Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing this debate so admirably and highly commend his chairmanship of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I was a member until the end of January. The noble Lord steered the Select Committee with deep commitment and skill, and it was a pleasure to work with him and other members of the Select Committee. I also want to thank the clerk of the committee, his team and the special advisers for this support. I congratulate those who have made the two maiden speeches, and I look forward to three more.

As we heard, our prisons are in a state of crisis, and there is urgent need for a strategic and focused reform of the system if we want to reduce re-offending and protect the public. The Government are attempting to address some of the most urgent problems. Some steps have been taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons, bolster the Probation Service and reform the sentencing regime, all of which I welcome. As I have said before, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and reducing re-offending was an inspired choice, and it is reassuring to have a Minister who understands what is required—within, if I may say so, the constraints of the current system. I know that he is working tirelessly to make a difference.

Reducing the prison population is essential to ensure a well-functioning and effective service. Systemic change and culture shifts require time, but urgent and meaningful action should be taken now if we are to avert the crisis facing our prisons. These actions are not just about resources and capacity. Our report focused on practical changes that can be adopted now to make a difference, and highlighted the inadequacy of some of the changes, given the scale of the problem.

Regrettably, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the Government’s response to our report does not appear to grasp the essence of our recommendations. The response, if I may say so, is rather too official, as the noble Lord spelt out. The assurances given in the response sound hollow, given that education provision in prisons will be cut by 50%, and the impact of these cuts has been graphically described by the Prisoners’ Education Trust. Our report focused on leadership, governance, management and staffing of prisons. However, leadership qualities, style of leadership, governance arrangements, management, levels and types of staffing, and training and recruitment would become self-evident if there was clarity about the purpose of prison, and if that purpose was backed by policies and practices and effective communication aligned to that purpose.

The purpose of prisons is not clear. There is confusion within government and the HMPPS about the purpose of prisons, because policy and practice are fundamentally misaligned. Prison sentences, incarceration and loss of liberty are the punishment, and the purpose of prisons is to prepare those in custody for life after prison in order to reduce reoffending and help them integrate back into the community, and, ultimately, to protect the public. The first priority, therefore, in my view, is to have absolute clarity on and understanding of the purpose of prisons. If that is properly understood, it would clarify what qualities, skills and experience are needed for those running prisons, be they prison governors or prison officers. What level of autonomy should be given to prisons, and what should be the balance of responsibility between the centre and local prisons?

What relationship should there be between prison and probation services, and the third sector and employers? The relationship between the prison and probation services needs to be clarified and understood. Very poorly thought-through reforms over several years have demoralised the Probation Service and confused its identity. There is, in my view, a shared purpose between the prison and probation services, which is to reduce reoffending and prepare people for life outside the criminal justice system. This needs to be reinforced, and it is encouraging that the Minister is giving support to the Probation Service, although the investment to bring the service up to speed is not adequate.

Secondly, there is a need for clear and effective communication to explain to the public the purpose of prisons. Government has a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons, and an appreciation that those in custody eventually have to be integrated into the community.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

I know that I am running over time, but it is an advisory time limit and I will finish in two minutes.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, I am sorry, that will not be fair to all the other speakers. It is an advisory time limit, but I must invite the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

I have another couple of minutes—this is advisory.

The Government have a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons and an appreciation that those in custody will eventually have to be integrated into the community. We cannot defend what is not understood.

My third point is about much more focused and tailored opportunities for purposeful activity—that is, educational opportunities for prisoners to learn skills which equip them to lead a purposeful life when released. I will make two points here. First, the Open University provides very good digital learning, which needs to be extended. The other point about education is having some joined-up thinking to make sure that employers actually work with prisons—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sorry to get to my feet again, but I think the House is on my side and the noble Baroness should now conclude her remarks.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords. I shall express my scepticism about Amendments 60, 61 and 66. They seem to be, in each respect, impractical.

In Amendment 60, I find myself looking at the phrase,

“if enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable”.

That, in one sense, is perfectly sensible, but who is going to determine that? Is it going to be a justiciable issue? Is the Probation Service going to hop up and say: “I’m afraid we can’t do that”? What if the defendant says: “Oh yes, you can”? We would get ourselves into an extraordinary situation. There would be some adverse consequences too, because a judge might be ill-inclined to make such an order, which in principle is highly desirable but there is some doubt as to the possibility of it being enforced. This seems to me to be a tricky road down which to go.

In Amendment 61, I find that the supervising authority must notify all public events within a radius of 20 miles. I suppose the supervising authority for these purposes is the Probation Service, but is the Probation Service to be expected to know about all public events? If it is, it could be quite a burden on it to circulate to all public events. What if others come into play after the order is made? It seems to me, again, that this is rather an impractical suggestion.

Another rather impractical suggestion is to be seen in Amendment 66, where we find that

“the relevant supervising authority must notify all licensed drinking establishments within a radius of 20 miles”.

That implies quite a lot of knowledge on the part of the supervising authority. Perhaps it will have that knowledge, but this will be a tremendous burden on it. These amendments may well have a good purpose behind them, but one asks whether they are really deliverable. Are these the sort of things we should load on to a hard-pressed supervising authority? I think they are manifestly not.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 101A. This Bill introduces a provision to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence, without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. This amendment would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. Such oversight would guard against unintended consequences and provide due process both for victims and for offenders. It would afford victims and offenders an opportunity to make representations to an independent judicial body both before licence conditions are imposed and subsequently, should changes in circumstances arise. For example, a victim may want to live in or enter the restricted area and seek a variation to enable them to do so without fear.

A restriction zone is highly onerous, restricting almost every aspect of a person’s life, including their ability to work, receive specialised medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places a huge administrative burden on the authorities. The proposed new restriction is a significant step akin to control orders, now replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but without any requirement for judicial oversight. Those assessed as a terrorism risk currently benefit from initial oversight from the High Court to allow for an evaluative judgment as to the necessity and proportionality of such conditions and have ongoing opportunities for review.

This amendment seeks to introduce judicial review by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. Its oversight of such conditions would be an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed on offenders and provide an opportunity for victims to voice any potential impact on them before an independent body. The significant point is that there should be judicial oversight. The Parole Board, in my view, is an appropriate body as it has the expertise and capacity. The High Court would be more expensive and onerous. I appreciate that the Parole Board does not have oversight of licence conditions set for standard determinate sentence prisoners, whereas a restriction could technically be imposed on them. However, there is no reason why standard determinate sentence prisoners could not be referred to the Parole Board if they were being considered for restrictive zone conditions. My principal point is to try to ensure that there is official oversight of these onerous conditions.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on 20 September there were 26,647 people subject to electronic monitoring, with various types of tags and for a range of different purposes. It has been estimated that this Bill will increase the number of people being tagged by an additional 20,000. In other words, it will more or less double the number of people being tagged.

In our deliberations, we have already heard the Minister make it clear that his understanding is that the vast majority of people who leave prison will be among those 20,000 people. Although it is true that there is guidance which says:

“Offenders released from prison will enter a period of ‘intensive supervision’ tailored to their risk and the type of crime”,


it acknowledges that probation officers will be allowed some discretion as to whether all prisoners leaving will be tagged. My real concern is that probation officers who have heard the Minister say that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged are going to end up tagging the vast majority of prisoners. That is why I have tabled Amendment 110ZA, the purpose of which is to require

“the relevant authority, when considering whether to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a relevant order, to have regard to whether the requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the order and whether the requirement is proportionate considering the individual’s circumstances”.

The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee did an investigation into tagging as it currently stands and looked ahead at what might be coming down the track. We heard a number of worrying bits of evidence. For instance, we heard about a 77 year-old woman recalled to prison simply because there was not a tag small enough to fit her. We heard from many people about the stigma attached while they are wearing a tag, even to the point that people who see the tag—which is pretty obvious in many cases—are frightened and believe they are dangerous. None of this helps them re-establish themselves in their local communities.

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

There are also other measures that are rarely taken into account. One very good example is a prisoner I spoke to who had gone into prison because of his gambling addiction—he had stolen money and gone into prison as a result—and then on release had a curfew order. When he said he wanted to go to a meeting at Gamblers Anonymous, he was told he could not because that took place in the evening when the curfew applied. That seems fairly nonsensical to me.

We concluded as a committee that the MoJ, alongside the judiciary and the Probation Service, should conduct regular reviews to ensure electronic monitoring is being used proportionately across all groups, as well as appropriately among vulnerable groups, in which we highlighted women in particular. In tabling this amendment, I wanted to draw attention to the committee’s concern about the blanket assumption that the vast majority of prisoners would be tagged.

We think this is really important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has said. We will also hear similar arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who has an amendment on this issue in the next group. In group 7, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will raise the important issue of allowing offenders to have a say in this so that they can point out the impact that a tag of one sort or another may have on their lives—not being able to go to work, childcare issues or whatever. My noble friend on the Front Bench has amendments later on whether driving bans and exclusion zones could impact somebody’s ability to reduce reoffending.

This is simply an opportunity for the Minister to explain that he does not really believe that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged and that probation officers, with the expertise which he points out they have, will be able to have due discretion over whether tagging or electronic monitoring is appropriate.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, before I make my remarks, I declare two interests. I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Lords, which is so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am also an officeholder of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs.

The Bill sets out important reforms to reduce the unnecessary use of custodial sentences, tackle over- crowding, reduce offending and protect victims. I welcome all that, but I want to highlight some of my concerns, which I hope we can deal with in Committee.

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

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

While greater use of community orders is desirable, we also know that, as others have said, their full potential will not be maximised until the Probation Service is fully functional. The Government’s commitment to invest £700 million is welcome, but there will be a shortfall of staff and a time lag in getting staff levels and training up to speed to meet the Bill’s expectations. Furthermore, the Probation Service needs community-based voluntary organisations to be effective. When services are provided locally, various agencies can co-operate effectively. In our report, we argue:

“The colocation and co-commissioning of services are the gold standard”.


Investment in the Probation Service and community-based organisations is crucial if we are to maintain public trust in community sentences.

The earned progression model in the Bill differs from that recommended by the independent sentencing review. The Bill does not include incentives to engage in purposeful activity within the prison before release. There are, however, challenges to the implementation of an earned progression framework, particularly while someone is in prison. Issues of concern—some of them have been highlighted—are, of course, the current overcrowding, a lack of purposeful activity, unequal progression within the prison estate, an unfair adjudication system and the problem of added days. These need to be tackled; without doing so, the progression model will be ineffective in easing the prison capacity crisis and reducing offending.

The second part of the progression model will see those released entering intensive supervision and increased use of electronic monitoring or tagging. The Government have confirmed that tagging will be automatically applied to offenders at the point of release into the second part of the progression model. It is estimated that this would double the number of those tagged. Tagging can be an effective part of community supervision, but at present there is no clear strategy, clarity or guidelines on how the expansion of the use of tagging should be monitored and its impact on the Probation Service.

Disproportionate use of tagging can be counter- productive, particularly for women. Furthermore, small technical breaches that do not amount to reoffending could result in incarceration, thus defeating the objective of the Bill. Earlier this month, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice on the use of electronic monitoring, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will refer.

To succeed, this Bill will require investment in the Probation Service, promotion of the benefits of community orders and a clear strategy on tagging. My final concern is, of course, about the Sentencing Council, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I will not go into it; all I will say is that, although I recognise the importance of Parliament’s role in overseeing sentencing policy, forcing accountability and monitoring its effectiveness, this measure risks the Executive curtailing the independence of the Sentencing Council. The reaction to what happened before, when we had the other Bill, was rather over the top and this particular measure is, in my view, unnecessary. We should concentrate on sentencing and supporting the Sentencing Council’s independence in any way we can.

Community Sentences (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for introducing this debate and for her very skilful chairing of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Her thoughtful and probing approach was a real asset to the committee. My thanks also go to the clerks, researchers and special advisers for the excellent support that they provided. It was also a pleasure to work with the other members of the committee.

I also take this opportunity to extend a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and congratulate him on his elevation and appointment as Minister with responsibility for prisons, parole and probation. As a former chairman of the Parole Board, I am delighted that he is undertaking this task. I cannot think of a better person to help us develop a more effective strategy for prisons and shape a more responsible debate about crime and prisons. The point about trust is well noted.

We had a response to the report by the previous Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it was encouraging, but I hope that the new Government will approach this issue with vigour and determined commitment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has covered the findings of our report very comprehensively and admirably. I will focus on just two issues I feel quite strongly about. The first is public opinion on matters of crime, prison and justice. We did not cover this in the report, but we must recognise that we need to shape public opinion to get a better debate on these issues. The second is the Probation Service and a need for better, improved rehabilitation provisions in the community. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the expertise we have in the third sector.

The first thing, which should be said quite emphatically, is that non-custodial sentences are not a soft option. To create support for non-custodial sentences, we need to change public perception and the public narrative. We need to ensure that people understand what prisons are for. We need to do much more to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system and sentencing. An evidence-based change in approach to communication is much needed.

The lack of confidence is exacerbated by the reinforcement of unhelpful beliefs in how we talk about crime and justice: we prioritise punishment and prisons, and leave other necessary measures, such as non-custodial sentences, out of the narrative. We have a duty to ensure that the question of public discourse about crime and punishment is taken very seriously. Offenders, once they have served their sentences, have to be integrated into the community. Rehabilitation is a necessary part of public protection, so those who commit less serious offences can be treated in the community. We know that prison, on the contrary, is a training ground for turning less serious offenders into hardened criminals.

There is also a responsibility for the media to be accurate in reporting and not perpetuate misunderstandings of the law and sentencing. Maybe we should consider whether we need guidelines for the media on the way these things are reported. The Sentencing Council has a role too. It should be supported to expand its communication across both traditional and social media. How to engage the public should be an integral part of the discourse about non-custodial sentences and needs attention. In other words, there is a need for a very proactive role in communicating this. Is this something the Government intend to pay greater attention to?

Moving on to our report, the evidence we gathered shows that offending and reoffending can be reduced through rigorous non-custodial sentences. With the right investment, appropriate provision in the community and support for the Probation Service, non-custodial sentences can be very effective. They reduce reoffending and, in the long run, pressures on prisons. We found that there was a drop in the use of community sentences—their use has more than halved in recent years. Along with changing public perceptions, what is needed is an increase in the provision of effective rehabilitative services in the community, particularly for the treatment of addictions and mental ill-health, with services tailored to the needs of individuals.

In our report, we give examples of good practice drawn from support for women and young offenders. We believe that this can be replicated. Targeted investment in treatment places is required. Those which work best are the ones provided locally and where all the agencies concerned actually co-operate. We also need incentives to encourage low-level repeat offenders to engage with rehabilitation.

The Probation Service should be encouraged to place trust in the expert and experienced third sector. That needs quite a bit of attention. The forthcoming commissioning process is an opportunity. Maybe the focus should be on increasing the numbers, longer contracts, partnership working and adequate funding. Will the Government use the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to apply the lessons of the past two years? Are there plans to use the commissioning process to make the changes recommended in this report?

As we heard, the Probation Service has been subjected to enormous changes. It has been pulled and pushed in different directions, which has led to an identity crisis: pushed into being a law enforcement agency, with a greater emphasis on public protection and less on rehabilitation of offenders. Inevitably, this has led to less concentration on less serious offenders. Faced with massive changes and unrealistic expectations, along with unimaginable case loads, this affected its performance and its ability to focus on less serious offenders and produce timely pre-sentence reports. We need a well-supported, well-trained and adequately resourced Probation Service that is not subjected to constant change and contradictory expectations. The current changes announced on early release will put further pressure on the Probation Service. What steps are being taken to mitigate the impact on it?

It is extremely encouraging that we now have a Minister who is well versed on prison reform. I look forward to his response to our recommendations and, going forward, to a more enlightened debate on penal policy.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with all three of the amendments in this group, and I do so for the reasons that have been powerfully explained by the other speakers. It seems that the issue here is very simple indeed. These clauses are designed to reduce the independence and authority of the Parole Board. New sub-paragraph (2C), in Clause 54(5), refers to the necessity of maintaining public confidence in the Parole Board. In my view, public confidence in the criminal justice system depends vitally on the independence and the authority of the Parole Board. I much regret that the Government should apparently think otherwise.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group, in particular the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. As a former chairman of the Parole Board, albeit some years ago, I will underline a couple of practical issues, because I think this is a point of principle about its independence. The job of the chairman of the Parole Board is a very sensitive one, and they need protection, not a kind of sword hanging over their head that they can be dismissed. That is one point.

The second point is that it will be disastrous and have a very detrimental impact on the work of the Parole Board if its chair is not allowed to be involved in cases. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, involvement means you begin to understand how it is done because the core work of the Parole Board is risk assessment. I know how engaged I was in dealing with the cases, talking to prisoners and getting involved. To me, that was very important when it came to risk assessment. The practical impact of these provisions will be negative, apart from looking at the independence of the Parole Board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No, not at all, but we think that certain Parole Boards can be strengthened usefully by having additional members with the experience that I have described. I have not implied or, I hope, made any criticisms of Parole Boards that have sat in the past or their decisions.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I think that the explanation means that there is no confidence in the judgment of the chairman of the Parole Board to constitute the panels that they think are needed. Why is there a need for direction from the Secretary of State? That is what I fail to understand.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former executive chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales. Although that was some 25 years ago, I have continued to take a keen interest in this work.

I too have received several excellent briefings from organisations concerned about victims of crime and abuse. I share their concerns with regard to victims and agree with the points that a number of noble Lords have made about the weaknesses and gaps in this Bill. I agree that it falls short of its original aim of strengthening and securing the rights of victims. Contrary to the Minister’s comment in his introduction, the changes proposed with regard to parole and prisoners, as Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner has said, will have a negative impact on victims by causing delays. This will be a lost opportunity if we do not take the time to improve the Bill in this House.

However, I will confine my comments to the provisions in Part 4 concerning prisoners and parole. Despite the amendments in the other place giving powers to the Secretary of State to refer certain prisoners’ release decisions where sensitive material may be relevant for reconsideration to a higher court, these provisions undermine the independence of the Parole Board. They are also unworkable, unclear and unnecessary. They will add unnecessary complexity and delay to an already burdened system, not least the Upper Tribunal’s capacity and expertise.

It is not clear what problems these provisions attempt to solve. The Parole Board’s record speaks for itself. There is very little evidence that its decision-making falls short when it comes to public safety. The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state:

“Less than 0.5% of prisoners released by the Parole Board are convicted of a serious further offence within three years of the release decision having been made”.


Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what is broken which this Bill is trying to mend.

It is also inappropriate to introduce a public confidence test as a filter for deciding which cases should be referred to a higher court. As we know, a similar criterion was introduced by the previous Secretary of State in seeking to reduce the number of indeterminate prisoners being moved from closed to open conditions. This was reversed by the current Secretary of State as it was deemed highly subjective and difficult to apply. It was also criticised by the High Court, which stated that this policy criterion adds nothing.

It is dangerous if we use public opinion as the basis for ministerial interference in an independent process. Clauses 53 and 54, which give the Secretary of State the authority to remove the chair of the Parole Board in the interest of public confidence and enable executive interference in the composition of particular board members, are quite alarming. Given the sensitive nature of the role of the chairman of the Parole Board, he or she requires more protection, not less. Such interference will, in effect, undermine the Parole Board’s independence. In a recent judgment, the High Court said that it is

“well established that, when exercising powers in relation to the Board, the Secretary of State must not do anything that undermines or would be perceived as undermining the independence of the Board or that encroaches upon or interferes with the exercise by the Board of its judicial responsibilities”.

As we know, this also risks being incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House why this is necessary when there is already an established process for removing the Parole Board chair from office.

This new power to specifically remove the chairman on the grounds of public confidence can be interpreted only as responding to media outcry or political pressure following an unpopular parole decision. This will damage the Parole Board and undermine its ability to undertake effective risk assessments.

Clause 54 also prohibits the chairman from being involved in individual parole cases and from trying to influence the outcome of the Parole Board’s decision in such cases. The question of whether the chairman is involved in individual cases should be a matter for the board and not a statutory prescription. It is another unnecessary interference. Furthermore, mandating the Secretary of State to make rules to require a certain type of person to sit on panels is wholly inappropriate in terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and basic principles of fairness.

It would breach principles of justice and common-law standards for one party to proceedings to have power over the composition of the judicial panel to which they are presenting their case. These measures do not make any logical sense and should be dropped.

Then, as others have said, there are the proposals to disapply fundamental human rights to prisoners. This would set a very dangerous precedent. These specific disapplications of human rights for people given custodial sentences would undermine one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights: universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human.

Because those in prison are under state control, their human rights are all the more important. They need protection, not erosion, of their fundamental rights. These gradual encroachments into dismantling our human rights framework—as we also saw during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill—are worrying, dangerous and totally unacceptable. It is a slippery slope. On the one hand, the Bill includes a statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act; on the other hand, it contains provisions to disapply a critical aspect of the Act. Can the Minister please explain?

Apart from arguments on grounds of principle against these provisions, there is no practical need for these clauses to disapply the Human Rights Act either. The Government’s argument that these measures protect against judges misusing the powers given to them by the HRA rings hollow when the Government’s own Independent Human Rights Act Review, chaired by Lord Justice Sir Peter Gross, found no evidence of this being a problem. This is a very flimsy justification for these measures.

We all care about public safety and public protection, but we also care about the values and principles that should underlie public policy. These measures will weaken, not strengthen, the work of the Parole Board and, of course, erode the well-founded principles that underpin our public policy.

Lammy Review

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

That is a matter for the Judicial Appointments Commission. I cannot challenge the facts that the noble Baroness presents. This is certainly an area on which continued work is necessary.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, one of the Lammy report’s recommendations was the development of performance indicators for the Prison Service. Have these been developed? If so, can they be made public so that we can see whether progress has been made against those indicators?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Performance indicators in the Prison Service are one of the recommendations that it has not been possible to take forward yet. It is quite difficult to do as it is difficult to devise these indicators. What I can say about the Prison Service is that we are making a strenuous effort to recruit more ethnic minority staff, who, in due course, will work their way up through the system and become more senior. On the latest figures, we are up to about 16%, which is a significant improvement on where we were.

Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Prashar]

That this House regrets that the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 introduce a “single view” procedure which (1) will prevent forensic psychologists, prison and probation officers, and other specialists working for or commissioned by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from making recommendations to the Parole Board on the release or transfer of prisoners to open conditions, (2) has potentially profound implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to Parole Board oversight, and (3) has been made by the made negative procedure, with no external consultation or parliamentary debate.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former executive chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales from 1997 to 2000. This regret Motion relates to a specific part of the statutory instrument which amends Part B of Schedule 1 to the Parole Board Rules 2019 to allow the Secretary of State to give a single view on suitability for release or transfer in certain cases. The introduction of the “single view” procedure forms part of a wider series of changes to the parole system introduced by the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab.

The first ground for regret is that the specific change implemented by the statutory instrument—preventing forensic psychologists, prison and probation officers and other specialists working for or commissioned by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service making recommendations to the Parole Board—was introduced without consultation. This meant that those with experience of the parole system had no input into the new statutory instrument. Such radical changes to how the parole system works should have been implemented only after those who work in it were consulted. The manner in which these changes were introduced, with no consultation even with the Parole Board, undermines confidence in the professionals and the system.

The second ground for regret is that the Government have simply failed to establish that there is a problem which justifies the package of changes made. In other words, there is no evidence of the problem the changes purport to solve. These changes may well result in increased risk to the public, as the Parole Board is denied the benefit of expert opinion and the opportunity to see how prisoners respond in conditions of lower security. As we know, having the benefit of expert opinion and proper risk assessment is important to ensure that prisoners are prepared for reintegration into society.

The reason for introducing the “single view” procedure was to respond to recent cases in which expert witnesses employed by the Secretary of State took a different view from that of the Minister. Parole panels hear different opinions and, after consideration, reach their own conclusions. The Secretary of State may disagree and can now insist on a reconsideration. This provides an adequate remedy in such situations. Therefore, excluding the input from expert witnesses appears extreme and ill judged.

The department expects the “single view” procedure to operate rarely, in perhaps 150 cases out of over 3,000 annually, but the rule changes go much further. They prevent witnesses employed or commissioned by the Secretary of State providing a recommendation to any parole hearing either in writing or orally. This represents a major interference with the Parole Board’s ability to operate independently and undercuts the independence of a court-like body. It also undermines the professional standing of witnesses, for whom risk assessment is a core skill.

The “single view” procedure is currently subject to an ongoing judicial review in the case of Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice. In this case, the court has provided interim relief solely to the plaintiff on the basis that the parole panel should be free to ask any questions relevant to its task and expect the witness to answer them. This includes asking an expert witness for their recommendation. This judicial review is an important test of the “single view” procedure.

My third regret is the change in the criteria by which prisoners may move to open prison. These changes were expressly opposed by the Parole Board and the National Association of Probation Officers. As we know, the period spent in open conditions is a practical aid to resettlement in the community, and considered recommendations by the Parole Board, albeit subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, are crucial for public protection. These directions had three tests: that the prisoner is assessed as having a low risk of absconding; that a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release and to prepare for possible release on licence into the community; and that the transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The second test is controversial as it sets the bar for open release very high and excludes prisoners who have progressed well and for whom a move might be considered beneficial, rather than essential. It prevents the decision-makers from considering whether a move to open prison might reduce risk and improve the prospect of safe release.

The third test—that the transfer to open prison would not undermine public confidence—is completely open-ended, and no guidance has been provided as to the circumstances in which it might apply. Now, only the Secretary of State considers the public confidence criteria, a task which essentially falls on officials. This has led to a dramatic reversal in the proportion of prisoners being approved for transfer to open conditions.

The Parole Board has estimated that the consequent delays may add 800 a year to the number requiring prison places. The Prison Reform Trust has recently received data from the Parole Board showing that, prior to these changes, 94% of recommendations for open conditions made by the Parole Board were accepted; since the change in criteria, and despite a falling number of recommendations, only 87% have been accepted.

Since the Worboys case in 2018, the parole system and the Parole Board have been subject to multiple reviews; some have been independent of the ministry, but the root-and-branch review prompted by the 2019 Conservative manifesto was conducted by unnamed officials within the department. Only aspects limited in scope were subject to public consultation, but change introduced by this statutory instrument formed no part of that review, and the Parole Board was given almost no notice of it, still less consulted.

The Parole Board has an enviable record; in recent cases only one in 200 releases resulted in a person being charged with a further serious offence. Every time a prisoner absconds, or a person released on parole commits a serious further offense, public concern is wholly understandable, but it is important that the response to these cases is proportionate. The Parole Board has co-operated in an exemplary way, with some radical changes in its operation. Its willingness to provide the public with reasons for decisions in individual cases, its adoption of a reconsideration process, and its skill in undertaking the complex challenge of holding some hearings in public all show that the Parole Board is open to new ideas. But some of what has been forced upon it in recent months has clearly been ill-thought through, and I hope that the Minister might now be open to a conversation on how these aspects of reform might be adjusted.

To conclude, I ask the Minister why the Secretary of State decided not to consult before introducing the statutory instrument, and if he will do so now. Given the dramatic reversal in the proportion of prisoners now being approved for transfer to open conditions, what is the Minister’s assessment of the probable delay before those prisoners may now be safely released from prison?

On the “single view” procedure, what is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the new procedures on public protection, particularly in cases where decisions on release or transfer are complex, and where the Parole Board will not now have the benefit of clear recommendations from officials? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not in a position to answer all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, was kind enough to ask; I think there were six and maybe several sub-questions within the six. I will have a look at the transcript, if I may, and answer what I can in due course as with other questions asked by noble Lords this evening. There was no consultation in this case. This is within the legislation; that is the procedure that is normally adopted for amendments to these rules. I am perfectly happy on behalf of the Government to say that we will keep this issue under review and see how it works out. There is a case in the High Court, which I cannot comment on, which may affect the outcome. The essential point is that these rule changes in no way undervalue the importance of the reports or the assessments that will continue to be provided by prison and probation staff and psychologists. Those will remain vital. In closing, I pay tribute to all the staff in the service who provide those reports and reassure them that their role will continue to be vital, as heretofore.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I know that time is rushing on and the Front Bench is keen to close the debate. I first want to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to this debate and say that I respect the alternative views expressed by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.

I found the Minister’s response rather confusing. He was trying to justify the unjustifiable. If I wanted to refute every point, it would take me about half an hour, which I do not have. This really highlights why it is important to have a consultation—a proper debate—so we are not eroding the fundamental principles on which the Parole Board actually operates. At the outset he said it was an arm’s-length body and should be respected as such. Also, if may say so, experts can give their opinion but from my experience the Parole Board hears different, conflicting views and it makes up its own mind. It does a risk assessment, which it is good at. Its record shows that.

I ask the Minister, having listened to this debate and felt the unease round the House, whether the Government will be willing to meet to see how some of these things are going to be discussed. We need clarity about what actually is intended. I am leaving this debate more confused than enlightened. But I thank the Minister for the response and everybody else for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, it is impossible to do justice to such an amazing and astonishing person and such an amazing and astonishing life. I am also conscious of the hour, so I will keep my reflections light but give some memories from Scotland, Royal Deeside and Balmoral.

I was once the Member of Parliament for Balmoral, but my reflections go much further back and my memories start much earlier. I used to stand each year in the village of Bieldside, which is at the beginning of the journey up to Balmoral Castle, with my grandmother and mother. We knew this spot where the Queen’s car—one of the high-top cars with lots of glass—would slow down because the Queen knew there was a particularly beautiful garden there, and she would ask the driver to stop to have a look at it. We would stand there and she would give us her big smile, which has been mentioned a lot, and the kind of wave that I had never experienced before in my life as a young child.

We did that every year, until one year she slowed down and the beautiful garden had been completely removed and replaced with climbing frames and swings, because a young family had moved into the area. Sadly, her habit of slowing down stopped after that. She would continue on that journey up to the castle, and I think everyone knows just how much she was loved and respected in Ballater, Braemar and the village of Crathie. All the talk in my early years was about the possibility of bumping into the Queen or another member of the Royal Family in a shop or on a country walk, and just how important it was to respect them and allow them to have as close to a normal life as possible when they came, at this time of year, to Royal Deeside.

Fast-forward to the State Opening of the new Scottish Parliament, where I was one of the new Members. It is important to remember that the Queen played a very positive and central role in the early days of the Parliament and its establishment. After the ceremony, my two year-old daughter Mirrhyn was the first to go down the steps of the new Chamber and to sit on the Queen’s chair. We told her that it was a throne, but in truth it was the best-looking chair that parliamentary officials could find for that day.

When we went outside for the fly-past from Concorde and the Red Arrows, my daughter was still very excited by it all and insisted on knowing which of the dignitaries was the Queen. She was too young to recognise her, and nobody was wearing a crown that day. We said, “Can you see David up there in the Royal box—David who was feeding you crisps in our dining room the other week?” This David was Lord Steel of Aikwood, the new Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. She said, “Yeah, I can see him, dad.” We told her, “Well, the Queen is the lady sitting next to David.” Of course, David liked this story a lot and dined out on it for quite some time. He even managed to tell the Queen the story. He confirmed that she laughed a lot when she heard it.

I saw the Queen at so many sombre occasions, very often in churches or at official ceremonies. I remember being quite nervous and intimidated when I was asked to be Minister in attendance at one of her Holyrood garden parties. My wife was standing in the tea and cucumber sandwiches tent with the Countess of Airlie, the Queen’s very good friend and one of her most senior ladies-in-waiting, when up to the two of them came the Earl of Airlie, who accidentally knocked my wife’s hat clean off. When this story was duly recounted to the Queen, she laughed out loud and gently scolded the Earl with the biggest of smiles. It was a different side—something lighter and closer to normality in a life less normal.

Of course, in this place it was the exact opposite. Here in front of us, the Queen’s Speech, the Crown, the orb, the sceptre, Black Rod marching on her no, through to summon the Members of Parliament—there is nothing normal in any of this; it is pomp and ceremony at its peak. However, even on these grand and sparkling occasions, there were insights. The Queen and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were determined in their 90s to walk up the staircase from their ceremonial carriage to the Royal Gallery, under the glare of television cameras and completely unaided, and then into the Robing Room, which always looks so immaculate—except, you work out, when the Queen is there. All those tables and chairs from the Royal Gallery are piled high and it looks cluttered and chaotic, like backstage at a theatre.

Then there is that classic story about the Queen and Prince Philip leaving in the lift with Black Rod. He pressed the button to go down to the ceremonial carriages and instead the lift went up to the second floor. When the doors opened, there was a young lad with his paper cup of canteen coffee, waiting to step into a lift which he quickly realised contained Black Rod, Prince Philip and the Queen. I suspect that in the midst of Black Rod’s huge embarrassment, she was stifling mischievous laughter.

She was the quintessential Queen, unquestionably, the like of which we will never see again. Tomorrow, her journey through Bieldside will not be to Balmoral. Instead, she will go slowly in the opposite direction. Hundreds will stand there in sombre sadness but also in a show of their love. May she rest in peace.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, in our beloved Queen we have lost the mother of our nation and the mother of the Commonwealth. When we lose someone so reassuring and constantly present in our lives, we lose a part of ourselves, but in the words of Rabindranath Tagore:

“We should not say in grief that she is no more but say in thankfulness that she was.”


I say in thankfulness that she was.

I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty on several occasions in my career. She was a constant in my life from my childhood. I was born in Kenya, where Her Majesty came as a Princess in 1952 and left as our Queen. I have vivid memories of the celebrations in Kenya for her Coronation, and of receiving a red mug with her image on it. Little did I know then that I would have the privilege of some very close and memorable encounters with Her Majesty, and that she would become an inspiration from whom I would learn so much just by observing her in action.

My first encounter with Her Majesty was in the late 1980s, when I was the director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and she was its royal patron. Her Majesty graced NCVO’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations and won over everyone with her formidable charisma, her infectious smile, her knowledge and her warmth. She left an indelible impression on me. Her Majesty’s support and service for the UK’s voluntary sector throughout her lifetime was phenomenal and she was much revered and loved by all in civil society.

My second encounter was when I was chair of the Royal Commonwealth Society, the oldest Commonwealth non-governmental organisation, in whose work Her Majesty took a personal and keen interest. In 2007, she opened the extension to the RCS’s premises. As we have heard, the Commonwealth was very close to her heart. It is no exaggeration to say that the Commonwealth has been held together by her personality. Her political skills, and belief in justice and democracy, helped create the modern Commonwealth. Her Majesty was far ahead of her time when, in 1953, she articulated a forward-looking vision of the Commonwealth and said:

“The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is entirely a new conception, built on highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace.”


I am sorry to say that seven decades on some people still do not comprehend that new conception. The genuineness with which Her Majesty related to the leaders of the Commonwealth, even in the face of the most extraordinary challenges, such as apartheid, speaks volumes about the success of the Commonwealth under her leadership.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very difficult subject. It raises moral, ethical, religious and practical issues. Understandably, there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. I respect and understand the arguments advanced by those who are against the Bill. I have considered those arguments, but, on balance, I remain in support of this well-drafted Bill, admirably introduced by my noble friend Lady Meacher.

I remain in support because, as others have said, this limited Bill is about choice and compassion. It is about autonomy and the right to end one’s life, subject to stringent safeguards. Those who oppose the Bill argue that palliative care is the answer. The Bill is not a substitute for palliative care but an additional choice alongside it. In other words, it is about the right to ask for medical help to die as one of the options in the range of palliative care options.

We also know that excellent palliative care is very important, but no amount of palliative care can address concerns regarding loss of autonomy or control of one’s bodily functions. Suffering at the end of life can manifest itself in many deeply distressing ways apart from pain. This Bill would enable those who do not wish to be forced to endure horrific conditions to seek assisted death.

Also, the current, unregulated practices at the end of life are unsatisfactory. It is time that the availability of assisted death to a restricted and clearly circumscribed set of patients should be brought into the open and regulated, so that those who wish an assisted death can have that choice.

I also understand those who oppose this Bill on religious grounds, but arguments derived from religious belief should be kept to one side, as there is no compulsion on those who have religious objections.

In my view, this Bill deserves proper scrutiny and consideration, so that there can be a proper examination of the safeguards it proposes, some of the practical issues that have been raised and their viability, and, of course, for the reason so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I very much hope that it will clear Second Reading so that it can be examined fully at later stages.