Lord Foster of Bath
Main Page: Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Foster of Bath's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. At Second Reading, I drew attention to my real concern about the potential lack of resources, in terms of both personnel and finances, to deliver all of the things contained in this Bill. Therefore, it seems very important to me that, as we go forward, we are collecting as much data as possible as the Bill beds in—information on what sort of support requirements are needed to help prevent people re-offending, on what help is being provided and on how much of that provided help is actually being taken up. I look at Amendments 56 and 58 in this group, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as very good examples illustrating the need to collect this sort of data. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 58A in the next group, and, when we get to group 7, there are two amendments from me—Amendments 131 and 133—that would have the same effect.
So, across the Committee, there is clearly concern about gathering information as we move forward. It would be helpful and save time in later deliberations if the Minister when he responds could give the broad thrust of the Government’s view on this particular issue.
I end with a point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who said that it is very clear that not only should we gather this data but we should have some explanation behind the data. For example, we may well have a situation where an offender, in prison or on a non-custodial sentence, is expected to do a number of days of education or skills work yet does not do that amount. The question is, why is that?
Well, from my knowledge of what happens in prison, it is certainly the case that a number of prisoners do not fulfil the required number of days simply because classrooms and staff are not available. I also know that in prisons it is often the case that prisoners get notified of an available slot for their education after that slot’s work has already started. So, my noble friend is absolutely right that, in addition, we must collect information about the availability of resources that are not being taken up.
Finally, speaking as chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I say that we have come to the very clear conclusion that we do not like the use of “rehabilitation” and think the public would find it easier to understand if we talked about “activities designed to reduce reoffending”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explained very well some of the reasons why this group of amendments is so important. I note, as somebody who is a fan of rehabilitation—although I quite like the rebranding that has just been suggested—that the truth of the matter is that what passes for rehabilitation, certainly in prison, is often shoddy, not available or not up to scratch. By the way, that is not a criticism of the people trying to deliver it. It is for all sorts of reasons.
I am very keen that we think hard about what kind of rehabilitation is being offered in the community. I just cannot see how, even with a pledge to invest £700 million more into probation services, the Government can deliver what is in the Bill. This is part of the problem I have with some of the suggestions around rehabilitating people via community sentences. I am worried that rehabilitation and community sentences will be discredited if this goes wrong. The amendments are trying very hard to ensure compliance and that sentences are completed, and that the victims and the whole of the community and society understand what they are trying to do. That is why these amendments are crucial.
I want to state very clearly that community sentences are criminal sentences. They are not supposed to be a soft option. They have to be taken as stringently and seriously as if you put somebody in prison. If somebody is put in prison and they escape—however that might occur—we think that they are trying to escape justice. My concern is that, if we do not have the resources, or do not keep our eyes on ensuring that community sentences happen properly, that is escaping justice. Therefore, it has to be taken very seriously.
I have some concerns about Amendment 52 in relation to mandatory “healthy relationships” courses. I have some cynicism that the way to solve the problem of violence against women and girls is through education. I have a certain dread of the kind of excuse being, “Well, you know, I committed that offence because I didn’t know that consent was needed. I wouldn’t have done the rape if I’d been sent on a good course”. I hesitate to say this, but some people are violent against women and girls because they despise women and girls: it is not a question of having sent them on a well-resourced course.
I have heard an awful lot of excuses in recent years from people who say, “I wouldn’t be a sex offender if only this had happened”. Well, you would not have been a sex offender if you had not committed the offence of sexual assault. So I do not want this to be an excuse for letting those largely male perpetrators off the hook.
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.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I very briefly beg the indulgence of the Committee just to respond to my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems that he wishes to will the ends but not the means as regards my Amendments 61 and 66. I am rather surprised he did not know where every pub was in his constituency, because when I was in the other place I knew where every pub was in my constituency. That said, I say to him respectfully that it is perfectly reasonable in terms of data management to utilise the regulatory and the licensing regimes of local authorities to reach every pub and drinking establishment in a geographical area, and certainly within 20 miles. That is not something that is beyond the wit of the Probation Service to work with local authorities so to do.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 201 (community order requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(2)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 207(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (3) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(4) In section 287 (community requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(5)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 291(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (5) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(6) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 4D (inserted by section 16(8)(a)) insert—“Part 4EGambling premises entry prohibition requirement8E (1) In this Code “gambling premises entry prohibition requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement prohibiting the offender from entering gambling premises.(2) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering gambling premises at any time in a particular period or at particular times in a particular period.(3) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering—(a) particular gambling premises,(b) gambling premises of a particular kind,(c) gambling premises in a particular area or areas, or(d) any gambling premises.(4) Where the court makes a relevant order imposing a gambling premises entry prohibition requirement, the following must be specified in the order—(a) the period for which the requirement has effect; (b) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises at particular times, those times;(c) if the order prohibits the offender from entering particular gambling premises, those premises;(d) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises of a particular kind, that kind of gambling premises;(e) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises in a particular area or areas, the limits of that area or those areas.(5) In this paragraph “gambling premises” means premises used for any of the activities specified in section 150(1) (a) to (e) of the Gambling Act 2005.”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 70 I will also talk to the other amendments in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Gold, for their support. I have indicated my support for the amendment in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. With one caveat, which I will come to, I am also attracted by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform because the thrust of this group of amendments is about the lack of reference to tackling gambling disorder in the criminal justice system and the need to do something about it.
Anyone who was looking at the BBC News headlines only today may have noticed the headline, “Skipton gambling addict fuelled habit with company funds”. The article goes on to point out:
“A web developer has been jailed for fraud after siphoning more than £500,000 from the company he worked for to fuel his gambling addiction”.
Disorders caused by drug and alcohol addiction are frequently referred to in all the legislation, procedures and processes, and in all the support, help and guidance that is given about how the Probation Service, the Prison Service and the judiciary should handle various stages when a suspect or offender engages with the criminal justice system. Gambling disorder is not; I believe it should be, and these amendments offer a way forward.
Part of the role of sentencing is to consider how best to reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending. Where, for example, it has been identified that a person is a drug addict or that he or she committed crime to raise funds to pay for the habit, that is frequently taken into account, for example by adding a treatment condition or giving a non-custodial sentence rather than a custodial one, so that more effective treatment can be provided to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since screening for gambling disorder rarely happens, it is not taken into account in the sentencing process, or in any subsequent stages during either a custodial or a non-custodial sentence. Indeed, judges, for example, do not routinely consider gambling disorder as a mitigating factor in the same way that they do for drugs and alcohol disorders.
In the other place, when a similar concern was raised, Ministers argued that gambling is a mental health issue, and since mental health forms part of the screening and sentencing decision, therefore gambling is covered and there is no need to take any further action. To some extent, that is actually true. Both the World Health Organization and the internationally recognised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put alcohol and drugs and gambling disorders under the umbrella of mental health disorders. But critically, all three are then linked under a sub-category, “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders”. It is clear that the WHO and the diagnostic manual treat drug, alcohol and gambling as a separate group in which all three need to be considered. For quite a long time, however, we have referred in all the documentation to mental health and drug and alcohol issues only, separating out drug and alcohol from other forms of mental health issues since they require a separate approach—gambling is not mentioned.
This is actually borne out in the official documents that are currently used in the main offender assessment system, OASys, which is used by both prison and probation staff. Guides on OASys say it is used by prison and probation officers to assess the needs and risks of offenders, specifically the risk of reoffending and the risk of harm. The resulting assessment then helps formulate plans designed to reduce those risks. Chapter 3 of the latest OASys guide lists “factors linked to offending” under section 3.2.1, “Likelihood of Reoffending Assessment”. The list covers things like accommodation, education, training, employability and relationships. Drug misuse and alcohol misuse also appear, but there is no reference to gambling despite the very clear evidence, as we heard from that quote, of the links between gambling disorder and crime.
Currently, the system fails in multiple interrelated ways. First, identification is inconsistent and unreliable. Many individuals enter court or prison without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Secondly, courts rarely have access to gambling-specific psychological reports, leaving judges without the evidence needed to make informed decisions about sentencing. Thirdly, there is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences. Fourthly, within prisons, treatment and peer support are largely absent and gambling culture remains pervasive. Fifthly, upon release, continuity of care is inconsistent: individuals are discharged without referral to community gambling services, without peer support and without family support frameworks, leaving them highly vulnerable to relapse and to reoffend.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which raise important issues around tackling gambling harms and the harms caused by other addictions. Just last week I met a prisoner at HMP Wormwood Scrubs whose life have been devastated by gambling harm. Although the data on gambling is limited, I understand that this is an important issue impacting the lives of offenders and their families.
Amendments 70 and 78 would introduce new community order requirements: one prohibiting an offender from entering a gambling establishment, and one introducing a mandatory treatment requirement. I wholeheartedly share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to supporting offenders whose lives are impacted by gambling. I assure noble Lords that courts already have the power to prohibit offenders serving a community or suspended sentence from entering gambling premises. They can do this through a prohibited activity requirement.
However, I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the menu of community requirements under close review. Clause 17 introduces a power to add or amend community requirements using secondary legislation. This will provide further flexibility to ensure that the framework is kept relevant to the offending behaviour.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, speak to the wider issue of how the criminal justice system can support and treat those whose offending is driven by addiction or mental health needs. I know this issue is close to noble Lords’ hearts and I agree completely that alongside effective punishment we have a duty to rehabilitate offenders with gambling addictions and other needs. We must provide them with the right support throughout the criminal justice system to rebuild their lives. I hope it will help your Lordships for me to set out the ways in which we are already doing so.
Pre-sentence reports help the court identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental ill-health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be considered at sentencing where they are relevant to the offence or the offender’s culpability. Courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to someone’s offending. Where appropriate, courts may consider mental health treatment requirements, funded by NHS England as part of a community or suspended sentence order, where mental health has been identified as an underlying factor. The use of these requirements has increased significantly in recent years.
Alongside this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, homelessness or unemployment. We also work closely with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for offenders and aligned with prison and probation services. This includes increasing the use and effectiveness of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community and suspended sentences.
For those in prison, there is already a statutory duty for prison governors to provide health services in custody, with our approach guided by the principle of equivalence of care to patients in the community. We are ensuring that prison leavers remain in treatment on release by strengthening links to prison, probation and treatment providers.
Finally, support for those with gambling-related harms in the criminal justice system will be bolstered by funding from the statutory gambling levy. The Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of this. I will also reach out to representatives in the gambling industry and will look to host a round table with them next year to better understand the impacts of gambling harm and what more we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, also tabled Amendment 108, which would give new powers to set licence conditions prohibiting offenders from entering a gambling establishment. I want to be clear that the provisions in Clause 24 will support our aim to give practitioners a full range of tools to manage and support offenders. Existing powers enable probation to set additional licence conditions related to gambling, including prohibiting offenders on licence from gambling or making payments for other games of chance.
Probation also has an existing power to request an additional licence condition, directing offenders to undertake activities to address their gambling activities, where necessary and proportionate to their risk. HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. We will be looking at issuing operational guidance to practitioners on effective usage of gambling-related licence conditions, alongside implementation of the new conditions set out in Clause 24. I would very much like to harness the considerable expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on this topic. I hope that he will be keen to work with me and my officials as this work develop0s.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for his Amendment 101. I reassure him that probation practitioners carefully consider what licence conditions to recommend as part of their supervision and management of an offender. They can tailor conditions to the specific needs of the offender, in line with managing public protection.
Although there is no formal process for representations, this is not considered to be necessary. Probation practitioners draw on a range of information when applying licence conditions and discuss conditions with offenders as part of release planning. They must ensure that licence conditions are necessary and proportionate, and they can grant necessary exemptions to licence conditions for rehabilitative purposes. This will be the same for the new conditions.
I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for allowing the Committee to debate these important subjects, but I hope I have explained why the Government do not agree that these amendments are necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for agreeing, in principle at least, with the amendments and rightly saying that he wants them accepted and implemented, but only when he can be convinced that they can be enforced. In so doing, he draws attention to the well-known problem of the shortage of support, even at present. For example, of those who are identified as having a mental health problem when they enter prison, only 1.8% actually even start treatment. He is quite right that we have to do much more. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also pointed that out. We must do much more about the provision of support.
The Minister also described this as a serious problem. He is quite right, because the percentage of people in prison who suffer from a gambling disorder is many times greater than in the population at large. The amount of gambling that goes on in prison is now very well documented and, sadly, on occasion involves prison officers.
The one disappointing thing in the Minister’s response is that he seemed to believe that it is still perfectly all right to separate out from mental health the two issues of drugs and alcohol but not even to include the words “gambling disorder” in the list, the assessment procedure and so on. I hope I can persuade him, in the discussions he is obviously keen to have—I am keen to have them as well—that we can find a way forward. I am very keen indeed to ensure that those words are included in the relevant documentation. Having said that, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.