Sentencing Bill
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
“An annual report on prison capacity(1) The Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, make a report on prison capacity.(2) When reporting on prison capacity under this section, the Lord Chancellor must include the available data on—(a) prison population projections,(b) projection for the supply of prison places,(c) information on prison service staffing, and(d) information on probation service staffing and caseloads.(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The Lord Chancellor must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(5) If this section comes into force after the beginning of a financial year, the first report may relate to a period beginning with the day on which that section comes into force and ending with the end of the next financial year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to publish an annual report on prison capacity, in line with the commitment in its Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2024 for a statutory annual statement. In line with the 2024 statement, it also requires the publication of information on probation service staffing and caseloads, given the importance of probation service capacity in managing offenders with community orders, suspended sentences and on licence.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 88, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Before I do so, it is important for us to understand why the various proposers have thought them necessary. In one way or another, most address a concern about the existing capacity within the MoJ and the very big concern that there will be insufficient capacity to deal with the new responsibilities arising from the Bill.
Most, but not all, of the amendments focus on staffing in the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Damning concerns about staffing levels in those two services regularly appear in the annual reports of the prisons and probation inspectorates. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the concern about prison officer numbers and pointed out that, as the prison population has risen, the number of prison officers has declined. Prison officers are leaving at an alarming rate—17% each year—and half of them do so after less than one year in service.
On the Probation Service, Ministers themselves have acknowledged that they have inherited a service “under immense pressure”, and the Chief Inspector of Probation has referred to “chronic understaffing”. The Bill envisages more sanctioned early releases from prisons and an almost doubling of the number of people being tagged. That means more people to be supervised and therefore more work for probation officers. Currently, approximately 7,000 officers are doing this existing supervision work, and that number is considered inadequate. As one senior probation officer put it, when talking about things going wrong:
“It’s infuriating when some of us are being told it’s our fault we’re not doing enough and that we need to up our game, but actually the workload is sky high”.
I will give an example of why this really matters. Just one year ago, 73 out of every 100 released prisoners were recalled to prison. By June this year, the recall population had reached 13,538. That is the equivalent of nine prisons, costing £3.5 billion a year. Most are recalled not for new crimes but for failing to comply with their licence conditions. That is often because, frankly, they have no home or income, and they are supervised by an overworked probation officer. Preparation for release is minimal, and support afterwards is thinner still. The easy solution for these overworked probation officers, when facing licence breaches, is to get the offenders off their books and avoid any comeback if something goes wrong by taking the risk-averse route and simply sending them back to prison.
That is the situation now, but some research has indicated that, to effectively manage existing case loads and the new ones that will arise from the Bill, an extra 10,000 probation officers will be needed. The Minister will talk about how we can use new technology to help. He is absolutely right, and we fully support him, but that alone will not resolve the situation. He will also talk about the 1,000 additional probation officers already recruited and the 1,300 additional officers the Government hope to recruit. He will talk about the £700 million over four years of extra funds for the Probation Service. We do not yet know how that money is to be allocated, but it is certain that not all of it will be spent on new staff. It is my contention that combining these measures will certainly help and certainly be welcome, but they seem unlikely to meet current and new demands combined. As I said at Second Reading, I therefore fear that we will not have the means in either the Prison Service or the Probation Service to achieve the ends.
That is the context of the amendments in this group, which fall into two categories. The first consists of amendments which call for regular reports on capacity issues. The second consists of amendments that, in effect, would prevent the main measures in the Bill being enacted until proof of adequate capacity to deliver them, or that they will deliver what is intended, is provided.
In the first category, reports on capacity issues, my Amendment 88 serves as a clear illustration. It would require an annual report from the Lord Chancellor on prison population predictions, projections of the supply of new prison places, information on Prison Service staffing and information on Probation Service staffing and case loads.
Such reports have been produced from time to time. Indeed, there was one last year, but that report had something additional within in it. It included a very specific commitment by this Government that there would be a statutory requirement for similar reports on an annual basis. I confess that I was surprised not to see that commitment appear in the Bill. I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government are still committed to this type of annual capacity report on a statutory basis, that its failure to be included in the Bill was an oversight, and that he is grateful to me for giving them the opportunity to rectify the oversight. I hope, therefore, that he will support the amendment.
I hope the Minister will look equally favourably on other amendments in this group calling for reports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 110ZB, on an annual report on the availability in prisons of education and vocational provision, and the training of staff to deliver them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has Amendment 139A, on a report on resources for the Probation Service, including regional resources, and their Amendment 153 is on a report about the operability of the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill. My own Amendment 110ZB is on an annual report looking specifically at Probation Service resources to implement electronic monitoring or tagging provisions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking noble Lords for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate the capacity of the criminal justice system. I must of course start by saying that this Bill is a necessary step towards ensuring that we have a sustainable justice system.
I turn first to Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to greater transparency on prison capacity. We showed this by publishing the first annual statement last December, and we will shortly publish the 2025 edition. However, setting the timing of publication and the content of the report in primary legislation would create unnecessary rigidity. Our goal is to increase transparency without compromising flexibility.
I now turn to the amendments that address the issue of capacity within the Probation Service. I am pleased that this gives me another opportunity to pay tribute to our incredible probation staff, who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I am proud to be their colleague.
I begin by recognising the close interest of probation trade unions in Amendment 134, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations; their input will continue to inform our approach. I also thank my noble friend for mentioning the two horrendous attacks on our probation staff in Preston and Oxford. These are fine public servants who turn up to work to protect the public; they, and all probation staff, should not be in fear of their safety. I send both my colleagues best wishes for their recovery.
We recognise HM Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder and value its involvement in implementing the provisions of this Bill, but it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny.
While we are sympathetic to Amendment 139A, we fear it would duplicate existing reporting mechanisms and risk delaying measures in the Bill that would themselves improve probation capacity. We already have strong and independent scrutiny, and ensure transparency on probation case loads and staffing through various publications. For example, HMPPS publishes quarterly reports covering probation staffing and case loads.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, the National Audit Office has conducted a thorough analysis of probation capacity, and this is informing a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. However, a further statutory reporting requirement, particularly one imposed within three months of Royal Assent, would duplicate existing processes and divert resources away from implementation and capacity building. Thanks to the established analysis and reporting processes, we are clear about the challenges facing the Probation Service, and, thanks to the detailed picture on capacity that this data gives us, we are taking swift, targeted action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, correctly predicted, I can inform noble Lords that we are recruiting an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March next year and are working hard to retain experienced officers. We are also investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review. While the detailed allocations of that money are still to be finalised, I reiterate that my priorities are clear: more people in post, digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use.
We are starting to see the benefits of an initial £8 million investment in new technology, including an initiative called Justice Transcribe. This cutting-edge AI tool has cut note-taking admin time by around 50%, with outstanding user satisfaction scores. I have heard that probation officers are describing it as life-changing. Furthermore, many of the measures in this Bill will have a positive impact on probation capacity. Delaying these essential reforms while we undertake work proposed by the amendment would not be helpful for our front-line staff.
Amendment 137 speaks to a similar concern about the case loads that our hard-working probation officers manage on a daily basis. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, it is important to recognise that not all probation cases are the same. Imposing a fixed case load limit would not account for these variations; it would make it difficult to manage workloads effectively across the service, it would reduce organisational flexibility and it could undermine the professional autonomy and judgment of our valued practitioners and managers. These top-down limits could therefore potentially lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks, and would serve only to mask the capacity problems I am working to resolve.
On Amendment 119, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Probation Service already uses digital systems to effectively manage those under probation supervision, but there is a lot more to do here, especially using AI. I believe that its potential is massive.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 153 and 154, which give me the chance to discuss one of my favourite subjects: the rehabilitation of offenders. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycle of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that the new restrictive conditions protect victims. All restrictive measures must accommodate rehabilitative aims such as employment. That way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims. So, where there is a rehabilitative purpose, such as driving for employment, practitioners will have the ability to grant permission for this. Restriction zones will be developed to ensure that an offender can access rehabilitative activities, including employment, while, of course, also considering the victim’s needs.
Electronic monitoring is the subject of Amendment 155, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendments 93D and 110ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is a vital tool for managing offenders in the community, and there will be a significant uplift in tagging alongside the provisions in this Bill. Where appropriate, electronic monitoring will be applied to support monitoring and compliance with restriction zones. When a restriction zone is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches if they identify that offenders have not complied—for example, through police intelligence or victim concerns. Our professionally trained staff are experts in this specialist work, but we do not feel that a report on the practicality of enforcing restriction zones is necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 93E. We share the ambition of ensuring that time in custody is used productively to reduce reoffending. Every prison has a legal duty to provide education. This is monitored through the annual HMIP report, regular Ofsted inspections and published prison education statistics. Therefore, a statutory requirement is not necessary. I reassure the noble Baroness that I look at the data regularly, and I challenge it when I am not content.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 93 and remind noble Lords that we inherited a justice system in crisis, with a court backlog at record levels and rising, and victims waiting years for justice. We have already taken action to tackle court backlogs and improve court productivity. For this financial year, we are funding a record 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded last year. This will mean that more trials and hearings can be heard, tackling the backlog of cases. However, even at maximum capacity, sitting days alone cannot solve the backlog. We need to do things differently. This is why we need fundamental reform, not piecemeal measures.
The previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of the criminal courts. We are considering its recommendations carefully before legislating where necessary. This amendment seeks to require an assessment of introducing uncapped Crown Court sitting days for sentencing hearings. However, listing decisions are a judicial function, not an executive one. It is essential to preserve judicial independence in managing court business. Introducing a statutory requirement in this area could be seen as government influencing judicial listing decisions, which would compromise that principle.
I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me. I hope I have reassured them about the seriousness with which this Government are taking the issue of capacity. I reiterate my offer to meet with noble Lords before Report.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who has spotted a drafting error in the Bill and sought to correct it through Amendment 103. He clearly has a bright future in legislative drafting ahead of him. I confirm that the Government accept that this amendment is needed and will not oppose it if the noble Lord wishes to move it formally.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I reassure the Committee that I will formally move Amendment 103 at a later stage. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, which has clearly illustrated my main contention that there are many welcome provisions in this Bill but they are unlikely to be delivered unless we address the serious capacity crisis within the MoJ and in particular within HM Prison and Probation Service.
My biggest concern about the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, relates to my first amendment, Amendment 88, which seeks to give the Government an opportunity to put into practice a commitment that they made at an earlier stage to have a statutory report on capacity every year. The Minister has just said to us that he is not prepared to accept that amendment, whereas I had hoped that he would thank me for drawing attention to the fact that the Government had forgotten something that they had meant to put in the Bill. Instead, he has told us that he is against having a statutory report, because it provides a lack of flexibility.
Therefore, I shall read to the Minister his own Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 20 March 2025, when he said:
“The Government has committed to legislating to make laying the Annual Statement on Prison Capacity before Parliament a statutory requirement in the future, when parliamentary time allows”.
I provided the parliamentary time, but the Minister has not taken it up. Rest assured, I shall return at a later stage to give him another opportunity to accept the commitment that his Government have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
With the leave of your Lordships, I would like to clarify my comments on Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. We have already publicly committed to legislation to make this a statutory requirement, and that commitment stands. We are, however, concerned that setting the precise timing for the report’s publication, and its content, in primary legislation may create unnecessary rigidity, but I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we share the intent behind the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has just said. Can he assure your Lordships’ Committee that if he is not prepared to accept my Amendment 88, he will bring forward his own amendment at some later stage in our deliberations to bring into effect the commitment that he has just repeated from the Front Bench?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We may not bring forward an amendment, but we will legislate to make sure this happens.
Amendment 90
Lord Foster of Bath
Sentencing Bill
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I also believe in tough community sentences. I think they are essential if we are to keep people out of prison. But I have to say that on this issue I do not see any positive point arising out of this clause. In my experience of working with probation officers—a long time ago, but I dare say they are not that different now than they were when I was in practice—I cannot see the likelihood of any probation officer wanting to do this and thinking that it was helpful in terms of making sure that his or her clients behave themselves in future. I think this is an excellent Bill, but I do not think this clause should be part of it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The powers in this Bill currently propose that probation officers will have the power to publish offenders’ names and photographs alongside details of their unpaid work. The Government rightly argue that there is a need to increase the public visibility of sentences being carried out and allow people to see that justice is being done. I would go further and say that it is vital that those who are responsible for sentencing have greater confidence in community sentences.
I am currently chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but before I took over, my noble friend Lady Hamwee was the chair of that committee, and her committee produced an excellent report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. That made it very clear that over a long period of time community sentences had declined, not least during the upheaval, as we might call it, of the Probation Service; nevertheless, there was a continued decline. When it tried to analyse why that was, it found that it was in part because sentencers had lost confidence in community sentences. The mood was, “We simply don’t think that the orders we’re imposing will actually be enforced”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was very glad to sign this amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness both for having spotted it and for introducing it so clearly.
A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, used a phrase about justice not keeping pace with society. This is an example of that. It seems to me to be a hangover almost from the Victorian age. It is a cruelty to keep people in detention when they are actually vulnerable and need support. They are very often people among whose problems are mental ill-health; they just happen to have more vulnerabilities and problems than people who will fall within the Mental Health Bill.
“For their own protection” seems to me to be a misnomer. The reality is that this can make their condition worse. Some years ago, the Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted an inquiry on detention, which in part covered this issue. The stories we heard were frankly horrifying. This is not the time of night to go into them—but this is an area where we should really ensure that justice keeps up with and leads society.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 147. Noble Lords will be well aware that, in earlier debates, I have argued that what we do—whether it is for a custodial or non-custodial sentence—is of course about punishment but should also be about taking steps to reduce reoffending. I have therefore argued that either the police or the Probation Service must put in place measures to help with that, which would include things such as education, skills, and also measures to help people with drug, alcohol, and—as I have added—gambling disorders. We have had those debates already.
However, in today’s debate, I have mentioned the fact that something like 20% of people in prison are on remand, awaiting sentencing. As a result of the huge backlog in the Crown Courts, which I have also mentioned, it is a fact that many of those on remand will be in prison awaiting sentencing for quite a long time. So, it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that, while they are in prison, there should be opportunities that might help them in later life anyway, in terms of the same sorts of measures. This amendment very simply says that those who are in prison on remand should have made available to them the same level of provision that is provided for prisoners after sentencing. It is as simple as that, it seems to be common sense and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I must say from the outset that we on these Benches cannot support it. The power to remand a person in custody for their own protection—or, in the case of a child or young person, for their own welfare—is not one that the courts use lightly. It is already tightly circumscribed and deployed only where the alternative would expose an extremely vulnerable individual to serious harm.
To remove that safeguard entirely would be a mistake. There are rare, but very real, occasions when a defendant’s personal circumstances, exploitation by criminal gangs or acute safeguarding concerns mean that the only safe option, in the immediate term, is to keep them in secure accommodation. That judgment, made by a court on evidence and subject to challenge, is not one that we believe Parliament should now deprive them of. Where children are concerned, the imperative is even stronger. The court’s paramount concern must be people’s welfare, and removing this power risks leaving young people unprotected in precisely those situations where intervention is most vital. For these reasons, we cannot support Amendment 140.
We strongly support the principle underlying Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Far too many people spend far too long in remand—months and, sometimes, well over a year—awaiting trial or sentence. For all practical purposes, they experience incarceration in the same way as sentenced prisoners. They are deprived of liberty, separated from their families and often held in conditions indistinguishable from the sentenced estate. Yet those in remand do not have the same access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other forms of support that are routinely offered post sentence.
That is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly given that time spent on remand is overwhelmingly treated as time served for the purposes of the ultimate custodial sentence. If we accept that remand can form a significant part of an individual’s total period in custody, it cannot be right that this is, in effect, dead time, in which they are able neither to progress their rehabilitation nor to address the issues that may have contributed to their offending behaviour.
Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is a valuable contribution to a discussion that is long overdue. It does not prejudge the precise mechanisms or impose unworkable obligations on overstretched services, but it rightly challenges us to consider whether the current disparity is effective or conducive to reducing reoffending. The Government should engage seriously with the spirit of these proposals.
Taken together, the amendments highlight two themes that run throughout our debates on the Bill: the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to ensure that custody, whether pre or post sentence, serves a constructive purpose. I hope that the Minister will commit to further work in this area, and I look forward to his response.
Sentencing Bill
Lord Foster of Bath ExcerptsMonday 1st December 2025
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Dec 2025)
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.
Prisoner Releases in Error
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The digital team that has gone into Wandsworth is confident that it can do some quick fixes. I do not have an exact timeline, but we have given it up to £10 million to do those quick fixes. The nature of digital technology is such that we will be able to roll that out across the prison estate very quickly. One relevant point some noble Lords were discussing with me in your Lordships’ House last night is the Sentencing Bill, which we hope will make things simpler. I also want to touch on the point the noble Lord mentioned about how complicated it is. It is unfair on our hard-working staff to expect them to get this right all the time, especially those who have just started. We need to support them not just with digital solutions but with a lot of training because, even though we are going to simplify things, it will still be a complex process. I hope that the Sentencing Bill will simplify things for everybody involved in the justice system.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I genuinely welcome the quick action by the Government and the measures that have been proposed—in particular, as just discussed, the use of AI. The Minister refers to the hard-working staff, but the truth is that although we have more and more prisoners, we have fewer and fewer prison officers. They are leaving at an alarming rate, so we need to address some of the staffing issues. The Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee and the Chief Inspector of Prisons have been highly critical of the recruitment procedure for prison officers, which is done via Zoom with no face-to-face interviews; of the in-service training of those officers; and, in particular, of the assessment of the in-service performance of those officers—often, no records are kept of any discussions with them. Does the Minister accept that all those issues relating to staff in our prisons also need to be addressed to ensure that we have a higher calibre of staff who are less likely to make mistakes, including mistaken releases?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we are 100% dependent on the good will and ability of our staff. Our staff in the Prison and Probation Service have been heroic over the past few years, dealing with Covid, early releases and so on. We expect a lot of them and we need to improve their training. That is why we have the Enable project, which I worked on before I came into government. We also need to up our game on retention, because we do not want to lose experienced prison officers. One of the challenges I have set myself is that, before I was in government, I ran a company that was generally known as a good company to work for. I am determined to try to instil that sense of direction in the Prison and Probation Service.
Sentencing Bill
Lord Foster of Bath ExcerptsWednesday 12th November 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who makes some very important points.
I begin by joining the tributes that have been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who was a doughty supporter for the victims of crime and will be much missed. I pay tribute also to David Gauke for his excellent report, and also to the Minister, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, is a breath of fresh air, and certainly could never be accused of kicking the can down the road.
As my noble friend Lord Beith pointed out, we on these Benches are very supportive of much of the Bill, but we have some concerns. However, rather than addressing the many concerns that others have raised, I will concentrate on a more general concern I have that we will simply not achieve the Bill’s intended ends unless we supply the means to do so. Frankly, I am concerned that this is currently not the case.
I will illustrate this by reference to three recent reports by your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I have the great privilege to chair. In particular, all three reports have made it absolutely clear that whatever sentence is imposed on an offender should provide punishment but also measures that reduce reoffending, as a key means of keeping the public safe and reducing the prison population, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, demonstrated very well earlier.
The Bill provides measures to replace short-term prison sentences. This was called for in the committee’s report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, under the then chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. After all, the reoffending rate of prisoners released from short sentences is a staggering 61.2%—and that is after it has cost over £53,000 for each prisoner, 13 times more expensive than the cost of community sentences.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made very clear earlier, while community sentences have a much lower reoffending rate, the committee was clear that much needed to change if they are to reach their full potential of turning round the lives of offenders and supporting them to avoid reoffending.
For example, many offenders have a key problem in relation to drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, or with mental health issues, yet the current provision of support for addiction services has fallen and fewer than 2% of those with mental health issues even start treatment. So the Bill can propose an increase in non-custodial sentences, but that will not help reduce reoffending—and so reduce the number of people in prison—unless measures are in place to boost mental health and addiction support services. So I hope that the Minister when he winds up will explain how that is going to be done and funded.
As others have said, the greatest concern is in relation to the Probation Service. The Bill will require the Probation Service to manage many more issues, including a large increase in the number of community orders and a near doubling of the number of people being tagged. Yet the Probation Service is already facing significant shortfalls in staffing and so is unable to do all of what is already being asked of it. A community sentence order is rarely given without a pre-sentence report, yet, because of staff shortages, the number of such reports has fallen dramatically. How can the Bill expect a significant increase in the preparation of such reports if the service cannot even cope with the current demand?
So there is an urgent need to address staffing and retention in the Probation Service to cope with more pre-sentence reports, more supervision of those on community orders and more supervision of those who are going to be tagged. Without it, the Probation Service is being set up to fail.
The Government of course increased staff numbers by 1,000 last year and has promised a further 1,300 this year, but these numbers, even with better use of new technology, are unlikely to meet the demand, which some estimates suggest may be as many as 10,000. As he did in his opening remarks, the Minister may well point to the promised £700 million over four years, but we still have no clarity on how much of that will be spent on additional staff and their training. I hope the Minister will provide that clarity at the end of the debate, but, with much of the money likely to be spent on housing, it is therefore unlikely there will be enough to boost staffing to the level required by the Bill’s proposals.
In that respect, the Bill’s financial impact assessment is deeply worrying. It says:
“Across all the Bill measures, the impact on probation is estimated to lead to a modest increase in average annual costs of £4.5 million”.
Surely that is complete nonsense. It goes on to say that there will be additional costs for increased tagging and supervision of prisoners released early through the progression model. But these costs are not provided. Rather, the assessment says that the costs of this expansion are “being considered” by the department as part of funding allocations. What confidence can we have that the means will be provided to achieve the Bill’s aims?
Additional funding for the Probation Service is not all that is needed for the expansion of tagging, not least to reduce reoffending. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, the committee has made a number of recommendations, including the need for a new electronic monitoring strategy. Given the lamentable performance of the current private contractors, we suggested that consideration should be given to bringing the management and operation of EM services under the control of the Probation Service, or at least an increase in the number of private providers to increase competition.
Without these and other recommendations, alongside more funding and many more well-trained probation staff, there will not be a successful electronic monitoring expansion or a successful expansion of truly effective community service sentences, and the Probation Service really will be set up to fail.
The Bill also aims to reduce the size of the prison population, but many offenders will still end up in prison, where, as recent media reports show, the Prison Service is already failing. This is not surprising. As was clear from the committee’s report, Better Prisons: Less Crime, much of the blame must lie with successive Governments, which have increased the level of sentences and failed to provide the service with the staffing numbers and support it needs.
As prisoner numbers have risen, staffing levels have fallen. There are fewer prison officers now than even a year ago. We now know that 13% leave every year, half of them having spent less than a year in the service. Nor has the judiciary been given adequate support: we now have a staggering 20% of the prison population comprising people on remand awaiting trial.
A crucial way to reduce overcrowding is by reducing reoffending. As the committee report reminds us, in addition to overcrowding, prisons are often in bad and unsanitary condition, with a maintenance backlog of nearly £2 billion. They face issues such as a shortage of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security, an alarming availability of drugs and overstretched, inexperienced and demoralised staff in a service faced with a severe recruitment and retention crisis.
It is hardly surprising that prison staff have inadequate time and resources to provide prisoners with the support they need for mental health problems and addictions, or to provide them with training and educational opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. In the absence of such support, it is not surprising that the committee pointed out that 80% of offending is reoffending. It is estimated that it costs £18 billion a year, and of course it is a major contribution to the size of the prison population.
One of the best ways to reduce the prison population is through wider prison reforms, not least to reduce reoffending. Such reforms do not feature at all in the Bill but must be implemented alongside it, and the committee report provides many details about the reforms needed. Despite a fairly positive response to those recommendations, it is not entirely clear how well they will be implemented. After all, the Government agreed with the committee’s recommendation that there should be wider access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities in prisons, but then, just a few weeks later, announced plans to cut spending on prison education by 50%.
The Bill contains some controversial but many welcome proposals. However, it will be difficult to support them unless there is evidence that the means to implement them will be in place. At present, I believe that is open to question.
Education in Prisons
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons A review of work and training provision in adult prisons, published on 13 October, regarding the impact of cuts to education in prisons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
We inherited a crisis in our justice system and I am passionate and focused on providing good education and work opportunities, which are vital to prisoner rehabilitation. The education budget has not been cut—in fact, it has increased by 3%—but many prisons will face reduced delivery due to rising costs, while others will see an increase. We are focused on maximising value from new education services and expanding work opportunities through employer partnerships.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I chair the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, and our recent report on prisoners made clear that we want to see a much wider range of education opportunities in our prisons, for more people, to help reduce reoffending and to make the public safer. As the Minister clearly said, he entirely agrees with that principle, but he has to accept, as the Chief Inspector of Prisons made very clear, that the current provision of education in our prisons is woefully inadequate. As the Minister pointed out, some provision of education in prisons is being reduced by as much as 50%. Can he at least assure us that, in addition to all the improvements in efficiency that he wants to make, he is lobbying hard for increased funding to pay for that much-needed education provision?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord and I share the ambition for our prisons to be places where people turn their lives around, and education has a big part to play in that. We are making progress. In five prisons, we have the working week happening now—31 hours of purposeful activity. This year, 10% more prisoners participated in education compared to last year, which is really good. Our reading strategy is now in every prison, and the third sector is involved in that. I am a big believer that we need to strongly manage contracts. As I said last week, there are too many classrooms with teachers but not enough prisoners. We need to see more of them. I have also changed the word “education” in our prisons to “skills academy”, thinking that that would appeal more to our prisoners who did not have a good experience of education. I saw that last week in HMP Hindley, where I had positive feedback from the staff and prisoners.
Independent Sentencing Review
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the general direction of travel of the sentencing review. We will continue to work with the police and others on any impacts on the wider justice system—that is very important. However, the alternative is that we run out of prison places, and the last thing that our police want or need is to have no prison places. It is very important that we make sure that we have enough prison places to rely on, so that, in future, the police have confidence that they can go about their job.
As for the short custodial sentences, MoJ research found that custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates compared to court orders of any length. That is why we need to make sure that we get the balance right. Tagging has recently been shown to cut reoffending rates by 20%, but what is also interesting is the future of tagging. With the way in which technology is developing, I envisage that the role of tagging and wrist-worn technology will mean that the role of probation becomes far easier and we can do far more, not just to track offenders in the community but to check whether they are consuming alcohol or drugs or whether they are in the wrong place, and so on. With electronic tagging, we need to make sure that we support our probation staff, but I am very interested in the future of the technology too.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
It is particularly welcome that the Government have accepted that community sentences are far more effective at reducing reoffending than are short sentences. Will the Minister accept that, if we want to further improve the levels of reoffending and increase public confidence, a community sentence programme will need to have far more investment than the very welcome £700 million for the Probation Service? Can he assure us that funds will also be made available for support services such as for housing, mental health, and drug and alcohol and gambling problems? Will that money be forthcoming?
Queen’s Speech
Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech, and I refer to my interests in the register.
As other noble Lords have said, the draft online safety Bill is an important part of the Government’s legislative programme, but I am extremely concerned that in its latest iteration there is no mention of gambling, despite earlier intentions. Two years ago, the online harms White Paper made numerous references to gambling, which it described as an example of “designed addiction” and as demonstrating a
“fragmented regulatory environment which is insufficient to meet the full breadth of the challenges we face”—
challenges which the draft online safety Bill was partially seeking to rectify. But now, it appears, gambling is to be omitted from the Bill. When she winds up, will the Minister confirm that this is the case and explain why? This absence is extremely worrying, since the Bill could provide a vehicle to address many of the growing concerns about online gambling.
I chair Peers for Gambling Reform, a group of over 150 Members of your Lordships’ House pressing for the reforms recommended in the Select Committee report on gambling. Those reforms range from curbs on sports sponsorship and advertising to the introduction of a mandatory levy to fund research, education and treatment, and from establishing a gambling ombudsman to classifying loot boxes as gambling and so regulating them accordingly. Of course, we also need measures to tackle illegal gambling, the advertising of legal gambling companies on illegal websites and the use of drones filming sports events to give their owners an unfair gambling advantage.
These and other reforms are urgently needed. Two million people are affected by gambling-related harm; over 60,000 children are problem gamblers; and, on average, sadly, there is one gambling-related suicide every day. But online gambling is a particular cause for concern. Smartphones enable 24/7 unsupervised gambling. Yet, in comparison to land-based gambling, it is far less regulated. After all, the key legislation was enacted before the first iPhone was launched in 2007. For example, there are limits on stakes and prizes for land-based games but not for those available on the internet, where over 40% of all gambling now takes place.
The Government’s gambling review is of course welcome, but it looks increasingly as though the Government are shying away from taking action. Unless available legislative opportunities, such as the online safety Bill, are used, it could be many years before the Government deliver on their promise to tackle gambling-related harm. After all, the last major gambling review began in 1999, but it took a further eight years before new legislation was enacted. Given the scale of current gambling problems, we simply cannot afford to wait another eight years.
Even gambling operators believe the online safety Bill should be used, for example, to crack down on unregulated gambling operators. But some reforms can be made without new legislation, yet even in such cases, there is evidence that the Government are not pushing ahead as quickly as possible. For instance, the Gambling Commission is using its existing powers to consider affordability—how to ensure that all gambling operators use a common system of checks to ensure that customers can afford to gamble at the level they choose. But newspaper reports now suggest that the Government want to take this responsibility away from the Gambling Commission and incorporate it into a wider gambling review, which will lead to unnecessary delay. Can the Minister confirm this and, again, explain why this much-needed reform should be delayed?
Reforms to gambling are urgently needed, and the Government must not delay.