Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of Leicester law centre, and I am privileged to serve on your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

My first speech in your Lordships’ House was on sentencing. It was a pretty standard maiden speech, I am afraid, although the late Lord Longford was nice enough to say a few kind words. That was 27 years ago. Now, in November 2025, I am speaking on sentencing again.

I have to admit that although there have been many changes to sentencing policy, some good and some not so good, it is not until now that the approach that prevailed in 1998 has really changed. At long last, we now have a Bill that thoughtfully and sensibly tackles the fundamental problems of an almost broken system, one that can fairly be said to have failed. As examples, one fault is that there are just too many people in prison, women as well as men. Another is that they are there for far too long; and a third, even more depressing in some ways than the first two, is that rehabilitation is too often an aspiration rather than a reality. The results are all around us: our prisons are absolutely full, while too many ex-prisoners reoffend and find themselves straight back in jail.

The House will therefore probably not be surprised to hear that I warmly welcome the Bill, the principles behind it and the tone that it sets. I am also proud of the Government who have brought it forward. I want it to become a new chapter in our sentencing policy, one which is of our time and up to date and is not a victim of a long-standing and often phoney war between the political parties, as has already been said in the House today. How much time have we lost in the last 30 years by putting up the ante between Governments and Oppositions, as if to say, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the toughest of us all”?

The irony is that, until 30 years ago, there was not this battle to be the hard man. There were, of course, different opinions and debates, but basically, and at heart, there was an agreement and understanding that going for the lowest common denominator was not in anybody’s interests. The Bill seems to be a serious attempt to find an approach that can be supported by all people of good will and intelligence. Is that too much to ask? Of course, I accept that the Bill is not perfect. The implementation of its proposals will not come close to success unless it is given the backing, including the financial backing, that it needs. For that success to happen, the Probation Service is absolutely key, as many speakers from around the House have already said.

Probation has been to hell and back again over the last 15 years or so; experiments that Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of have been tried on it. In a way, it is a bit of a miracle that it is still with us—but it is, and its role is essential to the success or failure of the new sentencing policy as set out in the Bill. We are asking the Probation Service to play the leading role in changing people’s lives around, while satisfying the public that they are being protected. The service needs sustaining and strengthening, in numbers and in funding if more is to be maintained. My concern is that the money pledged until 2029, which is generous, will frankly not be enough if we are to make a success of the Bill and the excellent independent review that was its parent. Government must recognise this as early as possible.

Before finishing, I will mention one aspect of the Bill in a tiny bit more detail. I refer here to an amendment tabled in the other place by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth, the Member of Parliament for Amber Valley. She argued that as far as the earned model is concerned, there should be reward for positive behaviour by prisoners, as well as reward for behaving yourself in prison and obeying the rules and other criteria. As I understand it, the Texas model contains some reward for positive behaviour in prison, as well as merely neutral behaviour. The Minister’s reply in the other place was not discouraging, and I look forward—if an amendment is tabled on this matter—to the issue being debated and discussed here, and to what the Minister will say.

I end by emphasising once again my support for the Bill. The fact that it is here today, so soon, is a huge compliment to David Gauke and the independent inquiry that he completed so quickly, and of course to the Minister himself, who with his experience and commitment has been responsible for this legislation. I hope it is in order to say that the Minister has been a breath of fresh air in this area and has given us the chance to be proud, once again, of our sentencing system. Let us make sure that we pass this Bill and take that chance.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

94A: Clause 20, page 40, line 10, at end insert—
“(17) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the provisions of this section so as to provide that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of the sentence unless they have earned such early release through their participation in purposeful activity.(18) “Purposeful activity” means such activity for which the regulations under subsection (17) may provide.(19) The power to make regulations under subsection (17) include powers to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.(20) Regulations under subsection (17) are to be made by statutory instrument.(21) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (17) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 94A touches on an issue that arose in a number of important speeches at Second Reading, particularly one by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I thank the Prisoners’ Education Trust for its advice with this amendment. It relates to the issue of earned progression, which all noble Lords know is at the very heart of the Government’s worthy intention in this Bill: to restore our criminal justice system so that it can once again, in time, be the envy of the world. The issue is what the earned progression model means, or perhaps ought to mean, now and in the future, and it is one of the few differences in approach between the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, or ISR, and the policy of the Bill we are debating.

The executive summary of the Independent Sentencing Review says at page 10:

“While it is for the Government to decide which of the Review’s recommendations it will accept, the Review considers its recommendations as a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.


I believe that the Committee will say amen to that. The ISR’s superb report, produced so speedily and clearly, along with the Minister’s own convictions, experience and obvious passion, are the catalysts for these once-in-a-generation, long-overdue changes to our outdated penal system.

It is not unknown for there to be differences in matters like this, even in those of serious importance. Here, though—and this is important to my amendment—there is good will on all sides and in no way is this amendment intended as anything other than a friendly, and hopefully helpful, contribution. It is obviously right when scrutinising the Bill, as is our duty, that these differences be openly debated.

Put simply, at page 57 of its report, the ISR argues:

“The criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules. Actions which violate prison rules”,


which it then sets out,

“and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings … would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back”.

It goes on:

“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available. This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding”.


The Bill, on the other hand, argues that the criteria for maximum early release will be limited to complying with the prison rules. Once those are complied with, the maximum discount will be available. The arguments for the ISR’s stronger criteria are well known and were set out at Second Reading here and, if I may say so, in an excellent speech by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth MP at Third Reading on 29 October in another place. I can summarise those arguments. First, there is the danger of too many recalls if no purposeful activity has been undertaken by the offender. Secondly, there is no need for positive effort by the offender, who knows that they will be released if they do nothing wrong. Thirdly, there is the even greater pressure on the Probation Service. These are attractive arguments to me and many others; however, the Government’s response must be listened to. I anticipate that they will not oppose the principle that earned progression should involve something more than obeying prison rules, but that the reality of the present position, bequeathed as it undoubtedly has been, is that for the prison system to function in the near future, it is necessary to ensure that prisons are never put under such pressure of numbers. Thus, the Government propose weaker criteria.

This is an important issue, but people of good will who want this new system to work can see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the case. That is why it is important that a way through be found, both now and in the future.

My amendment suggests that there should be a statutory reminder in the Bill that, in due course, regulations should be introduced to alter the criteria for participation in purposeful activity. Indeed, the Minister in the other place said that the Government would like to go further. There are alternatives to my amendment, and we may hear about them in due course.

I will make two urgent points before I sit down. First, there needs to be an even greater effort, as a matter of urgency, to increase the amount of purposeful activity across the board. I pick out education, which is crucial to any future success. It is rumoured that cuts have been made to the education budget. Can the Minister tell us the truth of the matter on cuts? Secondly, all this argument places extra concentration on the Probation Service. As this Committee has heard time and again, it is at the heart of any success or failure of this brave new scheme, and that should be remembered when we are looking at this issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to comment on Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and then I will present my Amendments 95 and 128. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.

I very much agree with the spirit of the amendment tabled by noble Lord, which he presented very powerfully. As I said at Second Reading, earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, but this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, just reminded us, allows early release at the one-third point without any real rehabilitation having been earned. A prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of prison rules such as offences against discipline; threatening, abusive or violent behaviour; or possessing unauthorised articles.

The experience of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 teaches us that release is truly “earned” only if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation, where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, recognises that the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to purposeful activity is severely limited, and that early release cannot currently depend on engagement in purposeful activity. It therefore proposes an enabling power so that, when the time is right and staff capacity issues allow, provision can be made for purposeful activity to be taken into account in deciding early release at the one-third point of the sentence, not least to give prisoners an incentive to undertake purposeful activity which they otherwise would not have.

I previously supported, and indeed suggested, this approach at Second Reading. However, it raises issues of fair and equal treatment of prisoners, and the quality and consistency of the regime available to them. I listened carefully to the debate on Monday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on mandatory purposeful activity for custodial sentences, and it was clear that there are concerns about the impact on prisoners who are unable to take part in many forms of purposeful activity due to learning or physical disabilities, as well as problems with the estate having insufficient resources to provide such opportunities. Amendment 94A therefore has the potential to create unfairness for prisoners who are not offered such opportunities or cannot take them up for reasons beyond their control. However, I am very interested to know the Minister’s view, especially on when this sort of change might be feasible, since it is obviously sensible when resources allow.

I now turn to my Amendments 95 and 128, beginning with Amendment 95. For certain serious violent and sexual offenders, the Bill retains an automatic release point of 66% without an opportunity for earned release at the halfway point. The new clause introduced by Amendment 95 would bring this cohort into the scope of earned release. The Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise his or her discretion, at the 50% point in the sentence, to refer the case to the Parole Board for consideration of release. It thereby gives effect to the recommendation of the ISR that a progression model apply to all prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence.

This amendment and my next one relating to EDS prisoners would not create the same risk of unfairness that I mentioned in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, since the Parole Board would consider a much wider range of factors than purely “purposeful activity”: for example, whether the offender has worked on addiction issues, whether they have addressed their offending behaviour or whether they will be honest with their offender manager, et cetera.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; I thank her for her kind comments about my previous work.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill by regulations, so that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of their sentence unless they have earned release through purposeful activity. I want all prisoners to be in work or education, if they are able; however, we need to be realistic about what is possible in different types of prisons. Currently, prisoners do not have equal access to the full range of classes and employment required to meet their needs. To confirm, our education budget has been increased by 3%—but, unfortunately, that buys us less education. So, while one is up, the other is down. However, I think there are other things I can do to make improvements in that area.

We also need to be mindful that many prisoners may behave well but still struggle to engage with some activities. There are high levels of mental ill-health, trauma and neurodiversity that should be considered, and we often need to meet these needs before engagement with education and work can be productive. As noble Lords know, this is an area that I am passionate about. Positive change is necessary, but it is better achieved through gradual operational and policy improvements rather than legislative measures. I also agree that the Probation Service is vital to the ongoing support of offenders after release.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for Amendments 95 and 128, which address release points for more serious offenders. Regarding Amendment 95, I must clarify that Clause 20 already sets an automatic release point of half way for these offences. Of course, if the offender behaves badly, they could have days added to their sentence. It is essential that the progression model can be implemented quickly and effectively. The best way to do that is via a system which we know works and is legally robust: the existing adjudication system.

Through Amendment 128, the noble Lord also raised an important question about prisoners serving an EDS. It would allow the Secretary of State to refer offenders serving an EDS to the Parole Board for consideration for release at the halfway point of their custodial term. At present, offenders serving an EDS are referred to the board after serving two-thirds of the custodial term, which is a statutory requirement.

The noble Lord’s amendment is similar in effect to a recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review that the extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward to the halfway point. But the Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that, for an offender to receive an extended determinate sentence, the court will have decided that they are dangerous. These are offenders who have committed serious offences, such as rape, other sexual offences or violence against a person. To impose an EDS, the court will have decided that there was a risk of them doing so again in the future. This is not the case with standard determinate sentences. Having seen all the evidence, the trial judge will have imposed a custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the offence. Prison is the right place for dangerous offenders such as these. Our firm view is that they should not be able to achieve an early release through progression and should remain in prison for as long as they do now.

I turn briefly to Amendment 139C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I assure the noble Baroness that we monitor the performance of the adjudication system and it remains under constant review. I get regular data on prisons, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the answers to her question.

We have effective scrutiny structures in place through His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards. They are able to provide valuable insight into the operations of the prisoner adjudication system. To reassure noble Lords, I ask questions about the adjudication system on every prison visit.

As noble Lords are aware, I am passionate about this area and have routinely pressed for improvements, but my view is that this is best achieved through existing monitoring and scrutiny rather than legislation. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all other speakers in this interesting debate on this important part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, although I have one remark for him before I sit down.

The noble Lord accused me, in the nicest possible way, of wanting this to be compulsory. I hoped it was a little bit more careful than that. I am saying that it is for the Government to decide, if progress is made in this area—I venture to think that that might take some time—that they might then bring in a regulation which would have a compulsory element, no doubt with exceptions. My amendment definitely does not seek a compulsory change from the Bill so that it is important that every offender has to have done some purposeful activity. That is not the intention of the amendment; it is to leave it to the Government, but to ask them to bear it in mind when the time is right. Sorry, I put that rather clumsily, but I think he will know what I mean by that.

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

If I may say, it was only the use of the word “unless” that caused me to think there was an element of compulsion.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

I will leave it there. Of course I am going to withdraw the amendment, but this is an important point that we should consider now and in the months to come. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94A withdrawn.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I am intervening.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

It is Committee.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

It is Committee, so I am entitled to speak in relation to that point.

The case that comes to my mind would highlight the absurdity of the position of simply having an immediate deportation: namely, the Russian agents involved in the Salisbury attempted murder. Had they been captured and convicted, they could have been immediately sent back to Russia on that basis, possibly to a hero’s welcome, rather than any level of punishment. It shows the absurdity, and I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I oppose this clause standing part of the Bill. It seems to me that everything that has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Chakrabarti, is right. I also agree with the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing at all wrong with saying that work of a particular kind was done by offenders as part of their community order. What I object to is, as she says, the naming and shaming.

But it goes further than that—it is, by definition, naming and shaming of offenders under supervision, because it is only offenders who are undertaking an unpaid work requirement who will be subject to this clause. I suggest that the compulsory photographing of such offenders—by probation officers, if you please—and the publication of those photographs and the offenders’ names, would be profoundly damaging. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, regard this clause as likely to damage relationships between probation officers and their clients, undermine offenders within their communities and make it more difficult for those offenders to integrate within those communities. The clause is overwhelmingly unlikely to do anything to rehabilitate offenders or reduce reoffending. It is, in short, largely vindictive only. Since one can expect the publication of names and photographs mostly to be by local media outlets, such publication is likely to fuel hostility to offenders whom we are trying to rehabilitate among their community and likely to encourage what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester earlier today called “penal populism”, with what, I suggest, could be only damaging effects.

We completely accept the position put by the noble Lord that community sentences are punishment and are intended to be punishment. They are punitive in the sense of restricting an offender’s liberty and imposing requirements that may be onerous on offenders, but they are also primarily directed at enabling rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. For such sentences to work, friendly and constructive relationships between probation officers and offenders, their clients, under their supervision and efforts to enable those offenders to be settled in their communities are vital. These proposals are, frankly, inimical to those ends. I have come across no evidence whatever that this kind of naming and shaming will do any good or reduce reoffending in any way. I believe it can only do harm. For that reason, I oppose this clause, and I invite the Government to abandon it.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I also believe in tough community sentences. I think they are essential if we are to keep people out of prison. But I have to say that on this issue I do not see any positive point arising out of this clause. In my experience of working with probation officers—a long time ago, but I dare say they are not that different now than they were when I was in practice—I cannot see the likelihood of any probation officer wanting to do this and thinking that it was helpful in terms of making sure that his or her clients behave themselves in future. I think this is an excellent Bill, but I do not think this clause should be part of it.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The powers in this Bill currently propose that probation officers will have the power to publish offenders’ names and photographs alongside details of their unpaid work. The Government rightly argue that there is a need to increase the public visibility of sentences being carried out and allow people to see that justice is being done. I would go further and say that it is vital that those who are responsible for sentencing have greater confidence in community sentences.

I am currently chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but before I took over, my noble friend Lady Hamwee was the chair of that committee, and her committee produced an excellent report, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. That made it very clear that over a long period of time community sentences had declined, not least during the upheaval, as we might call it, of the Probation Service; nevertheless, there was a continued decline. When it tried to analyse why that was, it found that it was in part because sentencers had lost confidence in community sentences. The mood was, “We simply don’t think that the orders we’re imposing will actually be enforced”.