Sentencing Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, but I add that my points here are mostly my own. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s ambition to rehabilitate more prisoners so that we move away from the endless cycle of successive Governments ramping up the length of sentences so as to be seen to be tough on crime. For far too long, sentencing law has been focused exclusively on punishment, and insufficient attention has been paid to the other statutory purposes of sentencing, especially reduction in crime and rehabilitation. We all know that 80% of offending is reoffending—a really shocking statistic.

I welcome the recommendations of the sentencing review, and there are many good things in the Bill that build on that review. However, the Bill has not implemented all the recommendations, even though the review considered them to be

“a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.

Many points could be made but, for the purposes of Second Reading, I will focus on what I consider to be the most important area; namely, the way in which the Bill provides for so-called earned early release at the one-third point of the sentence, and the likely consequences of that. My comments will echo points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and indeed just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

Earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, which originated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That Act provided for Parole Board release for fixed-term prisoners at the one-third point of the sentence, if they had satisfied the board that they had been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to make it safe to release them—but it was a big if. A prisoner could be released on licence, with a two-thirds reduction in time served in prison, only if they could show they had taken steps to rehabilitate. That is not this Bill.

The Bill provides that a prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour that avoids additional days for breaches of the prison rules; for example, offences against discipline, threatening, abusive or violent behaviour or possessing unauthorised articles. Immediately, one sees the likely adverse consequences of that approach. First, it will lead to a concentration of vulnerable and challenging prisoners within the prison environment. Individuals who struggle with multiple and complex needs, such as mental health, neurodiversity and substance dependence, are most likely to break prison rules and get placed on report and adjudications. Over time, therefore—and we must look at the long term, since this Bill will probably remain the law for years to come—the prison population will comprise a disproportionate number of people who have not accessed early release due to this factor.

Secondly, who will award additional days and on what basis? This becomes a critical issue if early release at the one-third point is to depend on avoiding such adjudications. If it is prison officers, that could clearly be open to abuse. It could also negatively impact on staff-prisoner relationships.

Thirdly, is avoiding additional days for things such as threatening, abusive or violent behaviour so as to gain early release really “earning it” in a meaningful sense? The 1967 Act experience teaches us that release is only truly “earned” 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. In an ideal world, therefore, release at the one-third point should not be automatic merely by avoiding punishment. It should be properly earned—as was recommended by the sentencing review—so as to demonstrate that the prisoner is less likely to reoffend or breach licence conditions when in the community and end up being recalled to prison.

I recognise that Clause 20 is partly an emergency mechanism to alleviate current capacity pressures. To provide that release at the one-third point must depend on engagement in purposeful activity might deprive Clause 20 of its utility, since the state of capacity and staffing crisis in prisons are such that access to such activity is severely limited. However, this means that the burden of rehabilitating prisoners will fall exclusively on the Probation Service, which will already be on its knees with the upsurge in community sentences. There is a massive danger that, in trying to create more prison capacity with release at the one-third point, the measure might in fact diminish it because of the number of recalls.

This is not fanciful. Let us take the number of prisoners who were released early last Autumn under the Government’s emergency release scheme SDS40: MoJ figures published on 30 October show that, between April and June, there were more than 11,500 releases under the SDS40 scheme and over 10,000 recalls, which is 15% higher than in the same quarter in 2024 and is a record high. Although some of these recalls may have been unrelated to the scheme, the department acknowledges that the unprecedented increase was likely driven partly by the implementation of SDS40. If there has been such an increase following release at the 40% point, how much worse might it be if prisoners are released at the one-third point under this Bill? Meaningful purposeful activity in prison before release would surely have reduced the number of such recalls.

But I recognise that the Government are between a rock and a hard place on this: on the one hand, they need to release more prisoners early so as to create more capacity and, on the other, they risk putting so much pressure on the Probation Service that a large number of released prisoners will be recalled to prison, thereby defeating the whole point of Clause 20. I do not know the answer to this in the short term, which must surely depend partly on a vast injection of new probation resources, the like of which we have never seen. Even then, you cannot wave a magic wand to produce overnight significantly more trained probation officers with the experience to deal with the increased burden. Whatever the answer in the short term, it still leaves the long-term problem of how purposeful activity in prison can, at some future point when capacity issues have subsided, be made a requirement before release at the one-third point. Otherwise, prisoners will have no incentive to participate in such activity, since Clause 20 will guarantee their release at the one-third point anyway.

Something needs to be done now, since otherwise Clause 20 will continue, unless amended by a future Bill, to require release at the one-third point irrespective of whether prisoners have taken steps to rehabilitate. The burden of rehabilitating prisoners would then, for the foreseeable future, fall exclusively on the Probation Service. One suggestion, so as to build some flexibility into the system now, would be to insert an enabling power in Clause 20 for regulations to be made which, at a future point, when capacity and resources allow, would enable Clause 20 to be modified so as to incorporate a requirement for purposeful activity. This would give the department the option of modifying Clause 20 in the future without the need for a fresh Bill. It would keep the options open, which is never a bad idea where prisons and probation are concerned.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.