Prisons: Early Release

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the long-term impact of schemes for early release from prison on public confidence in the justice system.

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

The previous Government introduced the end of custody supervised licence scheme, which released over 13,000 prisoners without any impact assessment. It is clear that this Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. We introduced SDS40, which was safely implemented thanks to our hard-working staff. A full impact assessment was published for our measure. We are now embarking on long-term sentencing reforms to place prisons on a sustainable footing so that we can protect the public and maintain public confidence in the justice system.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Rather than ending automatic early release of prisoners, many of whom now serve only 40% of their sentence in prison, would it not make more sense to shift to a system of earned early release, whereby prisoners can earn the opportunity to be released early based on good behaviour and completion of training, education, work and rehabilitation programmes? Does the Minister not agree that such an alternative approach would go further in restoring public confidence in the justice system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord has obviously been studying the plans that we have been looking at, especially the Texas model, which I think he refers to. There are two ways of looking at how we can incentivise prisoners to behave when they are in prison and engage with purposeful activities and education. One is the Texas model, which I describe as going down the hill: for every week they are well behaved, they get time off their sentence. The other is going up the hill: if they behave badly, they can get extra days. The model we prefer is the latter. It is clear that if prisoners assault officers they should, via adjudication, receive extra days. I am a big believer in incentives and in looking at other examples internationally. The Texas model is one where I think we all recognise that there has been a dramatic reduction in reoffending of those released from prison.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that when a prisoner is discharged, particularly in early discharge, they have somewhere to stay when they have left prison? Secondly, can he assure the House that every effort is made to reinforce the conditions of their discharge, so that the general public can be sure that people who have been discharged from prison will be properly supervised and their behaviour will be kept under review?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government was very chaotic. Far too many people left prison and were recalled very quickly, which meant that more victims were created. The SDS40 scheme was far more stable and organised, and probation colleagues had the time to find accommodation. The noble Lord is completely right: accommodation is one of the key factors in ensuring that when someone gets out of prison, they stay out. We have far too many people still leaving prison with NFA against their name, and that is totally unacceptable. The £700 million extra funding that we have secured for probation is important. A lot of that will go on accommodation, tagging, extra staff and technology.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, as I have suggested on a number of earlier occasions, the Government’s proposed policy on early release is flawed. Does the Minister now accept that the Government should expressly address whether technical or minor breaches of licence conditions by non-violent offenders should not result in recall to prison, whether for 28 days or otherwise? That would go a considerable way towards relieving pressure on our prison capacity.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The crisis we inherited in the justice system meant that, had we not acted, we would have run out of prison places, on the basis that the previous Government built only 500 prison places when the population of prisons increases by 3,000 a year. That is why, by the time of the next election, there will be more people in prison than ever before. On recall, it is important that our probation professionals use their judgment based on risk. When people leave prison, we need to give them all the tools possible so that when they get out, they stay out. I do not want them having a return ticket back to prison; I want them to have a one-way ticket. That is why accommodation and all the support services we put around people will ensure that there are fewer recalls.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the real route to public confidence in the prison system is, first, not to have overflowing prisons and lengthy court delays before trial, bequeathed by the last Government to this Government, and secondly, not just to lock people up for longer and longer but to ensure that the Probation Service is effective at reducing risk and protecting the public, as well as rehabilitation?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that probation is where the heavy lifting in the justice system needs to be done. I would like to let your Lordships’ House know that last week I was in a women’s prison, where the average length of stay of a woman was 46 days. There was also one very ill woman who, on average, tries to take her life over 20 times a month. We are dealing with people who are both very ill and very complex, and often the best way to reduce reoffending of these people and deal with their offending behaviour is to punish them in the community and support them in the community.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to “public confidence”. On the basis that the Government are right that early release schemes have been essential to save our prison system from collapse, would that not be the ultimate disaster for public confidence? As well as working on their response to the Leveson report, will the Government now urgently implement David Gauke’s proposals for a presumption against short prison sentences, for more community sentences and for more early release on licence? Should the Government not also encourage a review of the sentencing guidelines with a view to bringing prison sentences here down to the level of those imposed elsewhere in Europe?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The review that David Gauke and his panel undertook will form a very important part of the reform of the criminal justice system that we need. We need a sustainable criminal justice system, and that includes the review that Sir Brian Leveson has published today. On short sentences, it is important that the judiciary still has the power in exceptional circumstances to send people to prison for short sentences. Victims must come first, and the worst thing for victims would be for us to allow prisons to run out of places. We cannot run out of prison places, and the action that we are taking will ensure that we have a sustainable prison system.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the Probation Service is properly resourced to manage and supervise prisoners on discharge?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

At the moment, the Probation Service is really struggling. It is struggling because of the workload of staff and the lack of integrated technology—staff spend far too much time doing admin rather than spending face-to-face time with offenders. When it comes to resourcing, when I leave this place eventually and go back to running my business, I would like the Lord Chancellor to support me in negotiations, because the amount of money that we managed to secure for probation, £700 million, is a really important amount—nearly a 45% increase. That, along with the other reforms that I am planning to do on probation, will go a long way.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, nothing undermines public confidence more than miscarriages of justice, and there is no bigger miscarriage of justice than IPP prisoners. Can the Minister kindly explain why these people are not being given the same opportunity for early release as the people we are talking about today?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend has done fantastic work championing the cause of IPP prisoners. It is clear that people should be released when the Parole Board determines that they are safe to be released. We are using all the levers at our disposal to make sure we do everything we can so that IPP prisoners get released from prison and stay out of prison.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, how does the reoffending rate of those released early compare with that of those released after full term?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The early release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government had a high reoffending rate. On the controlled SDS40 releases, while we are still analysing the figures, the themes that I am seeing show that the reoffending rates were no higher than we normally see. My overall plan is to reduce reoffending rates generally, which is why I am pleased I managed to get that into my job title.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has accused the Government of watering down the criminal justice system at the expense of victims’ safety. What assurance can the Minister give to women, given the PM’s commitment on VAWG, that abusers will receive and serve custodial sentences?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are not abolishing short sentences entirely, and judges will retain the power to hand down sentences of under a year in exceptional circumstances—for example, to provide a victim of domestic abuse with a period of respite. I know this is particularly vital to safeguard victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Breaches of protective orders linked to VAWG, such as stalking and domestic abuse protection orders, will also be excluded from the presumption against short sentences.

Prisons: Mothers and Babies

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many mothers are in prison with their babies, and what consideration they are giving to making alternative arrangements for them to serve their sentences or for their children to be cared for.

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

At the end of March 2024, there were 38 mothers and 36 babies in mother and baby units. There are currently six mother and baby units across the women’s prison estate in England, providing specialist accommodation and support services. These enable mothers, where appropriate, to have their babies with them in prison. Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but this Government have a clear goal of reducing the number of women in prison.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. As well as the 38 mothers with babies he refers to, there are more than 200 pregnant women in prison. Typically, babies are parted from their mothers in prison at 18 months. If these mothers are no risk to their babies, are they really a risk to anyone else? Should they be in prison at all? Does my noble friend the Minister think there are better arrangements that we could make for mothers with babies serving custodial sentences—for example, secure mother and baby homes in the community?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

To answer my noble friend’s question head-on, whether these women should be in prison is a matter for sentencers to decide in each individual case. However, we have embarked on major changes to the sentencing framework, including to short sentences, to which 75% of women are sentenced. This will help to reduce the number of women, including pregnant women, in prison. On his question about arrangements for women and their babies, just last week I was in the mother and baby unit at HMP/YOI Eastwood Park, speaking to the mums there. In my view, the facilities and support offered were exceptional, and I am grateful both to the staff and to the third sector organisations, such as Action for Children, for providing that support. We need to maintain those standards of care in custody, but the real answer to this question lies in tackling the structural problems that lead these women into the criminal justice system in the first place. That is what the Women’s Justice Board, which I proudly chair, seeks to address—early intervention, diversion from prison and community solutions—so that we have fewer women in prison, including their babies too.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the six mother and baby units are successful. However, 17,000 children a year are separated from their mothers by imprisonment, harming both children and mothers. The impact of domestic abuse and drug addiction is overwhelming. Last Monday ITV News ran an article in which the noble Lord was interviewed and rightly described prison for many women as a “disaster”. So how quickly can we cut the use of prison for mothers of young children to a minimum and provide women offenders with the therapeutic environments they so badly need?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is exactly right: we need to do more and do it faster. That is why the Women’s Justice Board is acting very quickly and coming up with its answers in the next few months. For me, what is really important is the intensive supervision court model, which we are very enthusiastic about, especially the one in Birmingham that is just for female offenders. Instead of them going to prison, we offer the wraparound support services so that they can stay out of prison and stay in the community. This comes back to a subject that I am very passionate about, attachment. It is really important for mothers to be with their children so that they can gain the attachment that, if not secured in their early years, can cause significant problems later on. As someone who was brought up with hundreds of foster children in my life, I am well aware of the issues around attachment in young children.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, an experiment in Oxford some 50 or 60 years ago showed that a newborn baby cat, if blindfolded for more than about six to eight weeks, would remain permanently visually impaired thereafter. We know that the infant brain is developing faster in those first two years than at any other time. I congratulate the noble Lord on what he is doing in trying to improve the environment for women and their children. Does he think that more could be done and, if so, how would we do it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I have seen all the mother and baby units in our prisons, and they are stimulating and incredibly professionally run. I also know that many foster parents and families who look after children of mothers in prison do an incredible job. But we are dealing with women in the justice system, most of whom are victims, most of whom are very ill, most of whom are suffering from addiction and most of whom have mental health problems too. That is why it is important that the wraparound services that we have to support them do so and do so quickly.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful for the efforts of the Minister in this matter. He is very careful to maintain judicial independence and independence from sentencing, but is he convinced that the sentencers are invariably cognisant of whether a female offender is pregnant?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The experts who work in the justice system and social services are the best placed to decide how to support mums and their babies when they are in the justice system. We have recently introduced social workers in four prisons. That is a really important role, and I am looking to see how well it is going—but so far, so good. As I said in a previous answer, the complexity of these women’s lives means that we need an awful lot of support, but in my view that support is worth it, especially in those early years.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

For mothers in those units, how is the monitoring undertaken to make sure that they are not being given drugs through illicit routes to maintain their drug addiction? Are they routinely tested for substances to try to help them come off drugs and maintain better bonding with the baby as a result? Are they also tested for viruses that might be a problem if they decided that they wished to breastfeed?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am not familiar with the exact details on testing, but I know that we have mandatory drug testing in all prisons on a regular basis. I am also aware, from having foster children at home, that when we opened the fridge we used to be careful whether we got out the Calpol or the methadone. Too many drugs get into prisons and too many people who go to prison are addicted to drugs. We need to deal with that, and we need to do it quickly.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, as there is no women’s prison in Wales, can the Minister give an update on the residential centre in Swansea?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The residential centre in Swansea is something that we are considering. We have had the spending review and we are waiting for the allocation process. I know it has planning permission. We talk about it a lot with Welsh colleagues. Other residential and non-residential centres for women, such as Hope Street in Southampton and Willowdene, are really important, not just to help them recover, often from addiction and mental health issues, but as a safe space. A number of the women in the criminal justice system are there because of dysfunctional relationships; often they experience violence at home, so these need to be very safe places.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great difficulty here in that the penalties have to be applied equally to men and women despite their circumstances, which might be different. Is the Minister satisfied that it is more in the interests of children always to be with the mother in prison, rather than being outside that environment and being looked after more adequately by society?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Children always have to come first in these decisions. I have met a number of mums in prison who are with their babies, and it is the best place for them and their baby. It is a safe place, they are getting a huge amount of wraparound support and they are able to build really important relationships with their young children, but it is for the judiciary to decide who goes to prison.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to share what support is given to women once they leave prison and how long it is provided for?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The general rule is that babies can stay with mothers in prison for up to 18 months, but there is flexibility so they can stay longer if required. It is really important that when women leave prison with their babies, they have somewhere to live and a wraparound support network. That is why it is important that we give them a soft landing when they leave prison. This is where probation comes in and where the £700 million in extra funding that we have will be really important to make sure that we get that first night accommodation, because we do not want anybody leaving prison with no fixed abode.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Prison Reform Trust’s 2025 report found that two-thirds of mother and baby units are operating above safe capacity. Can the Minister confirm how many mothers are currently held in standard, non-MBU prison accommodation with infants due to those shortages? What urgent steps are being taken to address this?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Having been chair of the Prison Reform Trust, I should know the details of that question, but I do not have them to hand so I will write to the noble Lord with the exact details. It is really important that we keep monitoring what happens in mother and baby units, because the children are our priority. We need to make sure that mum and baby leave there in a very safe way.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

I end by saying that IPP was and remains an injustice. We have made some progress but not enough. We will work constructively with the Minister and, therefore, from these Benches, we look forward with interest to what he has to say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley and to every Peer who has brought such sustained focus to the imprisonment for public protection sentence. Their passion and the compassion of the families, campaigners and practitioners have quite rightly kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Member’s Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy it proposes.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who takes over the responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hear the mood of the Committee in wanting to move forward, and quickly. I share this sentiment, but we do not think that resentencing is the right way to move this forward.

Today I want to be absolutely clear. My priority is to address the IPP legacy safely, fairly and in a way that endures. Since taking office, I have met many IPP prisoners and their families. I have listened to victims and front-line staff, chaired round tables and campaign groups and walked the landings with governors and probation leaders. Every conversation has strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every available operational lever. Even yesterday I met an IPP prisoner at HMP Eastwood Park who has her parole hearing today.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on communication. It is absolutely vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made. Yesterday I was pleased to see multiple copies of Inside Time around the prison, but I will take that back to the department and consider how we can do more.

We are already seeing what determined practical action we can achieve. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 automatically ended the licence for 1,742 people, with hundreds more cases now moving through the Parole Board on an accelerated timetable. That is real progress: people rebuilding their lives, victims protected and the public kept safe.

Let us stand back and look at the wider trajectory. The total IPP prison population has fallen from 5,040 in 2015 to 2,544 today, with the unreleased cohort down to 1,012. Meanwhile, rigorous supervision keeps risks low. Fewer than 0.5% of all offenders under statutory supervision were convicted of a serious further offence last year. Those figures show we can shrink the cohort while maintaining the confidence and safety of victims.

We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second annual report on the IPP sentence, alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets: 90% of IPP prisoners in the right prison for their needs by December, for example, and sharper deadlines for parole and termination reports. It hard-wires accountability at every level. I know that Peers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and that the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform have serious reservations about the Bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved without pursuing what is proposed in the Bill.

We have a plan, and it is working. Early results from that plan are encouraging. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were safely re-released—the highest figure ever recorded. While recalls fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly there is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population, the Parole Board continues to release around 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm on risk and ambitious on progression, is exactly what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan shoulder to shoulder with colleagues across both Houses, with campaign groups and, crucially, with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever until each individual who can be safely released is safely released and then supported to stay out.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Howard League report. We are exploring in particular the ways to improve recall decisions and speed up post-recall review processes.

While I cannot back a resentencing exercise that would short-circuit the Parole Board’s vital public protection role, I will champion relentless evidence-based progress. Let us channel the energy of the Bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will, with the House’s continued challenge and support, allow many more IPP offenders to complete their sentence and move on with their lives.

I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for Amendment 1 on the creation of an expert advisory committee, which would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may, rather than must, carry out. I understand the desire to provide the Lord Chancellor with advice on this matter.

However, as raised at Second Reading, my concern remains that the creation of an expert advisory committee risks giving false hope to those serving the IPP sentence, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement its recommendations. This is only confirmed in my regular meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and a wide range of respected organisations have considered the issue of resentencing, yet there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise in a way that would not involve releasing offenders the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public.

I recognise the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to address this issue by limiting a resentencing exercise to those currently in the community in Amendment 2. This would avoid the issue of prisoners being released without the Parole Board’s direction that the release test is met.

I respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which means they will have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release, or two for those sentenced when under 18, rather than 10. They also know that even if their licence is not terminated at this point, it will be terminated automatically if they are not recalled in the subsequent two-year period. Those in the community have, of course, met the Parole Board’s release test, but only on the basis that they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place in the form of licence conditions.

This amendment would remove those licence conditions much earlier—potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been in prison for a significant period of time should have the resettlement support from the Probation Service, and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Garnier, that licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board.

Amendment 3 would restrict the resentencing exercise to IPP offenders who are 10 years over their tariff, both in custody and in the community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for this amendment. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their tariff has expired.

Resentencing IPP prisoners who have served 10 years over their tariff would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. For this cohort in particular, the independent Parole Board will have repeatedly determined—at least every two years since the offender reached the end of their tariff—that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not met the statutory release test. For that reason, all those serving the IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community, they would have been recently released either for the first time or after being recalled. They need continued oversight to manage their risk and support from the Probation Service to progress them towards licence termination.

Amendment 10 would restrict a resentencing exercise to those serving a detention for public protection—DPP—sentence. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant force for change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges faced by those serving a DPP sentence. That is why those in the community now have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board two years after their initial release and will therefore also have their licence terminated automatically a year earlier than those on the IPP sentence, if the Parole Board does not terminate it at the end of the qualifying period. There are now fewer than 30 individuals serving DPP sentences in the community and currently fewer than 100 in custody.

The IPP action plan includes a specific focus on DPP offenders, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be comforted that there are more frequent reviews by psychology services and that the Parole Board prioritises listing these cases for consideration. However, our position remains that, as with those serving an IPP, those serving a DPP sentence should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. This is the only way we can ensure that the public and victims are best protected.

Finally in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom I thank for these amendments and for his thoughtful contributions to our IPP round tables, relate to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July 2008. The sentence was amended to give judges greater discretion over its use and to limit it to offenders who received at least a two-year tariff. Again, I recognise the purpose behind the amendments, but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2008 cohort irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of their risk. Our view remains that IPP prisoners should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments, or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders, for the reasons I have set out.

These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individuals serving the IPP sentence. Unfortunately, they do not address the Government’s public protection concerns and would put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and, with the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, there is already a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way.

The changes implemented are expected to reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds. I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and, as I have set out, I believe the IPP action is the best way to achieve this.

To conclude, I should like to give two final examples of the progress made to support the IPP population. First, the approved premises pilot, which has recently concluded, extended the time for which IPP offenders could remain in an AP from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in four APs. At one, 23 out of 26 men moved on successfully after their placement ended. We also saw a 7% decrease in recalls at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that pre-release work, combined with training for staff and extra support, has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community. If we can successfully replicate this across the approved premises estate, the impact could be significant.

Secondly, we are taking action to enable swift re-release following recall where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This summer, we will see the publication of the progression panel policy framework, which will ensure that a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender who is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the Risk Assessed Recall Review process, which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early re-release. These panels also help prisoners prepare for release, which aids their resettlement into the community. Measures such as these will help individuals progress through their sentence towards having it terminated.

I hope noble Lords are reassured by some of the updates that I have provided today. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can, as hard as I can, to support IPP prisoners so that they can get out of prison and stay out.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I was very pleased to forewarn him of my speech, to give him more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very serious matter, especially bearing in mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of this debate.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s answer, because it is very much more of the same that he has given us on two other occasions: he does not wish resentencing to be part of the move forward. I still really struggle to turn around and understand how the Minister cannot convince himself that it is the right thing to do for those groups of individuals that I have pointed out today—colleagues have supported me—who really do not create any sort of risk to the public. Those people who are already out on probation and have been released by the Parole Board are a perfect example, never mind the kids and others.

Nevertheless, all we can do is our best to encourage a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. This Minister is genuine, he is honest and he is doing as much as he feels he can to give hope and support to this victimised group of more than 3,000 individuals. I sincerely hope his words will lead to even more actions than have been done today as he moves away from the Chamber.

But it is a bit of a struggle when, only a week ago, we saw an individual who was finally released out into the community but was arrested within 24 hours and sent back into prison again—and released again and sent back into prison again. Or we might end up with a guy who is now mentally unstable, created by the system, and who has been trying to get out of prison. With your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution, only to find that not long thereafter he is sent straight back into the same prison, which creates the same mental instability. It does not work and, no matter what the Minister says, it certainly has not given us the answers to the hundreds of problems associated with IPP sentences.

I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I am proud of each and every one of them. Their contributions were fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well informed, and I thank them on behalf of all those prisoners for what they have said and what they are trying to do. There is no doubt that we have got our message across but, in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, given the way the debate on these amendments has gone—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—I propose to say only a few words about Amendment 7, which is, as I understand it, the only live amendment, so to speak. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who, as is always the case, has given us a lot of food for thought.

There is no doubt that the mental health aspect of the IPP issue is very real, not least because, as I said at Second Reading, my concern is that there will be prisoners who have developed mental health problems while in prison and indeed because of the sentence itself. I think I said that that was a stain on the British state and, if so, I was right to do so.

My noble friend Lord Moylan is therefore right to highlight the issue of mental health. That said, it is not immediately clear to me, looking at the words of the amendment, that the conditions in (6B) and (6C) are necessarily the right conditions to be imposed in this context. Of course, I appreciate that this amendment was tabled to raise the issue rather than to focus on the particular words. I therefore look forward to what the Minister has to say about Amendment 7.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, the second group of amendments clarify the Bill’s clauses and make important changes to the wording. However, the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. I will respond to all the amendments in turn as I want to set out the Government’s position.

My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 4 sets out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle, but it is already established by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is required.

My noble friend’s Amendment 5 would allow a resentencing court to retain the IPP sentence where the offender might properly have received a life sentence and where, at the time of resentencing, they constitute a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. Crucially, this would not prevent the resentencing of those who do not fall within these parameters and whom the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released. This is because the test being applied by a resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board’s statutory test.

My noble friend’s Amendment 6 would provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended licence on release, if it deemed it necessary. Noble Lords are aware of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act that allow for licence termination. This amendment would still involve the release of IPP prisoners who have previously been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test. It would therefore not address our fundamental public protection concerns about undertaking a resentencing exercise.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendment 7, and acknowledge her empathetic consideration for the individuals serving IPP sentences who require additional support for their mental health, especially the 233 individuals in secure hospitals. The amendment would allow a resentencing exercise to substitute an IPP sentence with a hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed, whereas this amendment would lead to a hospital order being substituted when an offender currently has a mental disorder. As with earlier amendments, this amendment would remove the IPP sentence irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of an individual’s risk. Instead, the individual could be released by a mental health review tribunal. This process may not fully consider the risk posed to victims and the public.

IPP prisoners, like any prisoner, can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be transferred to secure mental health hospitals if this care is required, and I am currently working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported towards release when that care is no longer required. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about disengaged IPP-ers, as I refer to them, and hospital returnees. It concerns me that, for example, they may be returned to a category B local prison, which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I am very keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for Amendment 8. Although the Government do not support the Bill, I understand the intention behind her amendment to assess the impact on services if the Bill were to become law. There is, however, already a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act for the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders. The annual report is expected to be published by Summer Recess and will show the progress that has been made.

Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan on 26 April 2023, there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. Additionally, when I became a Minister, 70% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prison for their needs. This has now increased to around 80% and HMPPS continues to make improvements in this area. This will help more of these individuals progress towards a release because they will be better able to access the support they need.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 9, would reduce the licence period of one year for those who were subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment does not define what would constitute an invalid recall, and my noble friend is perhaps referring to an unlawful recall, which would likely be the legal interpretation. If, however, he is suggesting scenarios where further information comes to light and the reasons for recall should be reconsidered, there is the risk-assessed recall review—RARR—process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was slightly confused in the summation. The implication, if you were just listening in and did not know about this subject, is that, largely, people were given IPP sentences originally because of sexual and violent acts. That is not accurate. Maybe the Minister could clarify what he meant by that. One of the arguments that I was putting forward—maybe the Minister could reflect on this—is that the dangerousness we keep hearing about from different Governments’ versions of the MoJ is often associated with a deterioration of behaviour because of poor mental health created by the sentence. The Minister says that the Parole Board are the only people who can assess whether the behaviour is dangerous or not but, in the instances of mental illness, would it not be better for a clinical assessment? Hospitals have to make decisions all the time about releasing people based on whether they are dangerous or not. They are in a much stronger position, surely, than the Parole Board, which does not necessarily understand mental ill health.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

HMIP did a report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionately. I believe that the Parole Board has the right skills and experience to make these often very difficult and complex decisions. On the make-up of the cohort of IPP prisoners, I will write with the exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, this Committee has not materialised in the way that I would have preferred. Not least, it has not led towards what I hoped was going to be a vote or, maybe more importantly, the Minister finally agreeing to move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohort that we have highlighted so carefully and fairly.

While I have that disappointment, I think it is fair to say that we have done one thing that IPP prisoners will be grateful for. We have yet again raised awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and among the wider public. There is therefore no way to say, “We will do something”, and then do nothing. There is no escape for us in this House to ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day.

Once again, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Davies. The expertise that they have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and their support is, as always, very much appreciated.

I shall finish where my noble friend Lord Davies finished, and the Minister has just said it: it is in your hands now, sir. It is no good being a nice man with a good heart whose will is there to try to make these changes if we then find that we are back in 12 months or two years and nothing has moved and the number of people who have committed suicide has gone from 100 to 110. It is now on the Minister’s shoulders, and I look forward to working with him and others to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades now.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The previous Government added just 500 net spaces to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply.

When we took office, we were left no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. This enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end of custody supervised licence scheme. But we knew this was a first step.

Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places. In the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary, but not sufficient in itself, to avoid the capacity issues that we have faced in the criminal justice system for many months. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male custodial estate across England and Wales was forecast to run out of places by November this year. Alongside the Government’s long-term building strategy and sentencing reform, this grave projection requires immediate action, particularly in respect of the current use of recall.

Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency release. This review suggests that recall should be rare and a last resort, replacing standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted this recommendation, which requires primary legislation to implement.

A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations. However, it will take time to take effect. The impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before spring next year. We therefore remain in a critical position until then. Our custodial estate stands as a reservoir filled to the brim. Any further influx risks overflow, with serious consequences for the system and society alike. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand.

The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year, without a corresponding growth in offending rates. With more people in prison and under community supervision serving longer sentences, recall rates have naturally increased. When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of a fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation. It is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. During this time, the Probation Service will put in place robust risk management plans and stringent licence conditions for their release. After this period, they are automatically re-released. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board. Our latest data shows that at least 48% of all recalls are fixed term rather than standard.

This order provides for the mandatory use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. We estimate that this will be able to create an additional 1,400 prison places. It shall apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of fewer than 48 months, except where they are under the age of 18 at the point of recall, are convicted of terrorist or national security offences or pose a terrorist risk, are managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—or are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence. These offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision. In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed.

It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, including the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions. Offenders face re-recall to prison if they breach licence conditions or their risk escalates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I will write if I miss any answers to specific questions, but I will try to answer them all here.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some important and interesting points around the Prison and Probation Service being in a mess and blame. I am not in the blame game—I am in the “fix it” game—but we all recognise the complex problems that we have across the whole justice system. It needs a thoughtful, long-term vision.

On the issues in the courts, the Leveson review will be published shortly. The Government are going through this important process to address the problems that the noble Lord raised, but, in the meantime, a record number of sitting days have now been funded in the Crown Court. That is still not enough, though; we need a sustainable system.

The Gauke review has been published and will, I hope, soon lead to legislation. We talk about sentence length. The progression model described in this review is very interesting. It is aligned with the Texas model: if you behave well, you have a certain release point, but, if you behave badly, you stay in prison for longer. I am interested in how incentives work in prison because the model is well proven in other jurisdictions.

It is not just about the Leveson review and the Gauke review; it is also about the spending review. The Treasury has given us a substantial amount of money to build new prison places, so that by the end of this Parliament we will have more people in prison than ever before. There is also investment in probation, with an extra £700 million for more staff, accommodation, tags and technology. We need these three reviews, but we also need long-term culture change and a sustainable plan.

I am glad the noble Lord talks about HMP Berwyn— I can also see it from my house. I know quite a lot about what is going on there, because a foster child who used to live with our family is a prison officer there and tells us regularly about what is going on. The noble Lord is correct that there are still recruitment gaps at HMP Berwyn; the retention rates and the average length of service of a prison officer there, and in other prisons as well, are too low. That is why I am implementing the prison officer training review, which I carried out before I came into Government, to make sure that we recruit great officers who learn the skills quickly, alongside the more complex skills required, and who stay. One of the things that we have lost over the years is the long- term skills base that the service had for many years.

I think I am one of the few Ministers who has visited HMP Parkhurst recently. It has a full complement of officers, with a very different employment set up—it makes a big difference when you have enough staff; that is very clear. When a prison has enough staff, we can get enough prisoners into activities, education and so on.

The ask of probation is significant, and noble Lords and noble and learned Lords are 100% correct that this is where the heavy lifting needs to be done. It is about investing in recruitment, training and technology. If we do not get this right, we will keep having problems in our prisons as well. I agree that we need long-term reform to solve this problem. In the short term, it is important that we do not run out of space. We need a sustainable justice system. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that I certainly have the vision and energy to get this done. The satisfaction is not for me but for the officers and probation staff, so that they can be enabled to do the job they came into the service to do.

My noble friend Lord Lemos raises some very important points around short-term measures. They just prove that the system is unsustainable, and this has been going on and on. We need to make sure that the staff who work in the Prison and Probation Service have far more consistent leadership and policy-making from us so they know what they need to do, rather than it changing all the time. We need to make sure that capacity is sustainable, and that we have enough probation and prison staff to do the job.

The organisation needs a strong vision, but within that vision, victims need to come first. That is why the role of victim liaison officers and the victim contact scheme is really important, but we need the resources. The noble Lord is quite right that we need to invest in probation. That is why the 45% increase in funding to £700 million is really important.

What is happening with technology? This morning, I was a dragon: we had our first technology “Dragon’s Den”, where I sat in on seven presentations from some of the most developed technology companies in the world. We had someone from New Zealand and someone from America, as well as UK-based technology companies, presenting their solutions to some of our problems. Some of those were about what we can do to improve what happens in a prison, but most of them were about probation, and that is exactly where we need to invest in our technology.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, raised very important points around the concerns about the 28-day recall and what happens when someone is released after that. It is better than the emergency releases, which were less controlled, and 28 or 14 days give us time, hopefully, to find accommodation and the medical support that people need. However, we do not want to have as many recalls as we have now; he is completely right about that. Public safety has to be our priority, but we also need to ensure that probation staff are focused on those at highest risk, because they are probably more likely to be recalled. I agree that we need rational thinking, but we need space in our prisons to ensure that the reforms coming down the track can take effect, so we cannot run out of space before then.

Recalls have doubled since 2018. The noble and learned Lord is completely right that the number is far too high, but I believe we have high levels because too many people are leaving our prison system addicted, homeless, mentally unwell and unemployed. Having been on the employment side of this work for more than 20 years, I know that it is incredibly difficult to employ someone who may be very talented but is ill and homeless. It is about having a sustainable system and reducing the number of recalls over time, but we will do that most appropriately by setting people up when they leave prison to succeed rather than to fail.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not want to be difficult, but why should we not pursue the suggestion, even in advance of the Gauke review, of not recalling? Is it completely impossible not to recall people for minor breaches of a sentence for a minor offence? Why can we not get on with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

This recall works by using MAPPA levels 2 and 3, terrorist offences and so on, but, in the longer term, recall will form part of the discussions around the Gauke review and the sentencing Bill. However, it is important that we have recall as a tool for victims of domestic violence whose perpetrators are ignoring orders against them.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I intervene to emphasise the point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, have made. In the case of offenders who commit a minor breach of their licence and have not been sentenced for a violent offence, there is surely a compelling case for not recalling them at all—there are other means of dealing with them through the Probation Service—so that we do not have a situation in which someone who has been in prison for fraud, for example, is stopped for a road traffic offence and sent back because they have breached the terms of their licence. It does not seem to make any sense in this context, and this could be done more or less immediately.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I support the noble and learned Lord in that. There are recalls for failure to keep appointments, such as tagging appointments. If the Minister were to lay down a rule that people were to be tagged before they left prison and not wander around the countryside until they fail to make an appointment for that purpose, it would do a great deal of service.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Our probation officers are experts in managing risk and their decisions determine whether someone is recalled, but it is important that we look into examples where it seems that someone should not be recalled. We need to have diversion options available too; the breaches may be minor, but they might not be from the victim’s point of view and may be part of other offending behaviour. IPP offenders, for example, can sometimes be recalled if their behaviour is similar to their original offence.

I hope noble Lords agree that this order is necessary to address the critical capacity issues faced by our prisons in the immediate future and is an appropriate bridging measure to avert a crisis before longer-term solutions are implemented. This draft instrument is a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s approach to ensuring that our criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively. I trust that your Lordships will recognise its necessity, and I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Bill do now pass

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

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Bill Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice and I particularly recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman since 2022. The Lady Chief Justice recalled him yesterday as one of the very best criminal judges of his generation. I am conscious that many noble and noble and learned Lords will have known and worked closely with him. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis and his children and to all those who knew him.

I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have contributed to debates on the Bill in this House. Despite its short length, it has prompted careful and detailed consideration from Members of this House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have, throughout its passage, provided constructive challenge. I am grateful to the officials who have been involved in its preparation and passage. The Opposition Front Bench, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, have engaged constructively on the Bill, for which I am grateful. I pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who have all been generous with their time in both their scrutiny of the Bill and their engagement with me. Finally, I thank the team who have supported me on this Bill, in particular Katherine, James and Jack, to whom I am very grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I add my note of sadness at the news of the death of Lord Justice William Davis recently and add my condolences to those of the Minister to his family upon his passing. He was a judge of great distinction. He led the Sentencing Council, which is the subject of this Bill, with very great distinction as well. He will be greatly missed.

Turning to the Bill, we made it clear that we did not agree with the Bill: we did not agree with the principle or that the proposed guidelines of the Sentencing Council threatened the notion of equality before the law. We believed, as is clear, that this was not a sensible use of emergency legislation and that the disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor should have been resolved without the need for legislation. We were concerned that the Bill had the potential to damage the Sentencing Council. In the event, we did not succeed in securing the withdrawal of the Bill, or in amending the Bill, which had Conservative support, so it will now become the law.

However, we can take two strong positives from the debate around this Bill. The first is the Government’s commitment to the Probation Service and to the importance of pre-sentencing reports in giving guidance to judges and providing consistency in sentencing. The commitment has been to having more reports of higher quality, backed up by increased resources. I thank the Minister for his kind words to me and others in opening this short debate; I say from these Benches what a credit he has been to his department and to this House in coming fresh to the House with his very strong commitment to the sentencing system and the Probation Service. His presence on the Front Bench has been a breath of fresh air for us all, and we are very grateful to him.

The second positive has been the recognition around this House of the enormous value of the Sentencing Council in giving independent, well-researched advice on sentencing to judges, with a view to promoting consistency not just in sentencing but in the approach to the factors that judges need to take into account in sentencing. I add my gratitude to Members around the House—both those with experience of acting in criminal cases and those with no experience of the criminal law or of law at all—who have stressed the importance of these issues to the development of the law and our criminal justice system, and, perhaps more importantly, to the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has the right, but not the duty, to reply.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Bill passed.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

As for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, we are unsure exactly that it is needed, but we see merit in the view expressed by the Constitution Committee.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued and careful consideration of this Bill. Before I turn to each amendment in this group, I want to briefly recap why we have brought the Bill forward.

In revising its imposition guideline, the Sentencing Council included text that suggests that a pre-sentence report will

“normally be considered necessary”

if an offender belongs to certain cohorts, including some that specifically refer to offenders’ personal characteristics, such as those

“from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.

We believe that the approach taken through this guidance risks offenders receiving differential access to pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. It also means that the Sentencing Council is making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report, when this is properly a matter for Ministers and Parliament to decide. For these reasons, we have introduced this Bill to stop this guidance coming into force and prevent the Sentencing Council making similar guidance in the future.

I turn to the amendments in this group. First, there are those amendments which seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion to include some factors that are based on offenders’ different personal characteristics. Amendments 1 and 7, from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion. The Sentencing Council could still make guidelines with reference to personal characteristics but only if the guidelines also said that those personal characteristics had to be relevant to the ultimate sentencing decision.

Amendments 2 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would give the Sentencing Council discretion to include factors based on offenders’ different personal characteristics within relevant guidelines, if it felt that doing so would avoid inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is intended to provide that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council including provision within relevant guidelines that reflects existing case law about pre-sentence reports.

During Committee, I committed to take away the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the Bill’s current approach. I have carefully reflected on where there are alternative ways of meeting the Bill’s fundamental objective—to ensure equality before the law. However, ultimately, I remain confident that the current approach taken within the Bill is the best and clearest way to meet this objective. This is because, if these amendments were accepted, the Sentencing Council would be able to continue to produce guidelines that could risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. In doing so, the Sentencing Council would be making policy on a matter that is within the proper remit of Ministers and Parliament. Therefore, we do not believe that these amendments are beneficial, as they would undermine the Bill’s objectives.

I turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 3 would change some of the drafting used in Clause 1. The Bill states that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include

“provision framed by reference to”

offenders’ personal characteristics. Instead, if the noble Baroness’s amendment were to be accepted, the Bill would state that any provision which is “solely based on” offenders’ personal characteristics cannot be included in relevant guidelines. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 6 seeks to add text to the Bill that confirms that it does not prevent the Sentencing Council producing relevant guidelines. This suggests that a pre-sentence report would be ordered where an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has suggested these amendments in the spirit of attempting to make the Bill as clear as possible, and I am grateful for the constructive challenge. I have carefully considered both amendments and we ultimately believe that they would not improve the Bill’s drafting.

For Amendment 3, this is because the Bill is already sufficiently clear. The drafting, which would prevent the Sentencing Council making sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports

“framed by reference to different personal characteristics”,

means that the council cannot include any text within relevant guidelines that refers to offenders’ personal characteristics. This effectively captures our intent, which is to ensure equality before the law. For Amendment 6, the Bill as drafted does not prevent the Sentencing Council including text within relevant guidelines that suggests to sentencers, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. We have been clear throughout the debates and in supporting material of the benefits of pre-sentence reports. We believe our intention is clear from the language we have used in the Bill. In the spirit of keeping the Bill short and simple, we do not consider it necessary to explicitly state within the Bill things that it does not do. The Bill does not prevent sentencing guidelines encouraging pre-sentence reports based on an offenders’ personal circumstances.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, seeks to ensure sentencing guidelines can continue to advise sentencers to seek pre-sentence reports in cases involving offenders who are pregnant or who are primary carers of young children. I should like to start by thanking the right reverend Prelate for raising this point. I have long been an advocate for better support for pregnant women in prison and for those women who are primary carers of young children, ever since I first sat outside HMP Styal with my mother, taking foster children to see their mums on visits. I know all too well that so many of the foster children who I lived with had mothers in prison who were often victims of considerable trauma and abuse, and they were often vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many found imprisonment had life-changing impacts, for not only them but their children.

Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which was set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. The sentencing review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.

However, in the context of this specific Bill, following the Committee debate, I have further considered whether it would be appropriate to add an exclusion. Amendment 8 would allow the Sentencing Council to retain existing wording across relevant guidelines that suggests sentencers request pre-sentence reports for pregnant and post-natal offenders. We remain satisfied that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. It ensures sentencing guidelines do not risk preferential access to pre-sentence reports based on offenders’ personal characteristics. In doing so, it prevents the Sentencing Council making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report.

To be absolutely clear, this does not mean we think pregnant or post-natal women should not be receiving pre-sentence reports. We fully support the ability of sentencers to make their own judgment on whether to order a pre-sentence report, based on their consideration of the unique circumstances of individual cases. That is why nothing in the Bill stops courts requesting pre-sentence reports in any case where they ordinarily would do so. This includes appropriate cases involving pregnant or post-natal women, as well as other individuals who may be vulnerable for a number of reasons.

The key distinction here is that we cannot support any suggestion within sentencing guidelines that access to pre-sentence reports should be based on offenders’ personal characteristics. It is for this reason that we have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it does not affect the existing obligation on courts, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, to obtain a pre-sentence report, unless considered unnecessary.

I want to re-emphasise that, following the Bill’s passage, the Sentencing Council can still remind sentencers in general terms that pre-sentence reports are necessary when, among other things, a full assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial. I would like to clarify that, even without a pre-sentence report, alternatives to custody can be considered by a sentencing court. Pre-sentence reports are by no means the only route through which alternatives to custody are considered, and women are diverted away from custody.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords about the Government’s sentiment with regard to better support for pregnant women and primary carers currently in prison and about our clear policy intention to reduce the number of women in prison. I therefore encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, could he clarify something for me, because he has made two apparently conflicting statements in the course of the correspondence? One is that it would be unlawful—and that is his word—for the Sentencing Council to frame guidelines in a way that reflected the existing case law that pregnant women should be the subject of pre-sentence reports. But he has just said, and has said on other occasions also, that the Sentencing Council can issue guidelines or statements of some kind which draw attention to that pre-existing case law. The purpose of my amendment was to leave the Sentencing Council free to do so. How can he, at one and the same time, say that this would be unlawful and then describe this way of carrying it out?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

These are different things and we do not want to link them. The Bill intentionally deals with the Sentencing Council, not the Court of Appeal. The Bill as drafted achieves its aims simply, and we do not want to overcomplicate things.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has indicated to your Lordships that he proposes to test the opinion of this House on Amendment 2. I am a pragmatist. I want to see the Bill improve to further the objective that I have explained to your Lordships. That being so, I am perfectly content to rally behind Amendment 2. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about pre-sentence reports. A long time ago, I had much experience of defending in the Crown Court, so I know that such reports are of extreme and important value. However, I have to say—for the first time, really—that I agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, who just said that he does not see the need for this amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I do not see it, either, I am afraid. I know that the noble Lord needs to be satisfied by the Minister, who will no doubt follow what I have to say, but, in my view, the Government’s policy on pre-sentence reports is clear: they are in favour of them, and we need to improve them because they have been allowed to go downhill in the past number of years. I agree with that. My view is that this amendment is not something that should divide the House.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to encourage their greater use, particularly in cases where a sentencing decision is likely to involve a choice between a community or custodial sentence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. He was right to ask how we can encourage greater use of pre-sentence reports and ensure that we have sufficient probation resource to do so, and he made exactly the right points in speaking about the importance of pre-sentence reports. I am grateful to him for the discussions that we have had since Committee; I would welcome continued engagement with him on this issue.

I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me giving quite a full answer to his question. Although he asked the right question, I would argue that there are other levers beyond sentencing guidelines that are the better place to solve the problem. We must ensure that we have a Probation Service that is properly funded and staffed, and which has the tools it needs to deliver. We must also balance the need for sufficient and thorough pre-sentence reports with the other crucial roles that the Probation Service plays. We want more, and better-quality, PSRs.

I am mindful that the noble Lord tabled a similar amendment in Committee, where I took the opportunity to set out the steps that the Lord Chancellor and I are taking to improve the Probation Service’s capacity to deliver timely and high-quality reports. I would like to reassure noble Lords further on the steps that we are taking to support our Probation Service; if they will permit me, I will endeavour to give a thorough answer as to what the Government are doing.

First, we are increasing staffing levels. We recruited more than 1,000 new trainee probation officers last year and we aim to recruit a further 1,300 this year.

Secondly, I am delighted that we have announced a significant increase to the budget for the Probation Service and other community services for offenders. It will rise by up to £700 million by 2028-29, representing an increase of around 45% by the final year of the spending review period. This is a very significant investment and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to this vital service. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will agree that this is needed to fund probation in a way that ensures that our probation officers can do the job they came into the service to do.

Thirdly, I am convinced that a significant part of the answer sits with new technology. The Lord Chancellor and I recently hosted a tech round table with industry experts to make sure that we are asking the right questions and working collaboratively on the best solutions. Let me give noble Lords a sense of some of the transformative impact that we are already exploring in terms of technology.

I am passionate about ensuring that probation officers are able to do the job they came in to do. For probation, as with every other public service, new technology has the potential to be really transformative. We are exploring the benefits of AI in a number of areas. We are piloting the use of transcription and summarisation tools to reduce administrative load. We are developing algorithms to support decision-making, risk assessment, case prioritisation and operational planning. AI-powered search is being explored to better support the information gathering needed for report writing. All these have the potential to save significant practitioner administration time and to improve quality, allowing probation officers to focus on face-to-face time with offenders, to support them to change, rather than on administrative tasks.

Technology can also transform how probation staff can bring the right information together to assess and manage offenders. For staff writing pre-sentence reports, we are rolling out a new service called “Prepare a case for sentence”, which links probation systems with the court’s common platform and gives probation staff in the courts the earliest possible notice of cases that are being listed, as well as new templates so that reports are timely and give the courts what they need.

We are also investing in the complete redesign of the approach to the assessment of risks, needs and the strengths of the people on probation and in prison. The resulting sentence and risk management plans will combine a new assessment and planning approach that incorporates the latest desistance research, supported by a new digital service. This new service will reduce the resource burden on front-line staff and ensure that assessment and planning practice better supports individuals, thereby achieving better rehabilitation and public protection outcomes.

Noble Lords will recognise that, although investment in staff numbers and technology are vital foundations, it is nothing without also supporting staff to have the right skills to spot risks and needs and to communicate those to the court. Our staff have access to a wide range of learning and development, including modules relating to court-specific roles and skills, ensuring that they are well equipped to work in this setting. The better trained they are, the better PSRs they will present.

The Probation Service has a dedicated court case assessment tool for line managers to quality assure pre-sentence reports. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation also completes regular inspections of probation regions, with an assessment of court work included as a key component of this. Furthermore, the Probation Service seeks detailed feedback from sentencers on the quality of reports through an annual judicial survey. Through all this investment and improvement, our aim is that, whenever a court orders a pre-sentence report, it can be confident that it is based on the fullest information and a thorough analysis of risks and needs; and that it answers the right questions the court is wanting to understand.

I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment now specifically refers to scenarios where a sentencer will likely need to decide between imposing a community or a custodial sentence. I completely agree with the noble Lord that pre-sentence reports can be particularly helpful in these kinds of cases. These reports provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk and targeted assessments of the individual’s needs. This then confidently articulates suitable sentencing proposals that balance public protection, punishment and rehabilitation. In doing so, they will consider a range of disposal options, setting out the best use of credible community sentences where appropriate.

I hope that it will offer some reassurance to the noble Lord that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant texts in this spirit, which the Bill does not impact. Specifically, it states:

“A pre-sentence report can be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence”.


Of course, it is for the sentencer to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report, and there is an existing obligation on courts to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary. The Bill does not change that.

I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising the importance of pre-sentence reports and increasing their use. As I have set out, the Government are committed to ensuring greater funding, capacity and efficiency for the Probation Service. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and detailed response. As I hoped he would, he has given an outline of the Government’s very real commitment to more and better pre-sentence reports. He has also detailed the considerable investment that the Government propose to make in the Probation Service and in the production of such reports. I completely agree with him as to the future role of technology in the Probation Service and in the production of these reports. In that spirit, I respectfully ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Independent Sentencing Review

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, we welcome the Independent Sentencing Review. We also applaud the appointment of David Gauke to lead it. He was an inspired and independent choice and, despite some reservations with the report, we regard the tenor of the review as brave, principled and, most importantly, evidence based.

We also agree with the Government in their Statement that the previous Administration are largely responsible for the crisis in our prisons—our running out of prison space, the dilapidation of our prison estate, the ineffective approach to rehabilitation, to community sentences and to the Probation Service, and the continuing pervasive recidivism. These are the factors that got us into this mess, and they are largely the previous Government’s fault. The irony is that the previous Government claimed to be dedicated to law and order, just as the noble and learned Lord does now. Well, that is not their legacy.

Given the present position, on present trends and given the prison building plans—they are extensive, but there will inevitably be delays in their implementation—can the Government realistically hope to avoid the kind of stopgap emergency responses that we have found necessary over the last year?

Moving on, the proposals for three-part prison sentences and an earned progression model are persuasive. It is interesting that they originated in Texas—not a state known for soft liberalism. My understanding is that the Texan Government believed that these crime reduction measures would save the taxpayers’ dollar. Have the Government yet estimated the possible cost savings from these proposals overall?

We agree that we desperately need the increased investment in probation and probably even more investment. We regard the commitment to more tagging and community monitoring as clearly sensible. But I would be grateful if the Minister could say how far it is envisaged that tagged offenders will be confined to their homes, and what plans there are for work, education and training for offenders while they are tagged and under supervision.

Capping recalls to prison should prevent the use of recall to respond to relatively minor breaches of conditions with extended and disproportionate prison terms, but how will the individual length of these short recalls be determined? We on these Benches, along with the majority of experts in the field, have been arguing for years for a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, and I can see the argument for leaving some judicial discretion in place in certain circumstances. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nodding, and I know that he has had experience of short sentencing in his time as a magistrate. But we also agree that victims of domestic abusers and stalkers, and cases of breaches of protection orders, call for particular protection for victims. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance that, in practice, this reform will give the presumption against short sentences that we have long been seeking?

We accept the argument for making community sentences tougher and for intensive supervision courts, but we seek an assurance that the primary purpose of community sentences will continue to be to rehabilitate offenders and enable them to turn their lives around. We have concerns about the pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal, with its rather troubling overtones of chemical castration. Will the Government commit to careful monitoring of the long-term effects of such treatment?

Finally, we share the Government’s commitment to supporting victims, and that shines through this Statement. My noble friend Lady Brinton has been at the forefront of securing more compassionate treatment of victims, and the exclusion zones proposed will be an important new protection. But may we also have a commitment to making the criminal justice system more approachable and less traumatic for victims, particularly in cases of sexual violence? We have had some progress in this area but not nearly enough, hence the loss of so many cases. That would be a helpful complement for the Government’s principled commitment to ensure that women are less often sent to prison, and that women defendants are more compassionately treated by the criminal justice system.

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

My Lords, when this Government asked David Gauke and his independent expert panel to conduct a review of sentencing, its task was clear: our country must never run out of prison places again. I put on record my appreciation for all the panel’s work, including that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who is well known and respected in this place.

In considering its proposals, the Independent Sentencing Review has followed the evidence and looked at examples of good practice across the world. It is clear to me, as someone who has been searching for answers to these well-known problems for over 20 years, that the panel has carefully and methodically approached the challenges head-on. This review sets out major reform. It is an important moment for the justice sector, and one we cannot afford to ignore.

As the Lord Chancellor has set out, once again our prisons are running out of space. Let me be clear that we must always have space in our prisons for dangerous offenders. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for prison places will still outstrip supply by 9,500 cells in early 2028. If our prisons collapse, courts must suspend trials, police must halt arrests and crime goes unpunished; we face the total breakdown of law and order in this country. Yet the previous Government, over 14 years, added just 500 places to our prison estate. At the same time, sentence lengths rose. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis.

That starts by building prisons. Since taking office just 11 months ago, this Government have opened 2,400 places. Last month, the Lord Chancellor announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031. This is the largest expansion since the Victorian era. However, the investment is vital, but it is still not sufficient. We need to do more. We cannot just build our way out of this crisis. This Government have been clear: we also need to both reform sentencing and end the cycle of reoffending.

The report’s central recommendation—the move to a three-part sentence called the “earned progression model”—means that offenders will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release point will be at the one-third mark, with additional time added for bad behaviour. For those serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release point will be at 50%, with additional time added for bad behaviour. If they follow prison rules and behave well, they will earn an earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. It is that simple.

That behaviour-based approach echoes the model that the Lord Chancellor witnessed in Texas. I have personally been fascinated by the Texan model for a number of years and have followed the outcomes achieved very closely, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, clearly has as well. If you are a prison geek like me, this is what you seek: examples of what works—and it clearly does work. Its reforms, which started in 2007, have led to 16 prisons closing, to fewer victims and to lower costs of reoffending.

To address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about these reforms applying to dangerous offenders, I assure noble Lords that these reforms will not apply to those serving extended determinate sentences, which includes the most dangerous offenders. I confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences or state threat sentences will be eligible for early release from prison. I can also confirm that the Government engaged with police colleagues and other stakeholders across the criminal justice system prior to the publication of the review, as did David Gauke. We wanted to ensure that we had a joined-up approach. The full detail of these policies, including an impact assessment, will accompany the forthcoming legislation.

Noble Lords have rightly raised questions about what these reforms will mean for victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse. My priority is clear: everything we do is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. Our first responsibility is to make sure that this does not happen, which is why we consulted widely, as has David Gauke, with victims’ groups.

The review recommends several important measures, including the way we identify domestic abusers at sentencing so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. We recognise how vital it is to make sure that we know who all domestic abuse offenders are, even when their offences are not obviously linked to domestic abuse. We also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts. I also clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the review did not recommend entirely abolishing short sentences. Under our proposed reforms, judges will retain the discretion to hand down short custodial sentences in exceptional circumstances, and I note that David Gauke’s review specifically references this, including giving respite to victims of domestic abuse.

To improve transparency in the system, we will also extend the provision of free sentencing remark transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. All these are necessary steps that I believe show that this Government have recognised the unique harms caused by violence against women and girls. Further steps will be outlined when, in the summer, we publish our 10-year cross-government strategy on violence against women and girls.

Noble Lords raised important questions about public protection and the role of probation. The Government recognise probation’s important role. In fact, it is more than important; it is vital. That is why we are increasing funding for probation by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review—an increase of 45%. That will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders, which the evidence has shown cuts crime and makes our streets safer.

If we are to see more punishment in the community, it is essential that it works. That is why we are looking at new severe financial penalties that would see offenders’ assets seized even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expand the use of punishments, such as travel and driving bans, that would curtail an offender’s liberty.

I particularly draw noble Lords’ attention to the recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. These impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, with offenders regularly brought before a judge to monitor their compliance. If they do not play ball, the offenders get sent straight to prison. Intensive supervision courts work, especially with prolific offenders. Visiting the court in Birmingham remains the best day I have had in this job—I saw how it helps turn lives away from crime.

I also draw noble Lords’ attention to David Gauke’s recommendations relating to female offenders. My interest in prison started many years ago, when coming face to face with the realities of many women in our prisons. Too many women are victims of considerable trauma and abuse. They are vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many are also mothers, and their imprisonment has life-changing impacts not only for them but for their children. Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences, and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which we set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. I am pleased to note that the review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.

I will inform noble Lords about some of the other areas of our focus to address the capacity crisis. The number of offenders recalled to prison has doubled since 2018, putting increasing pressure on the system. Today’s figure is around 13,000. The sentencing review makes sensible recommendations to address this increase, and it is suggested that, where offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle and will set out the precise details of these changes when we legislate.

In conclusion, in our response to the sentencing review, this Government will take the steps necessary to end the enduring capacity crisis we inherited and end the cycle of reoffending. To do that, we must agree with others that we have to build prisons on a historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever and speed up our courts. But we also must reform sentencing in a way that puts the justice system on a more sustainable footing. We now have the right ideas, the long-term funding and a Government determined to resolve this long-term crisis for good. I invite noble Lords to engage with me as we pursue this much-needed reform.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me some advance indication of the proposals in the government Statement, but does he not agree that sentences of imprisonment, including short sentences, are almost invariably imposed by the courts only as a matter of last resort? Is it not the case that, by seeking to curtail the use of short sentences of imprisonment, the Government risk frustrating and demoralising the magistrates who perform such outstanding public service and exacerbating the increase in crime, which the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and others have said will be an inevitable consequence of the Government’s proposals?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

To be clear, courts will retain discretion to impose short custodial sentences for offenders who have breached a court order. So 12 months or fewer is not banned; it is in exceptional circumstances, including the breach of any VAWG-related protective order—for example, restraining orders, non-molestation orders and stalking protection orders. But courts will also be able to impose a sentence of immediate custody when there are exceptional circumstances that would not justify passing a suspended sentence. A large amount of evidence suggests that reoffending levels are higher for people who go to prison on short sentences than for those who serve tough community sentences instead.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support the Gauke review, which tries to address two major problems that have caused our prison population to get out of control. One of those is increased sentencing. I cannot remember a political party represented here today that has promised in any election that it would reduce sentences. They have all competed to give high sentences, and I am not sure that it has had the effect desired—of course, with some offences. The second is obviously the decrease in the amount of parole available. This review attempts to do something about the latter, and I broadly support it.

I wonder whether the Minister will agree with me on three points about which I am concerned. I agree partly with the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I know that the Government have proposed to entirely remove the shorter sentences, but they should be really careful which ones they entirely remove. More important is the phasing of this: how would those people come out, in what groups and in what numbers?

That links to the second point, about policing and probation resources. I agree with the Government increasing probation spending, but it will not all be spent at once and people will not all arrive experienced and able. How do we match those two things so that the police and probation are prepared effectively for that mass release?

Finally, there is a real opportunity here. I agree with tagging. To those who say that people commit offences with tagging, I would say that, in general, they commit fewer offences. If the tagging is linked to their offending behaviour, such as with sobriety, and if it can limit where they go and do not go, it can have an effect. At the moment, those tags go to a commercial company and not directly to the police service. Surely the time has come to create a separate body to monitor those tags and react immediately when there are breaches. I am not convinced that that happens at the moment.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is exactly right that housing is a key factor in the potential for someone to reoffend and go back to prison. We need to make sure that, when people leave prison, they do not have the initials NFA against their name, because they need somewhere to live.

On community sentences, there are very good examples of effective alternatives. For example, community sentence treatment requirements tackle the root causes of offending, and recipients of mental health treatment requirements were 9 percentage points less likely to reoffend compared to those on short custodial sentences. The £700 million of extra funding is absolutely vital, and will go an awful long way to making sure that we can deliver the service that our hard-working probation staff need. They know exactly what to do, but they have often been restricted in what opportunities they have. I am very determined to make sure that, when we offer community services, they are sentences that work, so that when people start on them they then go on to live a crime-free life.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is it correct that in the United Kingdom we have the highest rate of incarceration in Europe and are exceeded only by the United States? When did officials at the offender management units at MoJ realise that we were definitely going to run out of prison places? Was it in this Parliament or was it at some point in the previous Parliament? Finally, is there any hope that the Minister will make some noticeable reform to our custodial system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The amount of prison places that we will be building will mean that there are even more people in prison than ever before. We will build 14,000 places by 2031, which will mean that there is a large amount more space for offenders to go in. On the day I arrived in the Ministry of Justice, I had thought that it would be a day of celebration and that I would be home within an hour, but I was there for about six hours, meeting officials who were clearly concerned that we were about to run out of space, again. That is why I am delighted that David Gauke’s review has been presented to Parliament. We need to make sure that it works together with the review that Brian Leveson is carrying out, which I hope will be published soon. It is not one or the other; both are needed, as well as the investment in building new prison places to resolve the crisis that we have. It is really important to me that this is the last time we have a crisis. We need to make sure that we have a long-term and sustainable prison system.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

From these Benches, first, I congratulate the Minister in particular for the difference that he has made in his time at the Ministry of Justice. It has been a breath of fresh air, and it is about time that a Government of either party or all parties have the courage to take on this issue. Of course, the danger for a party in taking on this issue is that the other party or parties will immediately seize on it and use it for populist effect. That has to stop—it has gone on for too long and it ruins the system.

What I am particularly concerned about is the Probation Service, because how it has been treated in the past few years is, frankly, scandalous. It has been run down and has not been able to do the very difficult and vital job that it is there to do. Can the Minister ensure, please, that the Probation Service, which is at the heart of this change if it is to be successful, is properly funded and given every support—all the support that it has lacked for so many years?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. It has been the biggest privilege of my life to be given this role, and to be in your Lordships’ House to debate these crucial reforms to sentencing. I have been involved in and around the sector for most of my working life, and I have seen too many great ideas get ignored, too many wither on the vine and too many go unfunded.

I counted up the number of Prison Ministers I had met before being handed the keys to what was once their office, and it was 14, over just 20 years. I am not sure whether that happened because they enjoyed the role so much that they wanted to move on to another one or because it was too challenging and they wanted to find an easier role elsewhere, but, for me, this is the job that I have come in to do, and I am absolutely delighted that David Gauke and the panel have come up with the ideas that they have.

My noble friend is 100% right about the Probation Service. That is where the heavy lifting is done, and it is at the heart of the system. If you do not get probation funded and operating properly, the rest does not work either. I have met so many amazing probation staff who know exactly what they need to do but feel that they have not been supported enough over the years and that they spend too much time on administration and not enough time face to face with offenders, helping them turn their lives around—and that is the job that they signed up to do.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, I very strongly agree with what the Minister has just said, and I declare an interest in that a close relative of mine works in the Probation Service. It is demoralised, underfunded and depressed, and that will have to change urgently, although, of course, getting probation officers into positions of experience takes time.

I strongly welcome this report and its findings. Does the Minister agree that of all the statistics bandied around on the topic of reoffending, perhaps the most striking is that no less than 39.3% of inmates reoffend within 12 months of their release from custody? That is the point at which the intensive provision part of the three-stage system will kick in. The period when those prisoners who are most at risk of reoffending are being engaged with by the Probation Service and by rehabilitation services will be key to this working, and if that is not got right, the reform will not be got right. As the Minister says, the Probation Service is central to this. Is he confident that he is going to be able to secure sufficient funds to create the sort of transformation that will be required for this scheme to work?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am learning how this business works, and when you go to the Treasury, you ask for what you want and then, in our case, we are happy with what we need to do the job. The £700 million is significant and will make a difference, but on top of that, we need to recruit more probation staff, which we are doing. We need to train them really well, and we are doing a review into training. We also need to support them, because the noble Lord is right: 39% of people reoffending is far too high and means more victims as well.

One of the things I learned is that employment makes a huge difference to people when they leave prison. One of the things I tried to do was to interview people when they were in prison, so they started working for me the next day. When I started employment advisory boards, 14% of prisoners had a job after six months. With the work of so many local business leaders and the third sector, that figure is now well over 30%. Those people in a job are far less likely to reoffend.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the publication of the review. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester regrets that she is not able to be in her place today, but I know that she has been raising many of the issues addressed in this review over several years. It is heartening that the review has looked at creative alternatives to prison that are rigorous and yet also address the root causes of people committing crimes in the first place, and has proposed effective ways of preventing people entering cycles of criminality and reoffending, as well as strengthening and protecting communities, which is in the interest of victims on all sides.

I have no doubt that my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester will want to continue to engage with the Minister and others as the Government respond to the review. But what role does the Minister believe the third sector, including faith groups, might continue to play in light of the review’s recommendation to expand the support offered by the third sector to offenders on community sentences and on licence?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has been very vocal and supportive of many of the suggestions I have been working on, not just now but before I came into this position. The role of the third sector, both in prison and in the community, is vital. One thing that has been missed is that the spending review now being a three-year deal makes a big difference to third-sector partners, who find it very difficult to rely on a one-year cycle. I am hoping that the relationships we have built up over many years will now be far more confident relationships, both ways, because third-sector partners will be able to have confidence and a longer-term view of their commitment to working with us.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister used the word “compassionate”, and other noble Lords have used that word in reference to sentencing, particularly of women, and to the effect on their families. Does he appreciate that many people do not understand how, for a simple tweet—an appalling tweet—Lucy Connolly got 31 months, while the next month, somebody who raped a young woman was sentenced to half that time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is up to the judiciary to decide what sentence they hand down to offenders.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I too add to the welcome that has been given to David Gauke’s review and the Government’s response to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he said, “Let us try to approach this in a non-political manner”, but I fear that is probably pie in the sky. I shall put it in a slightly different way: can we try to approach this by seeing what works? Do these long prison sentences work? My own view is that they do not. As important to these reforms will be making sure that the substitute, of people spending more time in the community, works. Here, money is critical. I very much hope that the Government will be prepared to submit their detailed costings for critical examination, because we cannot afford to get this wrong.

There are three areas that concern me. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that in this electronic age, tagging should be efficient. I do not want to say much about the companies that have been used, but they have a fairly dubious history in some respects. Secondly, we ought to be very careful in how we deal with people who offend. When we tried this 20 years ago, that was the problem: if someone broke the conditions, we were too slow at doing anything about it; therefore, that needs funds. Thirdly, can we ensure that there is proper money for the Probation Service, and that that is examined critically? All of those are critical to the point that has been made—how do we have confidence in the community?

I remember going up north as a youngish judge and being told, when I advocated community sentence, “Young man,”—I was, I think, relatively young then— “we don’t believe in it up here”. We have to make them believe in it.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My approach to this job is exactly my approach to all my working life: follow the evidence and make sure you get some great people working with you who have a very clear idea of what needs to be achieved. That is my plan here. That is why, for example, Texas provides an interesting example; the evidence is clear, and I am delighted that we have taken it on board. The point within that is the incentives: what incentives does a prisoner have to do what we ask them to do? If they behave badly, they get time added on to their sentence, so it is a good example of following the evidence.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I sat as a magistrate for some 10 years and remain on the supplemental list. I have to say that it is a grave mistake to take away the ability, as a norm, to give out small and shorter sentences, for the simple reason that we magistrates did so to keep bad people away from good people. It is as simple as that. Is the problem not more what is happening within our prison estate? People who may be drug-free are going into the prison estate and getting a drug habit while there. That in itself is a cause for not just some concern but grave concern, and I am not surprised that they then come out to a life of criminality thereafter. Surely, that has to be the primary concern of the Minister. In so saying, I pay tribute to his family’s support for those on the prison estate, which has been truly exceptional over many years.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Drugs are a problem in every prison, and the addiction that people come into prison with is often exacerbated by serious organised criminals who make money out of selling drugs to addicted people. This then turns into violence and debt, and the ongoing problems we have in prisons. I want people to be in prison to turn their lives around, not to go out and commit further crime. Drugs is a massive problem, and that is why an awful lot of my time is spent finding ways to tackle drugs. It is not just about stopping drones coming in, which noble Lords are aware is a big problem; it is also about the hard yards done by health staff, supporting people with addiction, so that when they come out, they are off drugs and want to lead a normal, healthy life. We then create no victims.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Victims’ Commissioner has warned that freeing offenders after only a 28-day recall will place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm. Indeed, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that the scheme is “simply unacceptable”. It amounts, in essence, to a transfer of a problem from prisons to the public. Does the Minister agree that he has got this proposed policy completely wrong and that the proper approach should be to address the matter of licence conditions, which are prescriptive?

If we address licence conditions sensibly, we will find that where violent offenders breach their licence conditions by reason of a further violent offence, they may be returned immediately to prison, but where a non-violent offender breaches a licence condition—for example, by not attending supervision, not going to a specified place of abode, or even by reason of a minor road traffic offence—there should simply be a points system, as there is for a driving licence. They would receive one, two and three warnings about a breach of their licence; they would get three points for one, three points for another, three points for a third; and if they persisted in breach of their licence conditions, then, like a driving licence, it would be revoked and they would return to prison. The vast majority of prisoners allowed out on licence are not violent offenders; the latter should return to complete their sentence. Does the Minister agree that the Government have gone off in the wrong direction with this proposal?

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

My Lords, our mission is to protect the public, support victims and reduce crime. The worst thing that could happen for victims is for us entirely to run out of space in our prisons. That is forecast to happen in November, if we do not act now. The change announced last week to recall will create approximately a further 1,400 prison places and give us the time to carry out sentencing reform which, alongside prison building, will bring an end to the prison capacity crisis.

The reasons for that are clear. We have had 11 Justice Secretaries in 14 years. The previous Government built a net 500 prison places; we have 2,400 open already. Probation is a fantastic service that is really struggling. We recruited 1,000 extra probation officers last year and 1,300 this year. However, that is not all; we also have a big problem with drugs in our prisons. However, I can assure the House that offenders who pose the most risk and are actively managed by multiple agencies will be excluded from this measure, as well as those who commit serious further offences. We will publish details of that SI shortly, when we bring the measure before the House.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, limiting recalls is welcome; but these are very short sentences. During the 28-day period, will there be any attempt at rehabilitation or to find out what went wrong and what can be done to help? Will there be any follow-up? The noble Lord, rightly, supports electronic tagging. Have arrangements been made for tagging these recalled prisoners on release if they are not already subject to tagging conditions?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is exactly right. When people have been in prison, it is our job to help them when they leave so that they do not come back. Unfortunately, at the moment, far too many people come back. Electronic tagging has an important role to play—and that role will increase. Tagging is not just for making sure that people can be at home on a curfew; it is so that we can track them where they are. There are also sobriety tags. So, yes, there will be a tool at our disposal when people are released after their recall.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, may I risk a thunderbolt by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and—at the risk of a second thunderbolt—suggest that there is not such a big difference between what he mooted and government policy? There is a distinction between the regulatory misdemeanour of being late for a probation appointment and committing a violent crime. There is something in what he said, and in my noble friend the Minister’s response, about differentiating between a violent crime committed while on release and a minor regulatory misdemeanour that could be dealt with in the way proposed by the Government.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that there is sometimes a big distinction between the offences that people commit. It is important that those committing serious further offences and those who are managed on a MAPPA 2 or 3 are treated differently from those with lower offences. I am clear that everybody who commits an offence needs to be dealt with by the law; but they also need to have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves so that they do not create further victims in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, as has been said, this stopgap measure really shines a spotlight on the whole issue of recalls, which have grown exponentially in recent years. Some 75% are for non-compliance, which is hugely detrimental to the big aim of transformed lives, which holds both victim and offender together. First, will the Minister assure us that his Majesty’s Government will look at recall in the light of the independent sentencing review, which is soon to be published? Secondly, there will be those in the process whose recall is seemingly for minor breaches, whereas in fact there may be a danger of control and fear instilled in victims of domestic abuse. We need to bring complexity into our thinking, rather than one size fits all. Will the Minister give reassurance to victims of domestic abuse that that is being taken seriously in this policy?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate can be assured that I will take the matter of victims of domestic abuse very seriously. I am sure she will be pleased to know that we will not have to wait too long for the Gauke review to be published. Obviously, I cannot comment on what is going to be in that, but I am confident that David Gauke will recommend changes to ensure that we never run out of space again. The number of recalls is 13,000 and growing. Only six years ago, the number was half that, so clearly there is a problem. We need to address that, and we will.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, many of us applauded the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Prisons Minister, because he has such commitment to this cause and we still applaud him for the work that he is doing. Is it not obvious from the questions in your Lordships’ House that there is scope for a debate on building new prisons, on recall and on what the right reverend Prelate just mentioned about the Gauke review? We have read today that he says that 11,000 foreign nationals in our prisons will be deported; many of us will have concerns about what will happen if some of them re-enter the United Kingdom prematurely. Will the noble Lord undertake to speak to his noble friend about the possibility of a proper debate about these and associated issues?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his generous words. It is the usual channels that will decide debates, but when it comes to prison building, we are sure that we just need to keep building more prisons. Not enough prison spaces have been built; we need to build 14,000 and to build them fast. On foreign national offenders, we have removed 15% more this year than last year. I have regular meetings with Home Office colleagues to make sure that we are doing it as productively and efficiently as possible.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, more than 1,500 current IPP prisoners have been found safe for release by the Parole Board, only to be recalled indefinitely. This is not justice. The humane policy is to see these people resentenced and given fixed-term sentences as soon as the Parole Board says that they no longer pose a threat to the public. Can the Minister therefore explain why IPP recall prisoners are specifically excluded from the proposals on the table?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is part of the IPP team, and we have a meeting later this week where we will be able to discuss things in detail with a number of noble Lords from across the House. One topic that is very dear to my heart is IPP prisoners. Whenever I go to a prison, I always seek out an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell, and I ask them why they are there, what they are doing to get out and what we can do to support them to get out. But their risk is often far more complex. The reasons why they went to prison in the first place, while it may have been far too long ago, often mean that we need to manage them very safely in the community too. It is something of which I am well aware, and I look forward to further conversations with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a result of the right reverend Prelate’s question, can I ask the Minister to what extent probation officers are trained to understand the distinction between minor matters that may not need recall and those that do?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness asks a very good question because, in my view, probation officers do the heavy lifting in the justice system. For too long, they have had too much work in their case loads. Some of that is to do with training and some with introducing technology to ensure that they have more time face to face with offenders. I have an internal review on training going on at the moment, similar to that which I did on prisons before I came into the House, and I assure all noble Lords that, if we are going to fix the problem in our prisons, we need to support our probation staff to do the job that they signed up to do when they joined the service.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading and for that I apologise. On this side of the Committee, we support the direction of travel of this Bill. We agree and endorse the principle that all those before the criminal courts should be treated equally and without special treatment. We have heard, however, compelling arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and other speakers about the difficulties with the drafting of this Bill and the way it is framed.

What I will say about the amendments is on the basis that, while we support the purpose of the Bill and in particular stand by our amendments in the third group—we believe they will bring to Parliament its proper role when it comes to guidelines—we see that there are issues with the terms to which these amendments are directed. Having said that, I can deal quite quickly with the amendments, without any disrespect to those who have spoken in support of them.

We believe that Amendment 1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would detract from the Bill. We refer to our amendments in the third group and say that what is contained there would enable Parliament to address the points the noble Baroness made in practice. Similar arguments apply to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We do not favour this amendment and believe it goes too far in reversing the purpose of the Bill. We listened with great respect, as I have already said, to the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which we think have great force. We can see that there could be unforeseen and unintended—perhaps they are foreseen, but they are certainly unintended—adverse consequences. With this and the other amendments, we await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply.

We would make similar observations in respect of Amendment 4, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and Amendment 5, which we believe, to the extent that it adds to the Bill, detracts from its message and is a move in the wrong direction. On Amendment 6, again from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we advance the same reasons as we have done in respect of the other amendments, and his Amendment 4.

On Amendments 11 and 12, we have nothing to add to what I have said before, but we believe that the Government must address the arguments advanced to ensure that the Bill is clearly drawn and does not have unintended adverse consequences that simply make the situation worse. We invite the Government to look carefully at this and, indeed, the aims of Amendments 12 and 13, although we believe that the Bill is right to focus in the direction that it does.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also raised important specific points in relation to specific matters. Again, we will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but we see merit in the view expressed by the Constitution Committee, not in respect to those amendments in particular but, of course, in relation to other amendments. That is all that I propose to say at this stage in respect of this group.

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

I thank noble Lords for the careful consideration that they have clearly given the Bill, and I hope that I can reassure them on many, if not all, the points made. I also appreciate their kindness to me in their wise assumption that I am in the presence of some of the world’s experts on this subject, and I am not one of them—but I hope that I address all the points that noble Lords have raised.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that I am very grateful to her for the work that she does in supporting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and I am happy to continue to engage with her on that subject. I have already had a meeting with the group as well.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government are seeking to ensure that the sentencing guidelines do not lead to differential treatment before the law. To do that, the Bill prevents relevant guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offenders’ different personal characteristics. A non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of personal characteristics is included in the Bill, including race, religion or belief or cultural background. This list was developed with reference to the content of the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline.

Before I set out the Government’s position, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his contribution to this debate, which I will ask the team to consider fully ahead of Report.

Amendments 1, 11 and 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would replace reference to “personal characteristics” in Clause 1 with reference to “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act 2010. We have considered the proposed change to the wording carefully and, while we understand the logic behind referring to the set of protected characteristics provided for in the Equality Act, I am not persuaded that this would meet the Government’s policy objective.

The revised imposition guideline refers to members of a “cultural minority” within its list of cohorts for which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. As cultural background is not a protected characteristic provided for in the Equality Act, if the Bill was to be amended in the way proposed, the council would be free to provide within its guidelines that cultural minorities received preferential access to pre-sentence reports, in turn risking differential treatment before the law. The use of the broader term “personal characteristics” in the Bill ensures that our policy intent is met and that all the issues raised by the imposition guideline are appropriately addressed. I am happy to carry on the conversation with my noble friend and look forward to our meeting later this week. I therefore urge her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the Bill’s current blanket restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offender’s different personal characteristics. Instead, the amendment would require sentencing guidelines to include references to personal characteristics when they are also considered to be related to an offender’s personal circumstances. I am mindful that there has already been extensive debate in this House and in the other place about the Government’s use of the term “personal characteristics”, but I hope that it may nevertheless be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s approach.

The Government acknowledge that the concept of “personal characteristics” is a broad and flexible one that is not intended to have an exhaustive definition. However, to put it simply, personal characteristics refer to who or what someone is. They are things that one cannot, or should not, be expected to change; the Bill sets out some illustrative examples such as race, religion or belief, and cultural background. On the other hand, personal circumstances are more temporary and contingent. They are more about what someone is doing, what they have done or what has been done to them.

The Government completely accept that the line between characteristics and circumstances may not always be clear and that some attributes, such as pregnancy, could reasonably be described as both a characteristic and a circumstance. Ultimately, however, I must stress that the Government’s objective in bringing the Bill forward is to ensure equality before the law by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines that risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. The Government remain of the view that the reference to “personal characteristics” in the Bill is the most robust way of meeting this objective; I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 4 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would loosen the Bill’s restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports referring to offenders’ differential personal characteristics. It would do this by allowing sentencing guidelines to include such references where the Sentencing Council considers that this would prevent inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Although the amendments are well intentioned—I fully agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing what we, as parliamentarians, can to tackle inequalities in outcomes across the justice system—we are not persuaded that these amendments are appropriate, for two key reasons.

First, they risk undermining the Bill’s fundamental objective of ensuring equality before the law by ensuring that sentencing guidelines do not include any provision that risks differential access to pre-sentence reports. Secondly, the Government remain of the firm view that it is for Ministers and Parliament, rather than the Sentencing Council, to consider how best to tackle disproportionate outcomes across the criminal justice system; it is not something that we should seek to address using differential treatment before the law during sentencing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his speech highlighting the issues around racial bias and disproportionality in the justice system. We recognise the issues that he spoke about, but, as I have said, we believe that these are matters for policy, not the Sentencing Council, to address.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, work is continuing at pace on the review commissioned by the Lord Chancellor of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the criminal justice system. This will be key in helping decide what we must do to address disparities; the House will be updated in due course. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this is an issue the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address, and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

I acknowledge the wider comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the need for legislation, including whether we could postpone this legislation until after David Gauke has published his review. I remind the Committee of the timelines. The guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April. We sought to address this issue via constructive conversation with the Sentencing Council. As the Sentencing Council did not agree to change the guidelines, we introduced legislation to address the specific concerns that we had around equality before the law. That is why we had to act in the way we have: with primary legislation.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would provide a list of non-exhaustive examples of instances where sentencing guidelines could recommend that sentencers consider requesting pre-sentence reports. Although we have carefully considered the case for adding these criteria to the Bill, we are not persuaded that this is necessary, for two key reasons.

First, I re-emphasise that nothing in the Bill restricts sentencing guidelines from advising, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. Sentencers will therefore retain discretion to decide whether a pre-sentence report should be ordered, considering the specifics of the case before them.

Secondly, I am mindful that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant provision that meets the spirit of this amendment, and it will be unaffected by the Bill. I agree with the Lord Chancellor’s remarks in the other place that the council “got things right” in the paragraph of the revised guideline that states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements”.


I agree that PSRs should be used more widely. My work in supporting the Probation Service needs to go hand in hand with this ambition. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something he has not covered? It is how we deal with things that perhaps the Government regard as personal characteristics but that are not listed in the Bill, although they could fall within the non-exhaustive character of that provision in the Bill. Is it the Government’s view that the Sentencing Council has some way of knowing what such characteristics are? Various examples have been mentioned, such as autism or having been brought up in local authority care, which I mentioned. Would the council be acting illegally if it added further personal characteristics to those it was issuing guidance about when the Government did not agree with it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. So I get the answer technically correct, I will write to him and other Members here.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I hope it is not inappropriate to speak; I have not tabled any amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested a pause, since we are expecting the Gauke review imminently. The Sentencing Council has not so far commenced its guidelines, pending this Bill, but might it agree to continue that non-commencement until we know what the Government will do in response to the Gauke review, so that this Bill does not need to be progressed until we know exactly what the Gauke review legislation will look like? It may well overlap and possibly conflict with what is in this Bill. I just wondered whether the Sentencing Council could be persuaded to postpone its non-commencement, pausing this Bill until we know the Gauke outcome.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council was very helpful in pausing its decisions. The noble Lord is right: there are a lot of moving parts at the moment, and we are waiting with bated breath for news of publication dates. But I am aware that we also want to pursue and get on with the fact that we do not want people to be treated unequally in front of a court.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Lammy report made it clear that there is inequality for certain groups because of their particular characteristics. My noble friend Lady Bakewell referred to the Gypsies. I declare an interest as a Welsh Gypsy, and I thank her for her support. What research is there to show that the obtaining of a PSR causes preferential treatment? What research is there to show that a judge will give a more lenient sentence if he has a PSR before him? Is there any and, if not, why not, before a Bill like this is brought forward? Surely the noble Lord will agree with what I said before: the more a sentencer knows about a person, the better it is and the better the sentence, both for the individual and for the community.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are doing a large amount of work on collecting the data to understand the issue more widely, but I will write to the noble Lord with the exact information.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

There is no research, and this Bill has been brought forward on a premise that, from my experience, is wrong. It is that the provision of a pre-sentence report means that the judge will go easier upon the defendant. I think that is wrong and, without research, I do not see how you can bring this Bill forward.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I appreciate that the Minister is in an interminable situation, but he did not actually respond to my key point, which is that there is an existing protection including the current mitigating factor for pregnancy. I drew attention to what was published in April last year, which already directs sentencers to obtain a PSR before sentencing and to adjourn sentencing until one is available, but this Bill is now making that unlawful. That is my key point.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Again, I apologise for not being too repetitive, but I am very keen on making sure that I am accurate in everything that I say. I will write to the right reverend Prelate.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who made their very forensic and clear points about the Bill and the manifold problems with it. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who replied with about as much kindness, courtesy and elegance as it is possible to do in these very tricky circumstances. I will not be pressing my amendments today, and I am glad that he and his advisers will reflect a little more before Report, which I think they would be wise to do.

I will just leave my noble friend with one thought about the points that I made. He has spoken often about preferential treatment, and I remind him of what I said about the high steps to my restaurant or hotel. If I add a ramp, a hoist or a lift for the person in the wheelchair to gain access to a service that they would not otherwise get access to, is that preferential treatment or a genuine, progressive, liberal and even one-nation Conservative attempt to level things out a little? I know what I think, and I suspect what some other Members of this Committee might think as well, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will first deal with the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary; probation officers should be left to get on with their jobs. The Bill does not prevent them addressing matters likely to reduce offending and we should have some confidence that they will share this view when it is necessary and appropriate. Why would they wish not to go down that route? That, after all, is what their job is about: preventing reoffending.

We do not believe that Amendment 8 is necessary, but we are sympathetic to where it goes. Again, this is on the basis that our amendments in group 3, which will bring the guidelines before Parliament, are accepted and acted on, so that Parliament gets to look at what is actually happening in the guidelines themselves.

Again, we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but, although reports are necessary in appropriate cases, they are not necessary in every case. It is the probation officer who is best placed to alert the court in cases where a report is not proposed. A probation officer will be in court and can speak to defendants before sentencing in court.

In my experience, having sat in the court myself as a recorder for many years—and even, many years before that, having appeared in Crown Courts on quite a number of occasions—a probation officer is best placed to alert the court to the benefit of obtaining a report, or saying that they actually do not need one in a given case. However, that can be left to Parliament when it looks at the guidelines, if it gets the chance to do so.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about probation and reducing reoffending—topics that are very important. I would like to use this opportunity to shine a light on the important work that probation practitioners do to support the sentencing process. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the processes that are already in place.

I will speak first to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This would require the Sentencing Council to include references to the factors most likely to reduce reoffending in its sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports. While I cannot support this amendment, as it would remove the Bill’s prohibition on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports being framed with reference to offenders’ personal characteristics, I agree that the role of probation in supporting reducing reoffending is an important one.

The purpose of a pre-sentence report is defined by section 31 of the Sentencing Code as being a report which

“is made or submitted by an appropriate officer with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender”.

A completed pre-sentence report will therefore provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk, alongside targeted assessments of individuals’ needs, by confidently articulating suitable proposals that balance the needs of public protection, punishment and the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing.

Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the probation practitioner writing the pre-sentence report will obtain information from both the defendant and external sources in respect of mental health, drug and alcohol needs and services, accommodation, finances and youth justice contact, as well as consideration of wider circumstances that could be indicative of additional vulnerability or complexity for the defendant.

A pre-sentence report will always include an assessment of the risk the defendant poses and to whom, including the risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis. In making the sentencing recommendation, the pre-sentence report’s author must also consider the purposes of sentencing under the Sentencing Code, including the reduction of crime, and reform and rehabilitation.

The Probation Service has always had to balance public protection with rehabilitation, and striking the right balance is a long-standing part of the culture of the service, which is reinforced by the messages and expectations set not just by senior operational leaders but by me and other Ministers. I hope I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that rehabilitative principles have always been, and will continue to be, at the heart of the pre-sentence advice provided to courts, and that she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, proposes imposing a requirement on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports to promote a greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. I share the noble Lord’s desire to see greater use of pre-sentence reports. As I have set out, a good PSR assesses the offender’s behaviour and the risks they pose, and recommends sentencing options tailored to those risks and needs. We know that the number of pre-sentence reports has declined, with a 44% reduction over the last decade.

There have been several reasons for this, but it may well be that judicial perceptions of probation’s capacity to deliver PSRs may influence that decision. Judicial confidence in probation is a key priority for me and for the Lord Chancellor, and I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the steps we are taking to maximise probation’s ability not just to deliver PSRs but to deliver them in a timely way and to a high quality.

First, we are continuing to invest in increasing staffing levels in probation. Last year, we recruited 1,000 new trainee probation officers, and this year we have raised that target to 1,300. That continued investment in staff is helping us fill vacancies, including in probation court teams, where last year we increased our target staffing levels.

Secondly, we are taking steps to increase the capacity of probation staff providing advice to courts. We are beginning to roll out a new digital service, prepare a case for sentence, that links to HMCTS systems and which means that listing information about upcoming cases comes straight to probation staff, rather than having to be looked up and rekeyed into the new system. This in turn will help probation court teams do the right preparation in advance, so they can identify cases in which a court is likely to need further information and have that ready on the day if the court requests a report.

We are also improving access to video-link facilities to promote greater use of remote interviewing, so that, where an offender is remanded in custody and the court adjourns for a pre-sentence report to be written, probation staff can easily carry out an interview to inform the report. Through measures such as these, we can better focus probation staff’s precious time on providing the court with the right information, rather than on chasing up data from partner agencies or having to react to court requests at short notice.

Thirdly, we are trying to maximise the different opportunities for courts to request pre-sentence reports. For example, the PSR before plea scheme allows for a pre-sentence report to be written early on in certain cases where there is an anticipated guilty plea, and it is likely that the defendant will be sentenced in the magistrates’ court.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord about the Government’s commitment to increasing probation’s ability to provide the best possible advice to courts, and that he will be happy as a result not to press his amendment.

Amendment 8 is intended to prevent sentencing guidelines restricting the contents of a pre-sentence report or interfering with a court order. I take this opportunity to briefly reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nothing in the Bill as currently drafted, nor sentencing guidelines themselves, will do this. Following the Bill’s passage, sentencers will retain their current discretion to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases. All the Bill does is ensure that the content of sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports does not provide for differential access to pre-sentence reports for certain groups over others.

The Bill also does not impact the types of sentencing options available to the court. Sentencers will retain their discretion to impose the sentence that they consider most appropriate, based on the specifics of the individual case before them and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, that was the response I expected, and I thank the Minister for it. On the response from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I shall take the sympathy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments raises some interesting and quite difficult points. Amendments 9, 10 and 17 were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. On first reading, they appear to set out, albeit in a more elegant form—as one would expect, I suppose I should say—the effect of an amendment introduced in the other place by the Conservative shadow Secretary of State Robert Jenrick. Mr Jenrick’s amendment sought to give the Secretary of State—that, is the Executive—a complete veto over the guidelines proposed by the Sentencing Council. His language—I abbreviate it slightly—was that the council must

“obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines”.

That is what appeared in the amendment paper for the House of Commons, to which Mr Jenrick spoke.

That ran entirely across and counter to what we say is the proper constitutional position. The starting point is that the Sentencing Council is an independent body created by statute, with the job of advising judges on sentencing and the functions that I outlined in the debate on group 1. The judges are and must remain independent, and the judicial function is an independent function that must be, and always has been, independent of the Executive and Parliament. That is not to say that there should or should not be parliamentary oversight. Parliament sets the rules; it sets the maxima for sentences, it sometimes sets the minima for sentences, and it sets the political context. But the way in which the relationship between the judiciary, the Sentencing Council and Parliament functions has been explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and his explanation demonstrates the subtle interrelationship between Parliament and the judiciary in this process. It is carefully drawn, and it is very important that that careful distinction is maintained.

The language in Amendment 9 is rather different from the language in the amendment of Robert Jenrick in the other place. But it is strange and it has a strangeness built into it that my noble friend Lord Beith picked out, because Amendment 9 would provide that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports “must be submitted” to the Secretary of State by the Sentencing Council, and the Secretary of State

“must give effect to those guidelines by regulations”.

The point that my noble friend Lord Beith made was that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State to give effect to any guidelines by regulations, or indeed to do anything else by regulations. It is we in Parliament who make regulations. Certainly, they must be laid by the Secretary of State, but then Parliament has the decision-making power. Indeed, in the further amendments laid by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, this is subject to the affirmative resolution. As it stands, I do not understand how the Secretary of State can be required by statute to give effect to those guidelines by regulations when it is for Parliament to accept or deny approval to such regulations.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the overall burden of the first part of Amendment 9—when it says

“must be submitted to the Secretary of State”,

followed by the implication that the Secretary of State has no option but to give effect to those guidelines—gives to the Secretary of State a power that he does not have and denies any function in the approval or the denial of the guidelines to the Sentencing Council, beyond simply proposing them to the Secretary of State.

So it is our position that Amendment 9 is in fact unconstitutional and does not work. It is for the noble Lords who have proposed it to consider how they want to proceed, but I would suggest for now that they withdraw it and come back on Report with something that at least makes constitutional sense before they go any further with this.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendments 9, 10 and 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Sentencing Council to submit sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to the Secretary of State, who would then be responsible for placing these guidelines before Parliament for approval.

As noble Lords will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has been clear that this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. The Government are therefore currently reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council and its powers for developing sentencing guidelines. In doing so, we are fully mindful of the recent developments on the imposition guideline, which have brought us to debating today’s Bill.

I acknowledge and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his comments. In conducting the review, the Government are particularly mindful of the special role that the council plays in bridging Parliament and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice. There are of course significant policy and constitutional matters to carefully consider, alongside considering what recommendations arise from the wider independent sentencing review.

While I acknowledge the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling these amendments, I am not convinced that it would be proper to legislate on this in a piecemeal way, recognising that the amendments capture only sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am also not convinced that using this fast-track legislation is the best way of going about this. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, but I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government are keeping all options on the table. Once the review of the council is complete, the Lord Chancellor and I are clear that we are willing to further legislate on this in a more comprehensive way if necessary.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. The concerns raised today underline the vital necessity of ensuring that our justice system remains fair, impartial and subject to proper democratic accountability.

The three amendments we have just been considering seek to address what we see as a flaw in the current system: the lack of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny over sentencing guidelines that have profound implications for equality before the law. The draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council risked entrenching a two-tier justice system. They would have treated defendants differently based on identity rather than the merits of their case; that was unacceptable. Without these amendments, it could happen again.

I am grateful for the excursus given on the consultation process in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which was interesting and helpful. However, government must be looking forward to how we manage this process in the future, so that Parliament, if appropriate—and we believe necessary—has the last word on the sentencing guidelines. They are in part for the judges, when they have to give practical effect to what is set out in them, but the fact that the council is an independent body and consults quite widely before the guidelines are promulgated should not mean that Parliament cannot have a look at them and then step in if it believes it appropriate. That is not to tread on the constitutional independence of the courts, because it will be before any sentences are pronounced under the guidelines. It will be just a step in the process, and they will then go to the courts for implementation.

We invite the Government to look at the approach we have advanced, even if the drafting may be imperfect as it stands. The principle at stake is simple: sentencing policy is too important to be left entirely to unelected bodies. Parliament must have the final say on matters that affect the foundational principle of equality under the law. These amendments have the aim of ensuring that, at the very least, guidelines on pre-sentence reports could not come into force without the explicit approval of both Houses. That is not an unreasonable burden; it is a basic safeguard of democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. On the noble Lord’s first Amendment, Amendment 15, we would not for our part want the Sentencing Council to go down the road of issuing guidance inconsistent with its duties under the Equality Act.

As for Amendment 18 and the review, we do not have a view on this matter. I note that with practically every Bill that comes before this House there is a call for a review at some point, whether it is one year, two years or five years down the road. The Sentencing Council must by now be well aware of public concerns and the concerns of legislators, and it would itself want to know how things are going. It is quite likely to call for a review if so minded. We are neutral on that topic.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to ensure that any guidelines about pre-sentence reports issued by the Sentencing Council are fully compliant with the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the Bill’s key aim is to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law. It does this by removing the effect of the changes the Sentencing Council introduced in its revised imposition guideline, which provides that a pre-sentence report will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, with reference to their personal characteristics, and prevents the council from reissuing guidance to the same effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the Bill impacts the Sentencing Council’s obligations to comply with the public sector equality duty in developing sentencing guidelines. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 18, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require an independent review to be arranged by the Secretary of State into the changes made by Clause 1 of the Bill to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am mindful that a very similar amendment was tabled during the Bill’s consideration in the other place, and I do not want to repeat in full the debate there, but I hope it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s position.

While I recognise it is of course important to carefully ponder the Bill’s effects, I stress that the direct changes it makes are limited in nature. All this is about is ensuring that offenders do not receive preferential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. This gets to the heart of ensuring equality before the law, which is a principle which does not need to be reviewed.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill will prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving domestic abuse, young people or pregnant women.

While I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw this amendment, I hope that I can reassure him that there will be ample opportunity in this House to discuss matters with regard to the Sentencing Council in future, once the Lord Chancellor’s review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council is complete.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage and will consider further developments before Report.