Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I think there are problems with that as to how the discretion would be exercised and who would set what rules. I will not spend any longer on this, but I suggest that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton was right when he drew attention to the interim guidance supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We really have to think about this. We need information—we need some sunlight—and if we do not have accurate information, the wrong information will be put out there, will be used by populists and will be dangerous.

We need accurate information. If it is limited to serious and Crown Court cases, that would at least be an important start. We do not need to know the ethnicity of every driving offender—that is clearly unnecessary—but why not for offences of violence and everything else in the Crown Court? If it can be done, let us just look at it.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for giving way. Why do we need to know anyone’s ethnicity? Why is that relevant at the stage that we are talking about? I am afraid I just do not get this argument. Why is ethnicity relevant and to whom is it relevant?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

It is only one of the factors included. I did not mean to select just that. I was using it as shorthand for what is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment, which includes country of birth—which I suggest is relevant—and nationality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading; I was not present due to domestic circumstances. Had I been present, I would have spoken on the importance—following on from the remarks of noble Lord, Lord Foster—of addressing the problems that we have with those who are sentenced with addiction problems. Here, I have written down “whether it be drink, drugs, gambling, sex, sugar, smoking”, and so on—we find new addictions coming along all the time these days.

In this group, I speak to Amendments 97 and 107. The purpose behind these probing amendments is fairly simple: to ensure that, for addicted prisoners who are released before they can be classed as well on the way to sobriety—this can cover gambling as well as drink and drugs—the Ministry of Justice will be prepared to provide funding, maybe from the prison education budget, to fund the admission of these prisoners into residential recovery and rehabilitation centres so that they can continue with their recovery.

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

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned in the earlier debate, many of these centres are struggling. We have seen a reduction in the number of rehabs around the country by a half over the last 10 years; we have far fewer than we ever used to have. Many of the problems that they are encountering are, obviously, financial. Many of the patients they now take in are funded primarily by the major insurance companies; alternatively, they get support from charities. This really means that, increasingly, we are finding that those who are at the bottom end, who are not working and do not have insurance, or who have little funds themselves or do not have contact with charities, including prisoners, are finding it so difficult these days to get into residential recovery.

What I am suggesting with these rather modest little amendments is that, when prisoners are released, if they are in recovery and have not completed their course, they should be permitted to go into residential centres if they are able to find those that are willing to take them, and that, in turn, the cost of their residential accommodation and treatment would be met out of a budget to be provided by the Ministry of Justice—I would suggest it should come out of its education fund as a way of finding the means. This would be money well invested. Hopefully, it would ensure people found sobriety and would break the cycle that we see so often of people going into prison due to their addiction, coming out, getting back in old company, drinking and drugging and gambling again, going around the circle and going back into prison again, which is extraordinarily costly to society.

There is an opportunity, if we get people into a residential recovery, that not only do the prisoners benefit, but it benefits their family and the wider community in the best possible way. I hope the Minister is prepared to give some favourable consideration to these ideas.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and declared my interests. I cannot start my short amendment without saying how personally delighted I am with the Minister’s department today for having raised legal aid rates in a number of very important areas such as crime, immigration and housing.

My amendment would introduce an express right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations about the necessity or the proportionality of the conditions. This amendment has the support of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been very helpful in its advice.

Of course, those of us who enthusiastically support the Bill agree that, in order for prisons not to be overused, tough new measures are sensibly proposed to restrain the behaviour and activities of offenders on release from prison—a suite of new and tough licence conditions. I think the Committee will agree that licence conditions must, as a matter of law, be both necessary and proportionate.

This amendment gives offenders an express opportunity to make representations without disturbing—this is the important part of the amendment—the Secretary of State’s, or, in reality, the probation officer’s ultimate decision as to which conditions to impose. There is no question of overriding the probation officer because you do not like it; the request is that the offender should be able to make some representation about the suitability or otherwise as far as their individual case is concerned.

This can be a safeguard against disproportionate and inappropriate use of conditions, which can, of course, lead to increased recalls if the conditions are wrong or not suitable, and thus increased pressure, leading to even more pressure on our prison system, which is under a lot of pressure already.

An unintended consequence would be where conditions might impact on, for example, resettlement or other matters such as employment and health care.

The idea behind this amendment is, of course, to prevent unnecessary recalls to prison. There is a slight irony at present: only for the most serious offences, where releasing is the decision of the Parole Board, is there a formal avenue for the offender to make representations, but there is not one for offenders who do not have to go through the Parole Board process.

This is a quick and a modest amendment, and an attempt to find a way of ensuring that all offenders who may be subject to these measures—whether they are the new, tough measures or not—can at least make representations before they are imposed.