Sentencing Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I had hoped that a more favourable reception might have been accorded to the Bill by the Conservative Front Bench, given the respect that many of us have for David Gauke and the work he did on the independent review, and the respect we have for the Minister, with his practical experience in this area. I entirely share the view that there are parts of the Bill that need careful scrutiny in Committee, but it is an attempt to deal with an appalling and farcical situation of releases by an overworked and understaffed Prison and Probation Service trying to deal with overcrowded prisons. The figures demonstrate that we reached the point where we had almost 100% usage of prison cells. There was no scope, therefore, for sensible use of them.

We are in an appalling situation, which has been driven by many years of trying to talk tough on sentencing. What that involved, and I am afraid it came from both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at different times, was asserting that it was better to spend money badly on imprisoning the wrong people for longer than to spend the money effectively on rehabilitation, to which the Minister has rightly devoted much of his life.

There are good things in the Bill, including the identification of domestic abuse by the court, which, as the Minister pointed out, would be seen only by probation staff and others who have reason to be concerned where this arises. That is very welcome. The presumption against short custodial sentences is very welcome. The direct reference to the protection of victims in “purposes of sentencing” is a welcome inclusion, particularly in the light of the death of Baroness Newlove, who campaigned so vigorously for victims. It is particularly good that it appears in this Bill.

Robust community sentences, which the Bill facilitates by providing more means by which they can be made robust, are extremely important. Unless we achieve wide acceptance by the public of robust community sentences, led by some acceptance in the media that they may be the most sensible solution for some offenders, we will not change the upward drift of the prison population. This is extremely important and I am glad that it is in the Bill.

There are things that are less welcome. Having to release prisoners not as a result of careful judgment of individual cases but because of the need to reduce the numbers, as has been happening for several years now, is something we must get away from. I am pleased to see the earned progression model in the Bill for that very reason.

Let us look at some more controversial aspects of the Bill. This is the second Bill about the Sentencing Council in this Parliament. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. We now have a Sentencing Council that is required to submit a business plan, which the Lord Chancellor may or may not approve of. Who knows what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not approve of the business plan. Does it carry on doing it, or does it just stop work altogether, produce another one and wait until it gets approval for it? There is a veto for the Lord Chancellor —the Secretary of State for Justice—on the sentencing guidelines. Where is the trust? The Sentencing Council is a body of extremely experienced people that is used to dealing independently, and without bias and prejudice, with the issues that come before it. The Government do not trust it at all, creating a series of obstacles to it doing its job properly. I am very unhappy about that.

I am not against the income reduction orders in principle. They are seen as a punitive element in the sentence. However, they involve a fair bit of bureaucracy, to which the Law Society addressed some of its comments, and they could be a disincentive to work. I am sure the Minister would agree that the last thing you want is a disincentive to prisoners working when they are released. Work, having a job and carrying out that job, is well known to be one of the main factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend.

I am doubtful about photos of offenders as a provision in the legislation. All the guidance and all the rules under which that will become possible are the subject of delegated legislation and statutory instruments. We will not know, as we pass that part of the Bill, precisely how this photo opportunity or photo system will work. That has all yet to be settled.

Then there are the things that are missing from the Bill. We are still waiting for a real reform of IPP sentences, as are 2,500 people and their families. The Bill does nothing about that, as the Minister conceded in his opening remarks, except to allow the limited arrangements operating currently to continue.

One would have liked in the Bill the certainty that prison and probation services will have adequate resources to implement the release programme. We have not got it. I hope that the Minister can make further efforts to demonstrate to us that the capacity will be there. Making a success of the reforms in this legislation depends on the Prison and Probation Service being adequate in numbers, adequate in training and adequate in the amount of time it has for the numbers of people that it is dealing with. We need more assurance on that.

Despite the pessimistic picture that I have painted of the state of some of our prisons, which is truly appalling in many cases, there are good things going on. I reference the Oswin Project associated with HMP Northumberland, which involves a café in the prison, a farm shop associated with the prison and a café in Newcastle Cathedral, all involving offenders and much supported, maintained and made possible by volunteers. There is a lot of good work going on in prisons with a lot of people who want to see good things happen so that reoffending is reduced. Any further encouragement that the Government can give to that kind of work is desirable.

Prison is expensive and, if not properly managed and resourced, it sends people out into the community who are very likely to reoffend. When we contemplate what we do with our resources, we should not be deluded by the long-held practice of seeing prison as a free good, something the state must provide in whatever quantity that it decides. We should be looking at how we spend money in the criminal justice system and at what works and what does not work.

I commend Ministers for being prepared to look at what was going on in Texas. We looked at that in the Justice Committee in the House of Commons nearly 20 years ago when they started work on it. It was quite encouraging to hear right-wing Republicans saying, “We have to back this because we are wasting the taxpayer’s dollar”. That was in the days when the Republican Party did not believe in wasting money. Things have changed a bit under President Trump. It was a realistic demonstration of how, when you start to look at what you are using your money for, you must look at whether your measures make the public safer. I commend the Government for doing that and look forward, with my noble friends, to ensuring that the Bill, where it can be improved, is improved.