Sentencing Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. As noble Lords know, I have devoted much of my life and career to criminal justice reform, in particular the question of how to reduce reoffending. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments on short sentences, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. While I am grateful to noble Lords for their constructive and thoughtful input on this Bill, inside and outside the Chamber, I remain convinced that the position of the Bill is the right one. I appreciate the words from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, along those lines.

Let me be clear at the outset: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will still have discretion to send offenders to prison where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual, where they have breached a court order or in exceptional circumstances. However, the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. That is a key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences and why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less.

We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities, and we are also following the lead of the previous Conservative Government who originally introduced this measure during the last Parliament, without the additional amendments we are debating today.

Given the clear evidence on short sentences, the Government do not agree with introducing further exemptions. To do so could increase reoffending and so create more victims. I came into this job to build a criminal justice system that leads to fewer victims, not more.

I will now turn to the specific points that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have both raised important points on early guilty pleas through Amendments 2 and 13. I can assure noble Lords that I have reflected on these amendments and considered them at length and with great care, but it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence where a defendant pleads guilty. This avoids the need for a trial, enables cases to be dealt with quickly, and shortens the gap between charge and sentence. Moreover, it can save victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence. This is particularly important in traumatic cases.

Furthermore, the amendments proposed would create inconsistencies. The presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea mitigation brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, whereas it could still apply where the court applied any other mitigation that had the same effect. For these reasons, the Government do not support these amendments.

Through Amendments 3 and 14, noble Lords have also proposed requiring courts to impose suspended sentence orders with a maximum operational period of two years. This would not be appropriate for every suspended sentence order without consideration of the particular facts of the case, and would place additional burden on the Probation Service. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.

It is absolutely clear that the last Government left our Probation Service under immense pressure. Fourteen years of austerity came alongside a botched privatisation. The scars are still there, and we are fixing it. Sentencing must always be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision. This amendment would remove that discretion.

I thank the noble Lords again for their amendments and the opportunity to debate them. I hope I have sufficiently explained why our approach of following the evidence is the right one to take. With that in mind, I ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the Committee debate, and I thank the Minister for explaining the position of the Government with regard to these proposed amendments.

On early guilty pleas, it appears to me, respectfully, that if the Government are going to maintain the position that has been set out, they should be explicit in the Bill that they are not dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of 12 months; they are dealing with suspension in respect of sentences of up to and including 18 months. That is far from clear in the Bill. Whether or not the Government accept our amendment, it is a point that has to be made clear so that public confidence can be maintained in the nature of the sentencing system that is going to be introduced.

With regard to the matter of suspension and the maximum suspension period of two years, we maintain that if these moves are going to be taken, it is only appropriate that the suspension should be for a period long enough to enable some form of rehabilitation to take place, because otherwise it is simply pointless. Again, I ask the Government to reconsider their position, but at this stage I will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, let us remember that we passed a Bill here about the Sentencing Council, when there was a disagreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council, and we know how we resolved that, so we cannot put too much faith without that legislation, which went through here not long ago.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Jackson, for the further amendments they have tabled to Clause 1, which has allowed for another engaging debate on the presumption to suspend short sentences. I begin by reiterating that we are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. We are implementing the Gauke review, for which I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Texas, which the noble Lord referred to, saw crime fall by 30% and 16 prisons were closed. I would also like to reiterate how much missed Lady Newlove is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

Perhaps I might ask the Minister about the way he ran his business. One of the important roles of a legislature is to get things technically right. There is no disagreement, as I can see, on the view that that the policy is right, but can we not do things more simply? Throughout the Bill, I have asked the Minister: can we look at producing a piece of workable, simple legislation that can be adapted if what is set out is not right? I believe that this is something a legislature ought to address, where policy is not at issue.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The principle that the noble and learned Lord raises is the right one. I do not believe that we can change things in this Bill now, but the message that I can relay will be very helpful. There is another point around complexity: how this is then communicated to the hard-working staff on the front line, who will need to interpret and put into action what we are proposing here.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I will respond to the Minister. First, it is always our duty to put legislation right, otherwise we might as well all go home. Secondly, the Sentencing Council is there to give practical guidance; it is not our job as a legislature to tinker with the detail. I urge the Minister to go back and see whether we can produce, instead of the complexities inherent in this clause, something that just expresses the presumption and leaves the Sentencing Council to do its job. It will do it far more competently, I am sure, than the Ministry of Justice.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We will come back to that later in Committee, when we talk about the Sentencing Council. But I reassure the noble and learned Lord that I will take back to colleagues his point about clarity and simplicity.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I do not think that simple legislation will ever catch on, because it would put a lot of lawyers out of business—I say rather irreverently. The Minister in his remarks did not specifically address my Amendment 7. The piece of legislation put forward by his honourable friend Sir Chris Bryant, the emergency workers offences Act, had significant support across both the other place and here. Given the impact of these proposals, I wonder whether the Minister would revisit the specific ramifications for emergency service workers, because there is significant concern about that. I take the point that we should not specify in too much detail in primary legislation, but that Act did receive significant support.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the point about emergency workers: they deserve all our attention and we are very proud of what they do in often very difficult circumstances. I will take away his challenge on that.

I have met a number of people—especially women—in prison who are there for assaulting an emergency worker. While those assaults should not happen at all, often those people were in a very traumatic situation and, when the emergency services came to their aid, they reacted in the wrong way. That is something we need to bear in mind as well.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions from across the Committee and for the response from the Minister. Everybody appreciates that Clause 1 is not prohibiting anything. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked eloquently and correctly about the discretion of our judges and the trust that we should place in our judges. But that is not what Clause 1 is doing. Clause 1 is saying they must apply a presumption. They are not being trusted with it; they are being told they must apply it. That is one of the issues that we need to address.

A number of specific exceptions were tabled in the amendments, but I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about it being far more straightforward to produce some generic description in this regard. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out, it may even be something that should be left to the Sentencing Council at the end of the day. But that is another issue. I read this quotation:

“Even when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.


That is from the Labour manifesto. My fear is that Clause 1 is simply going to reinforce that perception, and that is one of the concerns that we have with it.

I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the potential for a suspended sentence to lead to support and rehabilitation. The problem is that those facilities are simply not available at the present time and, in any event, we do not know what period of suspension might or might not be imposed by the courts. It may well be one or two years, but, as the Bill is framed, it may be much less and leave no sensible opportunity for either support or rehabilitation.

There is also the matter of statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, alluded to some well-known statistics about the fact that those who are in custody for short sentences are much more likely to repeat offences when they come out of prison than those who have been given a suspended sentence. But one must bear in mind that those who have been given a suspended sentence have generally committed a far less serious offence than those who have been given a custodial sentence, and that those who are given custodial sentences for relatively minor offences are given those custodial sentences because they are repeat offenders. One must bear in mind Disraeli’s observation that there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics and, therefore, we have to approach them with a degree of care. I understand and appreciate that there is more generic evidence to suggest that suspended sentences, when properly applied, controlled and maintained, can have beneficial effects—nobody doubts that for a moment—but there is a very real need here to address, among other things, the whole scourge of repeat offenders.

This arises particularly in the context of Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Jackson, which highlights burglary as a particular offence. Burglary is an intensely intrusive crime that leaves victims traumatised, and it is inclined to attract repeat offenders. Its social damage is considerable. There are particular crimes of that nature, given their impact on society as a whole, that should attract something more than a suspended sentence, given the fear is that somebody will simply repeat them. Similar observations can be made on knife crime as well.

I fully understand that there is a need to revisit Clause 1 and its implications. We have sought to do so by identifying particular or specific exceptions to it. There is, as I indicated, and as outlined by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, potentially a better route to that conclusion. Indeed, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, there is hopefully a simpler route to that conclusion. For present purposes, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to insert an explicit reference to Section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make it plain that courts may mitigate a sentence to a community order where appropriate. This amendment is not necessary. The Bill does not alter the courts’ ability to consider the full range of mitigating factors, nor does it disturb their discretion to impose a community sentence where that is the just and proportionate outcome. What it does is imposes an obligation to suspend a prison sentence where otherwise a prison sentence might be imposed. Those powers remain firmly in place. To single out Section 77 of the Sentencing Act for restatement in the Bill might imply that the legislation would otherwise curtail judicial discretion to impose a community sentence. That is not the case. For this reason, we do not consider the amendment to be needed or helpful.

Amendment 29A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would place a statutory duty on courts to consider a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. Although we understand and appreciate the intention behind the proposal, we do not support it. The courts are already required to work upwards through a full hierarchy of sentencing options, including setting community sentences, before custody is reached. That is the well-established principle in law and practice. Sentencing judges are highly experienced in applying those principles.

To introduce a further procedural step will not add substance but create additional bureaucracy in an already very complex framework. It risks increasing administrative burdens on the probation services and court staff, and generating uncertainty about what additional assessments or reports might be required to satisfy the new duty. We should not legislate for processes that the system is not resourced or structured to deliver. Above all, a suspended sentence of imprisonment is, by definition, imposed only when the custody threshold has already been crossed. To require courts to revisit considerations that are already inherent in the sentencing exercise risks weakening clarity and undermining judicial confidence in the tools at their disposal.

For all these reasons, although we respect the intentions behind both amendments, we do not believe that they would strengthen the sentencing framework. We cannot support them.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments. I was pleased to hear mention of two organisations: one which I used to chair, the Prison Reform Trust, and one which I now chair, the Women’s Justice Board. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on this issue. In doing so, I hope I will address the noble Baronesses’ questions, and reflections raised by other noble Lords at Second Reading.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that there are too many women in prison, and that is why we set up the Women’s Justice Board to come up with a plan to fix that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to say more about lists other than to note that these amendments contain a lot of lists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will not think this is in any way an aggressive point, but I think I picked up that he would expect to see some fleshing out of the term “serious”, as well as the detail of “specified offences”, through a mechanism that follows today’s debate. If he is looking for encouragement for further work subject to some of the comments that were made earlier, then he has it.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst, for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which aim to prevent sentences for certain categories of offences from being suspended. I would be interested to hear more about the Marie Collins Foundation; I have never heard of that organisation before. If it would be helpful, I would be interested in having a meeting with the noble Lord and the foundation to learn more and see what I can gain from that.

I must be clear that it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and following the appropriate guidance set by the Sentencing Council. For example, sentencing guidelines are clear: it may not be appropriate to suspend a sentence if the offender presents a risk to any person or if appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody. If the offender breaches the order by failing to comply with any of the requirements or committing a new offence, they can be returned to court. If the breach is proven, the courts are required to activate the custodial sentence unless it would be unjust to do so. Of course, criminals serving suspended sentences also face the prospect of being sent to prison if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders. So, under this Bill, someone could receive a two-and-a-half-year sentence, suspended for three years, and with an electronically monitored curfew lasting for two years. In this scenario, if they breach their curfew or commit a further offence, they face the prospect of being sent to prison.

I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is already provision within this Bill to prohibit the use of suspended sentence orders under any circumstances in relation to sentences for offenders of particular concern and extended determinate sentences. These sentences can be imposed in relation to the specific offences listed in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous. Currently, if an extended determinate sentence is imposed for two years or less, it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence, and both can be suspended. However, the Bill will change that position so that where an extended sentence is imposed, it cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including when it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence.

I turn to terrorism sentences. Where a life sentence is not imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a serious terrorism sentence is required if a court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public and the offence was likely to cause multiple deaths. The minimum sentence of imprisonment will then be 14 years and therefore a suspended sentence order would not be available. The noble Lords have also proposed to exempt offences with mandatory minimum sentences and those eligible for referral under the unduly lenient scheme. If the offence being sentenced has a mandatory minimum sentence and is capable of being suspended, judges still retain the discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence when there is the appropriate outcome.

To be clear, we are not abolishing short sentences. Offences falling under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are rightly treated very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that Clause 2 does not interfere with existing mechanisms that allow for the review of sentences in these cases. We believe that these safeguards protect the public while preserving judicial discretion. Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts, considering the full circumstances of the case.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which would prevent the court from suspending a sentence where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and to exempt offenders convicted of multiple previous offences from being suspended. I can reassure noble Lords that the sentencing guidelines are clear. Where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and the court thinks that they are unlikely to comply in the future, that may be a reason not to suspend the sentence.

Additionally, when an offender is in custody—for example, when they have breached their licence conditions by committing a further offence and have been recalled into custody as a result—the court will not suspend the sentence. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or a similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the court should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Noble Lords will know that this Government take prolific offending extremely seriously, and previous offending is already a statutory aggravating factor.

I must also be clear that a suspended sentence is not a soft option. The courts can impose a range of requirements on an offender, ranging from curfews to exclusion zones. This Bill includes tough new restriction zones, which will restrict offenders to a specific geographic area. These will be electronically monitored in most cases and are intended to serve as not just a punishment but an important tool to protect and reassure victims.

Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public, and we must drive it down. That is why we are ramping up intensive supervision courts, targeting the prolific offenders whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction or other needs. The international evidence is clear: these courts cut crime, with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrest compared to offenders who receive standard sentences. That is just one way in which this Government are putting the necessary structures in place to build a sustainable justice system going forward.

Suspended sentence orders in appropriate cases give offenders a chance to stay in work, keep stable housing and access support in the community. All of this goes towards reducing repeat offending and supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that that remains the case. By targeting the causes of offending in the community, we can lower reoffending rates and in turn reduce the number of victims. I hope noble Lords are now assured of the Government’s position on this, and I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments are designed to ensure that dangerous or repeat offenders cannot avoid custody due to a general presumption of suspension.

I hear what the Minister said about the discretion of the independent judiciary, but it seems to me that he is attempting to go in two different directions at the same time—we have only just looked at Clause 1, where he is imposing upon the discretion of the independent judiciary a presumption that has to apply. There is no discretion there; they must abide by the presumption. So, in a sense, we go from one extreme to the other with regard to the justification for these provisions in the Bill, and it is very difficult to understand any underlying logic or principle that is being applied here. I do hope that the Government will give further consideration to Clause 2 and the proposed amendments to it, but, for present purposes, I will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We cannot ask for mandatory work or process unless we are sure that we have the facilities and people on the ground. If we do not, from the word go, we are setting up a scheme that is going to fail.

As noble Lords all know, in 1966 an organisation called Nacro, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, was established. I was a member of it, and we tried our best, with the Howard League. Our success at rehabilitating criminals in our prisons was very small, and the evidence about short sentences, which we have been talking about, is another great failure.

It therefore seems that history and experience tell us that we as a nation have failed to rehabilitate the people we put behind bars. We take away their freedom in the hope that they will be rehabilitated and come out as good citizens. Some do, but there is still great failure. If that is so with people in our prisons, how much more will it be for those who have suspended sentences, for whom we make engagement with rehabilitation services mandatory? The noble Lord has not identified where these centres are going to be; nor has he found who is going to carry out these services—schooling and education. I worked as a chaplain in a young offender institution. Some of the classes were no good and did not help, but there was a lot of success in some.

Our history of incarcerating people does not work. A previous Minister talked about payment by results, but even that did not do it. I want us to do a health check on ourselves, because these are suspended sentences that we would be creating a mandatory process for, through which people might go. If a judge is going to impose the proposed orders, he will want to know who will deliver these services and how certain we are that they will be delivered, because if an offender does not turn up, that may be a way of revoking this.

This mixes up two things that should not be mixed. A suspended sentence is a suspended sentence. If people do not fulfil what that suspended sentence is about, they know that the sentence in prison will begin from the day they break the order. However, with this proposal for mandatory rehabilitation and attendance at drug centres, we are saying that the suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence because somebody is going to watch over you. If it is very clear that they are going to be tagged, things offenders cannot do would be abandoned by this rehabilitation.

I have been with Nacro for so many years. I want to say that we did our best, but we never cared much or rehabilitated many people. We talked about it, and we provided money, books and all sorts of things, and these people were in our prisons. What about those who are roaming our streets—we think this is going to work? I am a realist, and I do not think that we would like this part of the Bill, particularly the way it is crafted. I am with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for raising the very important issue of offender rehabilitation. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that is extremely close to my heart. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his generous words about my work rehabilitating offenders.

I clarify that Clause 2 does not create a presumption to suspend sentences; it simply gives judges the power to suspend sentences of up to three years. This amendment would require a court, when passing a suspended sentence, to oblige an offender to engage in at least one of the following: a treatment programme, education, training and employment support, or an approved behaviour change programme.

As noble Lords are aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. It must take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the purposes of sentencing. The courts already have a range of requirements that can be included as part of a suspended sentence to rehabilitate offenders. These include treatment requirements, which require offenders to take part in accredited programmes, as well as unpaid work, which can include education, training and employment. As noble Lords identify, interventions such as these can be incredibly valuable in supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that they are available and used in those cases where they are needed.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, all raise the important issue of probation and the future of probation. Whether it is pre-sentence reports, rehabilitative activity requirements or all the various support options that probation has, they need to be funded; we need strong leadership, we need to train and retain our staff and we need to have the technology available to support them to do their jobs. We have pledged a 45% increase in funding for probation—that is £700 million. In the coming weeks, I would be delighted to do a presentation for noble Lords on my plan for probation and how funding for that links to that plan being landed successfully.

I am also very keen to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about the Santiago prison system, which I have never heard of before. I have been to a number of prisons abroad, but that is one I have never been to. If we ever have time to hear the noble Lord’s wider reflections on rehabilitation, that would be appreciated.

However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, clearly explained, the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case. This is to ensure that the most appropriate requirements are included in a sentence and that the Probation Service is not overburdened with requirements that may not be necessary in the circumstances of the individual offender.

Additionally, evidence has shown that, for low-risk individuals, the effects of accredited programme participation are usually found to be either negligible or, in some cases, even negative. There will be cases where an offender does not have any of the needs listed by the noble Lord and the court determines that it needs simply to impose a punishment. This amendment would fetter that discretion. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and many of them have supported the sentiment underlying this amendment. It has clearly shown our shared recognition that, if suspended sentences are to become more prevalent, as the Government intend, they must be made fit for that purpose. We on these Benches continue to oppose the presumption that custodial terms of 12 months or under should routinely be suspended. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, helpfully has supported the thrust of this amendment, while also highlighting the issues with resources facing the Probation Service.

Our duty today is also a practical one. The Government are introducing a major shift in sentencing practice. If they are to do so, they must build into the legislation the safeguards necessary to preserve public confidence and deliver genuine rehabilitation. My noble friend Lady Porter of Fulwood, in a powerful speech, has explained the difficulties in delivering support for offenders in the community and has explained why support is necessary for offenders. So too, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, after his excursion to Chile, made an important point: if we propose to go down this line, we must give practical help to recidivists, or they will simply come back and reoffend.

That leads me to say this: if we do not deal with this, and if offenders who have been given a suspended sentence—even if it is only suspended for 12 months—reoffend within that period, they will have to be brought back to court. This is an important point. It is not simply that they may end up in prison, but having been brought back to court, they will occupy court time. That will not help the backlog in the courts. I speak with the experience of someone who, until some 10 or 12 years ago, sat as a recorder for 20-odd years in the courts, so I have some practical experience of this.

People breach suspended sentences. That is why judges in the past have often been cautious about imposing suspended sentences, particularly on people who offend time and time again. If there are too many of them, this will be impractical. What will happen is that, in about two years’ time, we will have the courts overwhelmed with people coming back for resentencing and then having to be put into prison because, otherwise, as the courts will say, it will show that a suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence in any meaningful sense. I put that before the Government in a spirit of constructive criticism, not to try to make difficulties. That is what lies down the road if we are not very careful indeed.

If suspended sentences are to be used more widely, they cannot be hollow or simply be deferrals of punishment; they must require offenders to confront the issues that led them to offend in the first place, and they must offer the public some hope that these offenders will cease offending. I hope the Minister and those behind him, so to speak, will carefully consider this proposal, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 3 is of course a novel sentencing tool, and it is entirely correct that the Committee should probe its design with some care. Many of the amendments before us seek reassurance that the scheme will be fair and proportionate, and indeed that it will be workable in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her amendment, draws attention to the basic question of impact. An income reduction order must not be set at a level that undermines an offender’s ability to work, train or maintain stable housing. If these orders are to be effective, they must support rehabilitation, not jeopardise the very stability on which it depends. The noble Baroness’s amendments highlight that there is a risk here that requires very clear scrutiny.

The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst raise a series of questions about the architecture of the scheme. As drafted, the Bill establishes broad powers to reduce an offender’s income, yet it leaves almost all the crucial detail to regulations that we have not yet seen and that may in due course prove insufficiently robust.

Amendments 37 to 44 ask the Government to place in the Bill the essential elements that will govern how these orders operate in the real world. They begin by posing the most basic question of all: what do the Government mean by “monthly income”? Are we assessing gross or net income? How are fluctuating earnings to be treated? What of the self-employed or those on irregular or zero-hours contracts? It is very difficult to see how a fair and consistent system can be construed without clear statutory guidance on these points. If Parliament is to authorise a mechanism allowing the state to deduct a portion of a person’s income month after month, it is surely right that we also understand with precision how that income is to be defined, what thresholds will apply, how caps are to be set and which factors the court must take into account before imposing an order.

Amendment 44 goes to the heart of our concern that the Bill as currently drafted lacks the necessary clarity about the conditions under which an income reduction order may be imposed. Leaving this almost entirely to secondary legislation again risks undermining both transparency and fairness—surely qualities that are fundamental to the integrity of such a system.

These amendments illuminate the substantial gaps in the present drafting and ensure that Parliament does not sign off on a broad new power without understanding how it will work in practice and what safeguards will accompany it. I look to the Minister to provide the clarity that has so far been somewhat lacking. For our part, we do not oppose the principle of creating a more flexible and enforceable means-based penalty. But, before we take such a significant step, we must be satisfied that the framework is sound, that the protections are clear and that the consequences, particularly for those on the margins, have been fully thought through. I hope the Minister will address these concerns.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the three guiding principles of the David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishment outside prison. We are determined to make sure that crime does not pay, which is why we introduced Clause 3, giving courts the power to impose income reduction orders on offenders who receive suspended sentence orders. From the debate we have just had and from my prior conversations, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in how these will work in practice, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this at greater length today. I have been employing prisoners for over 20 years. Many are on day release and, in some cases, a proportion of their earnings goes back to victims. Income reduction orders are inspired by that principle: offenders must pay back to society for the harm they have caused.

I first turn to Amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They seek to specify what must be contained in the regulations detailing this scheme. I assure noble Lords that we are working cross-government to develop a process for delivering income reduction orders in a way that works cohesively with the rest of the powers that sentencers have at their disposal. We have intentionally kept the legislation flexible to ensure that we can deliver this measure in that way. For example, we do not agree that it would be appropriate for income reduction orders to be mandatory in certain circumstances. This would unnecessarily curtail judicial discretion to decide whether an order should be imposed based on the full facts of an individual case.

The Sentencing Council is actively considering what updates to its guidelines are needed to account for the Bill’s reforms, including these orders. My officials are working closely with the council. I reassure noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these details prior to implementation.

I turn to Amendments 38 and 40 and am happy to explain the rationale behind the drafting of this Bill. Let me be clear: this measure is a penalty for high-income individuals. It will ensure that criminals who break the law, and who benefit from keeping their jobs and continue to earn a significant salary, pay back to society. I doubt that anyone in the Committee would disagree with that. The intention is to set an income threshold that would apply at an appropriately high level. But the Bill sets a baseline that the threshold for an income reduction order can never be below. The aim is to ensure that those with incomes in line with the minimum wage cannot ever receive this penalty. The minimum wage is set at an hourly rate, and 170 times that is a reasonable approximation of the hours likely to be worked over a month.

Noble Lords have also questioned why there is an upper limit. A core tenet of our criminal justice system is fairness and proportionality. So, setting a maximum percentage of an offender’s excess monthly income that can be collected protects individuals from receiving an excessively harsh penalty. We need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. If the court determines that a higher penalty is appropriate and the offence is serious enough to carry an unlimited fine, the court will still be able to impose that, either instead of or as well as an income reduction order.

But income reduction orders must not be a disincentive to employment or amplify existing hardship. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, this is the last thing I would want to happen. Therefore, they will be applicable only to offenders who earn or are deemed likely to earn a significant income. We will set the minimum income threshold through secondary legislation at an appropriate level. This will ensure that low-income households are not in the scope of this measure.

As with any other financial penalty, judges will consider an offender’s means and circumstances when choosing whether to apply an income reduction order at sentencing. This can include, but is not restricted to, income, housing costs and child maintenance. Additionally, the provisions in the Bill allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the deductions that must be made when calculating an offender’s monthly income for the purposes of assessing whether an income reduction order can be applied.

Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes to create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants. I must inform the noble Lord that there are existing mechanisms to deal with payments to dependants. For example, the family courts are able to make spousal maintenance payments on divorce.

This proposed new clause would require the court to inquire whether an offender has responsibility for children or other dependants. Although this is well intentioned, it risks creating practical difficulties. Inquiring whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or other dependants—and subsequently inquiring about the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependants—may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements for the purposes of verification. Imposing such a duty risks delaying sentencing.

This Government have committed to identifying and providing support for children affected by parental imprisonment. As such, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working to determine the best way to do this to ensure that children get the support they need. This builds on a range of services offered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to help families and significant others, where appropriate, to build positive relationships with people in the criminal justice system. This includes social visits, letter writing, video calls, family days and prison voicemail. I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I got my calculator out because I was reminding myself, so far as I could, what the amount might be, in cash terms, that an offender could be left with. I am not sure that I believe what I am finding, multiplying the national minimum wage by 170 and so on. I realise that we are talking about the future, but is the Minister able to share now what the cash amount would be?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My intention is that this concerns people who are earning significant amounts of money and might otherwise have a custodial sentence. Let me give the example of long-distance lorry drivers. They regularly earn over £70,000 a year. These are the people who I believe this income reduction order is appropriate for, not people who do not have means beyond that which they need just to look after their children and so on. It is very much, as I reiterated in my comments, for high-income earners. That level is the minimum wage level, and that is where we see the minimum. We obviously need to have further conversations internally on this, but my intention is that this covers people who earn significantly more than that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

That is helpful, because what is a high income to one person is not necessarily a high income in the eyes of another. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments and for dealing with them in that way. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.