drug alcohol.

And I've added gambling disorders, my Lords, that is debates that we've had already. However, I've also said during today's debate about the fact that there are something like 20% of the people in prison are those on remand awaiting sentencing. And as a result of the other thing I've mentioned, which is the huge backlog in the Crown Court, it is a fact that many of those on remand will be in prison awaiting sentencing for quite a long time, so it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that while they're in prison, there should be opportunities that might help them in later life anyway, in terms of the same sorts of measures.

And so this amendment very simply says that for prisoners, for those that are in prison on remand, they should have made available to them the same level of provision that is provided for prisoners after sentencing. It's as simple as that. It seems to make common sense, and I look forward to the Minister's I look forward to the Minister's response.
22:34
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti. I must say from the outset that we on these benches cannot support it. The power to remand a person in custody for their own protection, or, in the case of a child or young person for their own welfare, is not one that the courts use lightly. It is already tightly circumscribed and deployed only where the alternative would expose an extremely vulnerable individual to serious harm.

To remove this safeguard entirely, would, I suggest, be a mistake? There are rare but very real occasions when a defendant's personal circumstances, exploitation by criminal gangs or acute safeguarding concerns mean that the only safe option in the immediate term is to keep them in secure accommodation. That judgement made by a court on evidence and subject to challenge, is not one we believe Parliament should now deprive them of, and where children are concerned, the imperative is even stronger.

The courts, paramount concerned, must be the people's welfare, and removing this power risks leaving young people unprotected in precisely those situations where intervention is most vital. So, my Lords, for these reasons, we cannot support amendment 140. Turning to amendment 147, in the name of the noble Lord foster, we are strongly supportive of the principle underlying it, for far too many people spend far too long in remand months, sometimes well over a year, awaiting trial or sentence.

For all practical purposes, they experience incarceration in the same way as sentenced prisoners. They are deprived of liberty, separated from their families, and often held in conditions indistinguishable from the sentenced estate. Yet those on remand do not have the same access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other forms of support that are routinely offered. Post-sentence. This is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly given that time spent on remand is overwhelmingly treated as time served for the purposes of the ultimate custodial sentence.

If we accept that remand can form a significant part of an individual's total period in custody, then it cannot be right that this is effectively dead time time in which they are neither able to progress their rehabilitation nor address the issues that may have contributed to their offending behaviour. The amendment proposed by Lord foster is therefore a valuable contribution to a discussion that is long overdue. It is not prejudge the precise mechanisms or impose on workable obligations on overstretched services, but it rightly challenges us to consider whether the current disparity is effective or conducive to reducing reoffending.

We believe the government should engage seriously with the spirit of this proposals, my Lords. Taken together, these amendments highlight two themes that run throughout our debates on this bill the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to ensure that custody, whether pre or post sentence, serves a constructive purpose. I hope that the Minister will commit to further work in this area, and I look forward to the noble Lord. The forward to the noble Lord. The Minister's response. Okay.
22:37
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

My Lords, I'd like to thank the noble Baroness Chakrabarti for her amendment and for taking the time to discuss her related concerns with my noble friend, the Minister. And I'd also like to thank her for her support for the Bill and and its overall intentions. That's very much appreciated. Coming from someone with her track record, My Lords, amendment 140 would remove an important safeguard which, as the noble and learned Lord Keen just said, is very rarely used.

But it does remain an option for the court. This is a a measure of last resort and out of concern for the defendant. Eliminating this provision could leave vulnerable individuals without any viable protection, particularly where alternative care arrangements are simply unavailable or cannot be implemented swiftly enough. So we fear that those may be the consequences. Examples where it may be used include where it is the only option available to the court to keep someone safe, such as in cases where the defendant is a member of a gang and could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected.

I hope this will reassure my Lords. I hope it will also reassure your lordships, however, that the Mental Health Bill, which the noble Lady Lady Chakrabarti referred to, is now in the other place. And that does include a reform to end the the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act, where the court's sole concern is the defendant's mental health. This reform should ensure remand for own protection is therefore only used as a last resort in the circumstances I have outlined above.

My Lords repeal at this stage would leave a gap in the available provision. Courts must retain the flexibility to act decisively in safeguarding individuals when no other option exists, and this amendment risks unintended consequences for vulnerable defendants and undermines the protective function of the justice system. Turning now to amendment 147, for which I thank the noble Lord, the Lord foster, for tabling my. My Lords amendment seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitation, rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support.

Before the start of their sentence. The government's view is that this amendment is not necessary. Given remand, prisoners can already today access those programs where prisons run, run them. There is also an important legal distinction here that I should highlight to your lordships remand. Prisoners are held in custody pending trial or sentencing, and some have not yet been convicted. Of course, we recognise the point that people are spending more time on remand and therefore, as I've said, where these services are available in the right circumstances, they should be able to access them.

However, they remand prisoners are legally distinct from sentence prisoners, and we have to reflect that in the priorities for resources. There are already mechanisms in place to support remand prisoners, including access to healthcare, and the government has no plans at the moment to expand all rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support to remand prisoners. This would require substantial changes to prison operations and resourcing, and could divert resources from those already convicted and serving sentences. We do recognise, however, that some of the changes in the remand population and my noble friend, the Minister and I would be very happy to continue to talk to the noble Lord foster about these matters.

But given what I've set out, I would I would ask the noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw their amendment. My Lords, I'm so grateful once more to the noble Lady Baroness more to the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. But I am, I have to say, disappointed in the responses from
22:42
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
disappointed in the responses from both front benches on on on this occasion, uncharacteristic knee jerk responses from from from both frontbenchers which don't display a broader understanding of the other law of England and Wales that deals or should deal with vulnerable people. I say to to the noble Lord, Lord Lord Keen of Elie, when he mentioned children, that there are ample measures for protecting children under the Children Act 1989 and looking after them in more appropriate, more appropriate circumstances than in criminal justice detention.

And I remind the committee that we are talking here about defendants who are not being detained for the classic justifications that they would commit further offences, interfere with witnesses and so on, but for their own protection. And, of course, the criminal justice estate is not a place of safety or protection for for anyone. I didn't hear a reply to my question about how this can be justified under article five of the Convention on Human Rights, but perhaps the my noble friend, the Minister could, could, could drop a note on that and offer it to to other members of the of the committee won't be too many because there aren't many here.

But I'd be hugely grateful for that. I think that the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee had it right when she talked about a Victorian hangover, and there are too many Victorian hangovers in in this area of law and policy. And I know that my noble friend, the Minister Lord Timpson, is well aware of that. And the thrust of this bill in general is about departing from such Victorian hangovers like social death and locking people up and throwing away the key.

So I will urge further reflection. If I am a member of a criminal gang who wants to turn King's evidence, but I am not charged with a minor offence, then I will have to be put in a safe house. And there are schemes and there are measures to do that. But if I happen to be charged with a low level offence that attracts, that does not attract a custodial penalty, I'm being told that it's a last resort, that I'm going to be locked up in a prison system where I'll be more at danger from from the criminal gang than I ever would in the safe house.

So, my Lords, this this is these are rather disappointing arguments from, from from from members of the committee who, who, I think, on reflection, may think again and I shall certainly, certainly return to this at report.
22:45
22:45
None Portrait Amendment:141 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

and evening would give the power to a court when granting bail to a defendant charged with the most serious driving offences. The power to suspend that defendant's driving licence pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. My Lord. To recap fast, the offences covered by the amendment are causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving causing death by driving unlicensed or uninsured, or when disqualified, or by careless driving when the when under the influence of drink or drugs.

Driving or being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink and drugs. Drink or drugs. Driving or being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through alcohol or or having whilst having alcohol over the limit or controlled drugs over the limit. My Lords, the reason for this amendment is obvious when a court grants bail, it is carrying out an exercise of balancing the public interest in not prejudging the guilt of a defendant before that defendant is tried against the other.

Public interest in keeping the public safe. I contend that the balance is clear when a power formally to suspend the driving licences of defendants charged with these offences are. Are under consideration, these are life threatening driving offences and suspending a licence as a condition of bail for such a defendant is entirely appropriate. The suspension may not always be imposed, but for the power to be there seems to me to be quite
22:47
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

clearly desirable. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 41. Insert the new clause as
22:47
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

41. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, I am grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley, for bringing forward this amendment. This amendment proposes, as a This amendment proposes, as a condition of bail, to allow the court suspend the driving licence of individuals charged for certain driving offences. The offences in question include causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, or by careless or inconsiderate driving, or by unlicensed, uninsured disqualified drivers. In addition, it includes those charges relating to driving when under the influence of drink or drugs or above the prescribed limit.

Safety on our roads is of prime importance and the police have the ability to impose driving bans as a condition of bail. Under the 1971 Bail Act, to ensure that the further driving related offences are not committed by those charged whilst criminal proceedings are ongoing. Indeed, driving offences committed while on bail are rightly treated as a serious matter. Nonetheless, the potential benefits of public safety must, in a country where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty, be balanced with the rights of as yet unconvicted defendant.

Individuals who are granted bail may be on bail for extended periods of time, in which time they may, assuming other conditions on work have not been put in place, still have to drive to their place of work. For example, so far, the powers to impose a driving ban as a condition of bail have been operational matters for the police. That said, allowing the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual as a condition of bail pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings, would be a preventative step to reduce the risk of further driving related offences being committed.

We thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate. We look forward to the government's response. government's response.
22:49
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I thank the honourable Lord Marks for this amendment, which will give courts an express power to suspend the driving licence of individuals charged with specific specified driving offences as a condition of bail. We recognise that driving offences can have devastating consequences for victims and for their families and friends. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and drugs is a serious offence, with potentially life changing consequences. There are already robust powers available to the police and the courts to impose bail conditions where there is a risk to public safety, and this includes restrictions on driving where appropriate.

In certain cases, courts may also impose an interim driving disqualification before sentencing. Road safety remains an absolute priority for this government. The Department of Transport will shortly publish a new road safety strategy, and the Secretary of State for transport has indicated that this will include a review of motoring offences. Whilst I appreciate the importance of the issue raised by the noble Lord, given the forthcoming strategy and existing powers available, I urge him to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask the Lord before the final sits down, to consider this? final sits down, to consider this? The power to suspend that is suggested by this amendment would suggested by this amendment would be a power exercisable by the court, and therefore reportable to the DVLA, as a result of which the DVLA, as a result of which the driving licence would be formally withdrawn. I'm not sure that's true
22:51
22:51
22:51
22:51
22:52
None Portrait Amendment:148 Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-

amendment this evening. I'm sorry to have to detain noble Lords, but I do regard women's justice as important. I know that the noble Lord Minister does, because he chairs the Women's Justice Board, which is the subject of this amendment. It's quite new. It's an important innovation. It has an important innovation. It has an impressive membership. I won't detain noble Lords by, as I was detain noble Lords by, as I was intending to do, reading through its purpose as set out in the terms of reference, but its focus on early intervention and diversion, community solutions, issues specific to pregnant women and mothers with dependent children, and reducing the number of young adult women entering the criminal justice system, which is not something that I've actually heard expressed before.

These are all clearly very important. I'm not suggesting that the board is not transparent. Its minutes are online. The terms of reference include publication of an annual report as well as ad hoc reports. But publication effectively by the Secretary of State seems to me that will give its work the weight that it deserves. I think that's probably the best way of describing it. I thought, we cannot, even though this is the last amendment, it was one that I thought of fairly early on.

We can't go through a bill like this without highlighting the particular needs of women offenders. We have referred to them, though it felt a little as if they'd been rather an add on. I will take the time to say that very often women who are offenders are victims before they are offenders, in particular victims of domestic abuse, but also victims of circumstances. The MoJ data from 2023 estimated that 10% of cases, which result in sentences of 12 months or less, are related to domestic violence, and in a further 10% of cases, the offender is flagged by probation for domestic violence.

So I'm told by refuge and I should declare an interest. They're having a very long time ago, chaired it for a very long time. The offences are often small, but they can be persistent. So we we, the Liberal Democrats, were very pleased to see the creation of the Women's Justice Board. It's for a long time been party policy. I discovered that my noble friend Lord marks had summed up the amendment which went to our party conference, including this.

We would like to entrench its position as solidly as possible and give it the appropriate publicity. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. After clause 42, insert the following new clause. Women's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

following new clause. Women's Justice Board annual report as printed on the list. My Lords, on the conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on the conservative benches, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, which, tabling this amendment, which, though the last tonight, is certainly not the least in importance, it rightly draws our importance, it rightly draws our attention to the work of the Women's Justice Board and the special needs of many women
22:56
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
offenders. The case for transparency and for this report being published is well made. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look forward to hearing the noble Lord. The Minister's response. Lord Sandhurst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sandhurst. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Hamwee for her amendment and her continued interest in the and her continued interest in the Women's Justice Board. I'm very proud to share it and drive its work forward, and noble Lords will work forward, and noble Lords will be pleased to know it's going well, and I'm very fortunate to be working alongside so many talented working alongside so many talented experts. This amendment seeks to ensure parliamentary oversight of the board's activities and outcomes, the board's activities and outcomes, and this would have the effect of subjecting the board to parliamentary scrutiny.

And as the noble Baroness knows, like her, I noble Baroness knows, like her, I have a great interest in in women, in, in women's justice and I fully recognise the importance of transparency in this area. But Parliament already has well established mechanisms to hold the government to account, including through parliamentary questions and select committee inquiries, reforming the way women are treated in the criminal justice system remains a keen ambition for this government and for me personally. The expertise provided by the Women's Justice Board is an important part of shaping our approach to the wider justice system, and while we cannot accept this amendment today, I want to assure the House that we are committed to keeping Parliament informed and we will consider how best to provide periodic updates on the work of the board through appropriate channels.

And I suspect one of the best ways we can update noble Lords is through the work that we do and the results that we get as well. And I hope this reassurance enables the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
22:57
22:58
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page