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.