Sentencing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that I will be forgiven if I concentrate more on what should be in the Bill than what is in it. For the purposes of today’s debate, I intend to focus primarily on sentences of imprisonment for public protection, or IPPs. Before I do so, I would like to make some brief remarks about other aspects that relate to sentencing, and also to the prison system.

We debated deportation orders last week, and voted on them last night. Most people in this country— but not, I think, the majority of this House—favour deportation orders, subject to two important provisos. The first is this: it is highly desirable that a foreign national sentenced to a serious period of imprisonment should be required to serve a substantial part of that sentence in the United Kingdom before deportation. The reason is that there is too great a chance that on deportation, the receiving country—unless there is an appropriate agreement in place—will simply let him walk free. That is what has happened to Mr Hadush Kebatu on his release to Ethiopia. The second proviso is this: in order to satisfy the principle of proportionality, an automatic deportation order should arise only in the event of serious offences, marked by a significant period of imprisonment. The threshold period will be a matter for debate.

My next general point relates to non-custodial sentences, of which I am a very strong supporter. However, in order to reassure the public, the non-custodial sentence must serve the public interest in a very obvious way, and must also be enforced with rigour. That means a properly financed and resourced Probation Service, among other things. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said about the Probation Service, and I welcome the fact that financing has been significantly increased.

My next point is to emphasise the importance of purposeful out-of-cell activity for prisoners in custody. I know the Minister agrees with this. There should be much more concentration on remedial education and training for employment. Far too many prisoners are spending far too long locked up in their cells, and that is quite wrong.

My next general point relates to what happens on discharge. It is essential that there is a proper package of support for discharged prisoners and, most important of all, the prospect of employment. I give credit to the Minister in respect of his pre-ministerial career in this matter. Your Lordships will have noticed that quite a lot of the recently released prisoners were simply shown the door. So far as I could see, they had no proper support, and that is quite wrong. Again, it reverts to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we require a properly resourced and funded Probation Service.

The last of my general points, before I come to the IPPs, is on independent monitoring boards. I was the Prisons Minister under my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell many years ago. He was a most distinguished Home Secretary, as he was a most distinguished Foreign Secretary. I served under him and became very familiar with monitoring boards. When I retired from the House of Commons, I became a member of the monitoring board of our local prison. Along with the inspectorate, the monitoring boards are a vital means of scrutinising what goes on in individual establishments. I hope that the Minister will encourage boards to be as candid and as critical as the facts justify, and that he will encourage prison governors to enable the boards to fulfil the functions that I think they should.

I turn now to the IPPs, which are rightly characterised as an enduring stain on our judicial system. I am not going to repeat the relevant facts in any detail. Noble Lords will find all the detail that they require in excellent briefing notes by the Library of the House of Lords. A very helpful report was published in 2022 by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and, most recently, a very important report was produced in June 2025 by the Howard League for Penal Reform. It is a report in which the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was intimately involved, as was my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.

I acknowledge that there has been some progress in the action plan now in place but, alas, the progress has been too slow. On 31 December 2024, there were still 695 unreleased prisoners who had been in prison for more than their tariff and, indeed, for more than 10 years. Unsurprisingly, self-harm and suicide are much higher for this category of prisoner than for any other. As of March 2025, 94 people on IPPs had taken their own lives while in prison, and this is deplorable. One has to ask oneself what we do about this enduring crisis, bearing in mind that there is an action plan already in place. As I have said, the action plan is proceeding too slowly. That is not surprising, as many prisons do not provide the courses that are required to enable a prisoner to proceed towards release. The House of Commons committee in 2022 recommended the resentencing of individual IPP prisoners. That is a proposal that I probably did support, and I certainly would support.

However, that recommendation was refused by the previous Government and, indeed, by the present Government. I do not imagine that a change of mind is going to occur in the near future. Consequently, the Howard League has come forward with seven interlocking and mutually supporting recommendations. The most important of these is the proposal for a two-year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The recommendation is that, in IPP cases,

“the Parole Board should be asked to set a date as to when the person will be released within a two-year window”,

together with what has to be done to achieve public safety. The report quite rightly sets out a range of safeguards, together with a mechanism for setting aside the release date if there is a requirement for that decision.

The recommendation for a conditional release date, together with the other recommendations in the report, seems a very sensible way forward, but I do not want to be unduly prescriptive in this debate. I suggest that early progress is essential to mitigate and, I hope, resolve an undoubted scandal. I hope that, in the context of this Bill, there will be cross-party discussions that result in serious amendments of a kind likely to commend themselves to this Government, and that thereby we can reasonably hope to see an early resolution to a very serious injustice.

Sentencing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, if I might, I will make a brief comment. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has just said. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I wonder whether trying to identify a whole range of offences that fall outside the suspended sentence regime is helpful. It raises the question of what has not been included. My own feeling is that if we could get some generic language which encapsulates the thinking expressed by my noble and learned friend, we would be doing well, rather than to have a list of offences, which runs the risk of omitting others and perhaps including some that we should not.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I understand why we have all got a problem with the size of the prison population. Generally, we could be safer if there were fewer people in prison. Many of them have probably been there too long and not had an awful lot done to help them. But as I have tried to understand the Government’s proposals and public spending generally, I have a growing concern about how they might be improved.

The proposals rely on the fact that, as people are released early or do not go to prison, they are tagged. I generally agree with tagging and think that we could do far more with it. At the moment, we do not do much with geofencing, with which we can stop a person going where a victim of domestic violence might be. There is sobriety tagging—where alcohol is the cause of somebody’s offending, you can check whether they are abiding by a court order not to drink or not to take drugs. These are positive developments. I am told that about 30% of the people leaving prison who should be tagged are not getting tagged because of administrative issues. That is a significant number of those who are leaving prison who should have some form of restraint or monitoring. If that is not happening, it needs to be sorted before we start allowing people out at a quicker rate.

The other opportunity with tagging which we are not currently taking—Ministers have been kind enough to find some time to talk with me about this—is how we might proactively use it better in the future. The data that comes from the tags goes to the commercial operators of the tagging system. I am not sure whether it is G4S, but it is a commercial operator. I have no problem with that. The problem is that the data goes into its control room and the police do not see it. It tells us where the offenders are; we might be able to check, for example, whether there is a rapist nearby to a rape or a burglar nearby to a burglary—real-time data sharing. At the moment, that is not happening, but it is an opportunity that could be taken with this new experiment. It would not take an awful lot of investment or time to get this running.

Further, as one or two people have said already, we could probably have fewer short sentences on the whole but I am not sure that they should be removed, as it appears the assumption is here, from the armoury of the judge. The particular group I would consider are those repeat offenders who commit low-level offending, but if you live next door to them it is not very good. Such cases are perceived as minor cases, but they often impact on their neighbours and the community where they live—they do not impact on people who live 20 miles away. The opportunity for a judge to intervene in those cases ought to remain. I worry that, with the assumption based on the Government’s proposal, that group, for example, would not get caught.

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the list offered by the Opposition is entirely the right one. It would force the Government to address what should be on the list, or, if not a list, what should be the principle to guide such action by a judge. I worry that, at the moment, judges may feel constrained not to give short sentences in circumstances where they are the only method. It is no good giving a fine to somebody who has repeatedly been given fines and does not pay them, as an example. I think we need to retain that in the armoury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, save that I think that the Bill already deals with the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. It is important to look at the text of the Bill: this is a “presumption” against short sentences; it is not a bar to them. Of course, there is a philosophy behind the presumption: the authors of the Bill and the Government have taken the view, which is not a revolutionary view in relation to the evidence that has been collected over many years, that, generally, short sentences are not a great idea. They do not lead to rehabilitation; they do not help with reoffending.

If you disagree with that and think that a short, sharp shock is a jolly good thing, you are obviously going to disagree with the Bill and these provisions. Having lists of various offences is a good wheeze, but it is not consistent with the philosophy of the Bill, which is that, in general, short sentences do not work—they do not keep the public safe because they do not rehabilitate anyone and, in fact, some people go to the university of crime for a short course of less than 12 months and come out with drug problems, relationship breakdown and other issues that they did not have before. But this is only a presumption; it is not a bar. To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with whom I so often agree, I do not think that anything else is required as an alternative to the list approach of exceptions, because there is the residual discretion provided in the Bill for exceptional circumstances.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Is this not a case for the Sentencing Council to express some guidance on these matters rather than go down the route of the list system in a statutory form?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I find myself back in the comfortable spot where I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Of course, that is something that we will come to later, no doubt, when we discuss the independence and the constitutional role of the Sentencing Council. If noble Lords are worried that I am being too glib, because “exceptional circumstances” seems too vague an alternative to a prescriptive list of offences which are exceptional, the answer is, on the one hand, to trust the judges—this is about their discretion, and they know jolly well about the awful case that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned, and about situations where people are repeatedly not paying their fines or breaching community orders, which should be exceptions to the 12-month presumption.

The second part of the argument is that the judicial limb of our constitution has in the form of its Sentencing Council—and I use that language deliberately because I am for the independence of the Sentencing Council—a council to help guide judges so that there can be an element of consistency in courts around the country as to the approach on what is exceptional, and therefore what type of case justifies the exception to the presumption and the philosophy of this measure that short sentences are a bad idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition have made no secret of our profound reservations about the sweeping presumption in favour of suspended sentences. We fear that it risks sending entirely the wrong signal about the seriousness of offending and will undermine public confidence and place additional strain on already overstretched probation services. Yet, if the Government are to insist on pressing ahead with this presumption, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that public protection, good order and the prospects for genuine rehabilitation are at least properly safeguarded. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment 35 would require that, where a court imposed a suspended sentence order, at least one meaningful rehabilitative or support-based requirement should be attached, whether that be engagement with NHS mental health services, substance misuse treatment, accredited offending behaviour programmes or structured education, training or employment support. The intention is clear: a suspended sentence must be more than a paper exercise; it must be a tool to reduce reoffending.

The Committee will have noticed that the list of activities is rather broad. The intention here is to permit the court to use its discretion as to which activity the offender is required to undertake. The activity or service would depend upon the particulars of the case before the court and the offender’s personal circumstances. If the offender had a history of alcoholism and their offending was related to that behaviour, the judge could require attendance at a substance misuse service. In other circumstances, the court could require an offender to undertake an apprenticeship for the purposes of rehabilitating them and helping them to become a contributing member of society.

If we are now to envisage a significant expansion in the use of suspended sentences, it is only right that Parliament builds in minimum expectations. Rehabilitation does not happen just because you want it, or by osmosis. If an offender has underlying mental health needs or substance addiction, or lacks stable employment, simply to suspend a sentence without addressing those elements that are the real drivers of crime is neither just nor sensible. It helps no one, least of all other members of the public.

Importantly, the amendment would not interfere with the sentencing powers of the independent judiciary. Rather, it would simply ensure that the court had power to enforce rehabilitative activity, for otherwise any failure to comply with this order would be considered a breach of the suspended sentence order.

I know the Minister has a long history of involvement in rehabilitation of prisoners, and I praise him for that. Hopefully, he will see that this amendment would complement that work. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sense behind the amendment, but I notice that it would be a mandatory requirement—the judge must do it. My own preference, as is so often the case, is to leave it to the discretion of the judiciary. As I understand the position, they already have the power to do what is suggested and I would leave it to them—there may be exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to do so.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I said earlier that there would be few occasions when I was likely to agree with the noble and learned Lord—I am sorry, I have forgotten his name—Lord Keen. In fairness, I should have added at the same time the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because he has just moved an amendment that, in view of what I have said, he might have expected me to disagree with, but actually I very much agree with the broad thrust of what it proposes, although I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord— I am trying to remember his name too; I apologise, my mind is going tonight—Hailsham.

I referred earlier to a report from the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee when it was chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee—whose name I have been able to remember. That report was called Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences. I referred to the fact that statistics show that current community sentences reduce the level of reoffending in comparison to those on short-term prison sentences, though I accept the caution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, when it comes to how we interpret those statistics. Still, we know that they are already better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Some 14 years ago, I travelled to San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, which was one of the worst prisons in South America. I had the dubious distinction of travelling often with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who is a noted prison campaigner. When I travelled with her, she invariably asked me to accompany her to a prison. She would regale me with the greatest hits of the worst prisons in the world. Her choice was Kingston prison, in Jamaica. At San Miguel, in Santiago, we saw the results of a system that was overly concentrating on punitive actions and did nothing on education, training and rehabilitation. In fact, a few weeks before, 81 prisoners had died in a fire following a riot in that prison. Over the course of a few years, I visited the toughest prisons in Honduras and El Salvador. I can tell the Committee that they were not Pontins holiday camp in any respect.

The serious point, our earlier debates notwithstanding, is that if we accept the importance of suspended sentences and the fact that, according to Ministry of Justice figures, incarcerating a person in the prison estate costs £53,801 a year, then the state has an obligation to provide those individuals in the criminal justice system with endemic, underlying problems—drink and drug misuse, poor family background and poor education, skills and training—with an alternative way out of recidivism.

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, particularly the work he has done on problem betting and gambling. I look forward to our debates on that issue in this Bill. He has been rather shy in neglecting to mention the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 that arose from the coalition Government. The Minister and others will know that, prior to the Act—which was groundbreaking legislation —prisoners were turfed out of prison on Friday evening with £46 and within a few hours were in the company of ne’er-do-wells, drug-dealers and others who were leading them back to a life of crime. That was the beginning of rehabilitation being taken seriously for offenders who were not at the top end of seriousness in their offences: there was drug testing and a need to attend appointments; specific, targeted help for young people; the beginning of rehabilitation activity requirement as a policy; and bespoke treatment for female offenders, which is something I know the Minister cares deeply about.

I welcome this amendment and the imperative of the wording. While it is important to respect the discretion of the judiciary, to put in the Bill a requirement that we use that time in as efficacious a way as possible, to ensure that those who have the most acute problems and who will cause the most acute problems, as my noble friend Lady Porter put it—

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

It is not so much that I dissent from what my noble friend is saying, but a mandatory requirement on the judge implies the capacity to fulfil that requirement. I can imagine circumstances in which the Probation Service would not be able to fulfil a particular requirement. In that event, the trial judge might feel that he or she could not impose a suspended sentence because they could not impose the required obligation to fulfil the condition.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My noble friend makes a fair point. However, it could be put the other way, like the chicken and the egg. Putting this as an imperative in the Bill would oblige the Probation Service and other organisations, such as the NHS and community trusts, to raise their game to provide those services.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

That may be so, but that takes you back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, was making: the fact that there is not capacity in many of the required services.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I understand the point that my noble friend is making—

Sentencing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Can the Minister deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made on the amendment’s proposed provision acting as a deterrence so as to prevent further intimidation of serving prison officers in the Prison Service now?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

What happened to Lenny Scott is absolutely appalling, and we need to ensure that we do all we can so that no other prison officers, or previously serving prison officers, have the same fate. We want to work with the Law Commission and to take away the points raised by the noble Lord to discuss them with colleagues. What is important is that we ensure that the public are protected from the people who commit these terrible crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough in general terms. In particular, I believe that we must assess the effectiveness of measures introduced—and, if they are not effective, we need to go back to the drawing board.

I also wish to speak to my Amendment 93B, which seeks to ensure participation by prison inmates in education and training or “other purposeful activity”. That was not my original description, although I find that the awful word “purposeful” was first used in 1598—but it also had a secondary meaning of “determined” or “resolute”, which makes me feel a lot better.

I have tabled this amendment because I am concerned about the state of education in prisons, both now and going forward. My wording is far from perfect, since to keep it in scope of this narrow Bill, it can apply only to custodial sentences from the day on which the Bill comes into force as an Act, whereas the problem is endemic across the prison estate. The amendment would provide for an annual review of progress, and the implementing regulations bringing it in would be subject to affirmative resolution, to make the amendment more palatable to the Minister and his officials.

As a fellow former retailer, I admire the Minister, his distinguished father and Timpson the company, the repair chain that they run, and their brilliant work on rehabilitation of offenders. However, I was sorry to hear that their workshop in Wandsworth Prison has not reopened. The truth is that the success of these and parallel efforts by other companies to get ex-convicts into long-term work requires offenders to be appropriately trained while inside.

The Government are hoping that the measures they are taking to free up prisons, some of which are hard for people to stomach, will provide more time and resource to supervise education, skills training and purposeful activity. However, on 15 October, Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, wrote a blog about the problems in adult prisons. He had been contacted by despairing governors and heads of education about the cuts in provision they are facing under new prison education contracts. The Prison Service has told him there will be an average reduction of some 25% of provision, but some prison leaders say they are losing as much as 60%. As he refers to, there are powerful reasons why we should

“ensure that an inmate does not spend day after day in blank inactivity”.

Why is there so little acknowledgement of the role of reduced reoffending as part of our goal of shrinking the prison population?

As few as 31% of prisoners are still employed six months after leaving prison. This is not surprising when 20 out of 38 prisons inspected in the last reporting year were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. It takes weeks to get prisoners into work and attendance at training courses is often shockingly low. The working day is short, often as little as five hours, particularly on Fridays, yet prisoners need to get into the job habit for their future success.

Another problem is the low literacy levels of many prisoners and, I suspect, poor English in many cases. We had a similar challenge at Tesco and, with the support of the trade unions, we arranged education that helped to keep employees in the firm, grateful for the lessons and the extra opportunities they opened up. With the widening of employment rights, it becomes even more important to use the many months that many spend in prison for remedial education and skills training, so that employers can take them on with confidence, without the fear of a long drawn-out industrial tribunal if they do not perform.

I know only too well that prisoners differ. There are career criminals who are very clever, entrepreneurial and risk-taking. They might have been captains of industry with a different background or ethical compass. They need something different and to be kept separate, but they need to be fully occupied so that they are not continuing their evil operations from inside prison. From time to time, some go straight, especially if they are inspired to change—for example, by taking a degree.

As the average sentence of those actually in prison becomes longer, the need for opportunities and for better education of the prison population becomes ever greater. Incentive schemes, early release and management of privileges are important. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will explain how the new sentencing laws can help with prison education by improving the incentive structure.

However, I believe that a more radical approach may be needed and that we should oblige prisoners who are still subject to custodial sentences to enter education, training, et cetera, as part of the prison regime, as is done in the military. Just providing adequate access to education, although important, is not enough. I have seen the failure of voluntary training in the Civil Service: the good and hard-working opt for the training and improve; those who really need it do not.

So I am looking for mandatory education or training for those who remain in prison after the Government’s reforms, all of whom will, in practice, be sentenced to 18 months or more. They will be serious criminals and badly in need of focused rehabilitation. That is why, to pick up a theme from discussion on day one, which I was sadly absent for, we cannot have a voluntary regime in prisons.

Our jails cost a fortune, and prisoners are bored, demotivated and wasting time as they serve their years. Education and the acquisition of skills, or helping out in the kitchens and gardens, can be transformational.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I agree with almost everything my noble friend has said. I have been on a prisons monitoring board, so I am very familiar with the inside of prison. But it troubles me that, if there is a requirement that the prisoner, as part of his sentence, does A or B, but the prison does not provide the facility, is the prisoner not then in breach of the sentence and is that not going to be a problem when he seeks to get release or goes to a parole board?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government and the Minister should address the big questions. Who will manage this policy? What is the structure for enforcement? Who will be responsible for compliance? Where are the transparency, accountability and, above all, the details? The Minister must address all these issues, not just hope for the best and fall back on secondary legislation.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords. I shall express my scepticism about Amendments 60, 61 and 66. They seem to be, in each respect, impractical.

In Amendment 60, I find myself looking at the phrase,

“if enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable”.

That, in one sense, is perfectly sensible, but who is going to determine that? Is it going to be a justiciable issue? Is the Probation Service going to hop up and say: “I’m afraid we can’t do that”? What if the defendant says: “Oh yes, you can”? We would get ourselves into an extraordinary situation. There would be some adverse consequences too, because a judge might be ill-inclined to make such an order, which in principle is highly desirable but there is some doubt as to the possibility of it being enforced. This seems to me to be a tricky road down which to go.

In Amendment 61, I find that the supervising authority must notify all public events within a radius of 20 miles. I suppose the supervising authority for these purposes is the Probation Service, but is the Probation Service to be expected to know about all public events? If it is, it could be quite a burden on it to circulate to all public events. What if others come into play after the order is made? It seems to me, again, that this is rather an impractical suggestion.

Another rather impractical suggestion is to be seen in Amendment 66, where we find that

“the relevant supervising authority must notify all licensed drinking establishments within a radius of 20 miles”.

That implies quite a lot of knowledge on the part of the supervising authority. Perhaps it will have that knowledge, but this will be a tremendous burden on it. These amendments may well have a good purpose behind them, but one asks whether they are really deliverable. Are these the sort of things we should load on to a hard-pressed supervising authority? I think they are manifestly not.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 101A. This Bill introduces a provision to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence, without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. This amendment would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. Such oversight would guard against unintended consequences and provide due process both for victims and for offenders. It would afford victims and offenders an opportunity to make representations to an independent judicial body both before licence conditions are imposed and subsequently, should changes in circumstances arise. For example, a victim may want to live in or enter the restricted area and seek a variation to enable them to do so without fear.

A restriction zone is highly onerous, restricting almost every aspect of a person’s life, including their ability to work, receive specialised medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places a huge administrative burden on the authorities. The proposed new restriction is a significant step akin to control orders, now replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but without any requirement for judicial oversight. Those assessed as a terrorism risk currently benefit from initial oversight from the High Court to allow for an evaluative judgment as to the necessity and proportionality of such conditions and have ongoing opportunities for review.

This amendment seeks to introduce judicial review by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. Its oversight of such conditions would be an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed on offenders and provide an opportunity for victims to voice any potential impact on them before an independent body. The significant point is that there should be judicial oversight. The Parole Board, in my view, is an appropriate body as it has the expertise and capacity. The High Court would be more expensive and onerous. I appreciate that the Parole Board does not have oversight of licence conditions set for standard determinate sentence prisoners, whereas a restriction could technically be imposed on them. However, there is no reason why standard determinate sentence prisoners could not be referred to the Parole Board if they were being considered for restrictive zone conditions. My principal point is to try to ensure that there is official oversight of these onerous conditions.

Sentencing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, some years ago I visited a local prison twice in about three years. The first time, I heard that local businesspeople had put together a workshop so that prisoners could learn how to make furniture and do a lot of other similar jobs. I went back three years later. It was closed. I asked why and was told that they were too busy taking prisoners to and from the courts.

The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate would be a push towards the requirement that prisoners do not spend 23 hours a day banged up in their cells or doing something which is of not the slightest use. We have a Minister who really cares about this, so I am interested in whether he sees that this sort of thing should require every prison to do something effective—which clearly they are not—and if not, why not?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support what my noble friend has said, and, indeed, to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester’s amendment. I come, as it were, from a prison background, in the sense that I was Prisons Minister, God help me, 40 years ago. Also, until relatively recently—by which I mean 10 years ago—I was on the monitoring board of one of our local prisons. I agree entirely with my noble friend, and indeed with the right reverend Prelate, about the importance of out-of-cell purposeful activity. I agree too with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that far too often the prison workshops are not functional. That is a very great misfortune.

There are just two points I will make—a proviso and a question. The proviso, in a sense, is self-evident: if a condition is going to be imposed, it can operate only if the purposeful activity is actually provided within the Prison Service. Although that may be implicit in my noble friend’s amendment, it is not explicit. If the Government, in due time, come forward with an appropriate amendment, I hope that the provision is made explicit.

There is a different question, which I would like guidance on, perhaps from the Minister. I suppose it really reveals my own ignorance. If there is a condition that a prisoner is compliant with the requirement for purposeful activity, what is the consequence of non-compliance? My noble friend has addressed that, at least in theory, by her proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 66, because she contemplates, very sensibly, a report which might lead to the provision denying a prisoner early release for non-compliance, but if there is no consequential legislation to that effect, are there any existing statutory or other binding provisions which would penalise a prisoner who is deliberately not complying with purposeful activity that is made available? There should be, but if there is not any such requirement which can be enforced then my noble friend’s aspirations may prove to be ineffective.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s second point illustrates his first point: if there is no purposeful activity available, how can one enforce the denial of an early release by virtue of a person’s failure to comply with a purposeful activity?

I want, briefly, to go back to the late and much lamented Lord Ramsbotham. In his book about prisons, which I know the Minister will have read many times, he said that the three things that will reduce repeat offending are that a prisoner, on release, should have a place to live, should be able to return to a loving relationship and should have a job. I took that very much on board when I wrote a paper nearly 20 years ago entitled Prisons with a Purpose. I wrote it when I was the shadow Prisons Minister, in the days when my noble friend Lord Cameron was the leader of the Opposition.

I visited about 75 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units during that time. One of the things that struck me was that there were some wonderful examples of purposeful activity going on in a number of prisons but, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has pointed out, it very much depended on the leadership of the prison. If you had an inadequate governor, you had an inadequate regime within the prison, particularly within the education and training sections of that prison.

I have made a few visits to a number of detention centres and I remember being taken with great pride by the governor on duty to a workshop in a great big shed in a West Midlands category C prison. I will not name it, because things may well have changed by now. In the workshop were adult men aged between 21 and goodness knows what, and they were making hairnets. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a market somewhere for hairnets. But I equally had no doubt then, and have no doubt now, that the prisoners in those workshops, having been released, would never go to work in a hairnet factory. So, it was just time filling.

I went to another prison in Wales, where I saw male adult prisoners sorting blue plastic bits from green plastic bits and putting the blue ones in one tray and the green ones in the other tray. They were apparently parts of some electrical connection system. Again, these are the sorts of activities that would achieve nothing in so far as Lord Ramsbotham’s provisos were to be complied with.

I went to an open prison in the south of England where, far from the prison, prisoners and prison officers taking advantage of the farmland and market garden within their premises, now long closed of course, I found men playing cards behind the wheelbarrow sheds—and who else was in the card game but a couple of prison officers? Again, this is just time filling.

The problem is further exacerbated by prisoner churn. If you are sentenced in, say, Canterbury Crown Court and are sent to Canterbury prison that evening, within a few days or weeks you will be transferred to Maidstone prison to allow others to come in. Maidstone prison will be receiving prisoners from Maidstone Crown Court. The Canterbury prisoners who have been moved to Maidstone will be required to move to Lewes, then from Lewes to Southampton, and from Southampton to Winchester. So there is, metaphorically speaking, a jumbo jet of prisoners moving around the prison estate. How can they do any sensible activity? How can they go on any sensible course if, having barely started it, they are then moved to another prison?

I am happy to advertise on behalf of Timpson. I have seen a number of its workshops in operation in prisons up and down this country, and I have been served in shops by graduates of the Timpson in-house system in prisons. There, people are learning a real job that can translate from inside prison to the high street. They can go out and earn a living, pay their rent and taxes, and look after their dependants. That is the sort of work we need to see done, and more of it, in prisons.

That is why I wholly applaud Amendments 65 and 67, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham: they hit the nail on the head. If we do not have real, genuinely purposeful, activity in prisons, the whole thing is a sham, and you will get repeat offenders coming in and out like a revolving door, and the prison population will simply grow and grow.

So, whether we vote on this or not, it is absolutely essential that the Government get a grip on the way in which training and education are dealt with in our prisons. I know of course that the Minister knows this personally—he has known this for 30 years—but lots of people in government do not, and lots of people at the Treasury do not, either. They do not seem to realise that by reinforcing failure—junk in, junk out—all you are doing is wasting the public’s taxes and not producing one ounce of public safety.

Sentencing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

This amendment seeks to put forward a just and safe solution. I very much hope at this 11th hour that the Government will think again; otherwise, I will seek to test the opinion of the House, because we cannot go on not doing justice and depriving those whom we unjustly sentenced to this terrible form of punishment, without making proper amends. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I express my support for the new clause which has been so ably advocated for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have added our names. The purpose behind the new clause achieved very considerable support at Second Reading and in Committee. I will focus primarily on the provisions of proposed new subsection (6E), which I hope meet the primary concerns that have been expressed by the Minister.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, it is now widely recognised that the IPP regime is a very serious stain on this country’s reputation for justice. We need to address that. It has been addressed prospectively by legislation but not retrospectively. This new clause gives your Lordships’ House—and thus Parliament—the opportunity to do it in a statutory form. Hitherto, this Government, like the previous Government, have relied on administrative measures. That is not sufficient.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has set out the essential facts. They can also be read and studied in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice that was published in 2022 and more recently in the report published in June 2025 by the Howard League for Penal Reform. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, were very distinguished contributors to that report. I will not repeat what has already been said and published. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I will concentrate on the solution.

The proposed new clause reflects the principal recommendation of the Howard League; namely, a two-year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The league’s recommendation, which is incorporated in the new clause, is that in IPP cases the Parole Board should be required to set a date within a two-year window when a prisoner should be released, together—this is important—with what has been done by way of conditions to ensure public safety. The Government’s reaction is not one that I am blind to. It has been to oppose the recommendation on the grounds that it runs the risk of releasing individuals who, in the opinion of the Parole Board, may pose a continuing risk to the public. That is indeed a risk which needs to be addressed. I suggest that it is properly and fully addressed by proposed new subsection (6E).

It is never possible wholly to exclude risk. I have some personal experience of this. Nearly 40 years ago, I was a junior Minister in the Home Office. The then Home Secretary was Lord Hurd of Westwell. I served him for seven years in the Home Office and the Foreign Office. He is one of the most distinguished public servants of the post-war era. Subject to his overarching responsibility, I was responsible for determining the release of inmates from special hospitals. I was also responsible for fixing the tariffs in homicide cases. That, happily, is no longer a task for Ministers. In both instances a risk of repetition of the offence could not be excluded, but unless you wish to incarcerate an individual for life, which in general I regard as unconscionable, you have to take a measure of risk. The task before any Government, any Minister, is to address and mitigate the risk. That is what proposed new subsection (6E) seeks to do.

The subsection is designed to meet the concerns that have been expressed by Ministers, most recently and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. It would enable the Parole Board, at any time during the currency of a previously made order, to revisit that order, and if the Parole Board deemed it necessary, rescind or vary the provisions of the order or extend its term.

Moreover, and this is perhaps the most important point, the subsection would oblige the Parole Board to reconsider its previous decision if required by the Home Secretary or his Ministers; in other words, the Home Secretary or his Ministers can require reconsideration of any relevant Parole Board decision in respect of which the Home Secretary has concerns. I suggest to your Lordships that this addresses very precisely the concerns that have been previously expressed by Ministers, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson.

So I suggest that the proposed new clause, containing as it does the important protection afforded by proposed new subsection (6E), addresses what is generally recognised to be a very serious injustice; and it does so in a way that safeguards the public interest. I very much hope that it will command the support of your Lordships’ House and thereafter that of the House of Commons.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. This amendment is the safest, best amendment on IPP prisoners we have seen so far. It would give an IPP prisoner a clear statutory steer as to what they have to do in order to secure release on licence. The prisoner would know that if they fulfil the board’s directions, they will be released on licence. It would give them a clear goal to aim for which does not currently exist.

If, therefore, the prisoner is serious about being released, this would be the best opportunity they have had so far. It would be heavily incumbent on the Prison Service to ensure that the IPP prisoner has access to any purposeful activity or other requirements set out in the Parole Board’s directions. This must be an absolute priority.

Above all, the final decision on whether it is safe to release the prisoner would rest with the Parole Board, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said. Proposed new subsection (6E) in Amendment 76 is the key provision, which is new and leaves the final decision with the Parole Board. That is what the Government, in resisting resentencing options, have said time and again must be the case: the Parole Board must have the final say. Well, here we are with this amendment, so what possible reason can the Government have for not accepting it? It is not good enough to say it will give IPP prisoners false hope. That is tantamount to saying that some IPP prisoners will never be released. This would be completely unacceptable.

This Government have responsibility for every day an IPP prisoner is detained and the despair that this causes. They must urgently consider every reasonable option for ending this disgraceful situation. This is the most reasonable option yet which is now on the table. It must be tried.