(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sandhurst
“Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after “duty,”, insert “or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the second day of Committee on the Sentencing Bill. Amendment 51, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, proposes a targeted and necessary change to Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act, dealing with the Sentencing Code. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that, where a police or prison officer is murdered because of or in retaliation for their current or former duties, that murder automatically falls within the highest sentencing category—that is, one where a whole-life order is available and, ordinarily, appropriate.
At present, Schedule 21 refers to murders committed “in the course of” the victim’s duty. Those words are too narrow. We suggest that the provision was intended to capture the most egregious attacks on those who serve the public in roles that inherently expose them to danger. However, the phrase
“in the course of … duty”
in the statute has, in practice, been interpreted by the courts in a restrictive manner, excluding cases where an officer is murdered because of, in retaliation for or in consequence of their earlier performance of their official duties—for example, when a murder takes place a while later, after service has ended.
This amendment would correct that anomaly by inserting the essential clarification that, where the motivation for the murder is connected to the officer’s current or former duties, the case will fall within the highest sentencing category. That is legally coherent and morally necessary. Motive is already a well-recognised component of sentencing. It is taken into account in terrorism offences, hate crimes, witness intimidation and organised crime retaliation. It is therefore entirely consistent with the existing principle that the deliberate targeting of an officer because he or she carried out their duty should be regarded as an aggravating feature of the utmost severity.
This amendment would not create a new offence. It would not broaden the law on homicide or interfere with the Law Commission’s wider review. With precision and exclusively, it would ensure that the statutory scheme reflects Parliament’s clear and settled understanding that to murder a police officer or prison officer simply for having done their job is among the gravest crimes known to our law.
Let me speak plainly. We have seen the consequences of the existing drafting. The tragic case of former prison officer Lenny Scott revealed the gap starkly. Lenny Scott, whose widow and father I and others met last week, carried out his duties with integrity in HM Prison Altcourse, Liverpool. In March 2020, he discovered an illegal phone in the hands of a prisoner. He was offered but refused a bribe to turn a blind eye. He duly reported it, and, as a result, not only was the prisoner discovered to have had a phone but it was discovered that he had been having an affair with a woman prison officer—which was pretty serious, if you think about it. For that simple act of professionalism, Lenny received explicit threats at the time that he would be seen to. Those threats were graphic. They contained details about the appearance of his twin boys, who were no older than six years old.
Some years later, on 8 February 2024, after Lenny had left the Prison Service, those threats were put into practice. He was hunted down and murdered—shot as he left a gym class, in a planned act of revenge. It was a murder directly and unequivocally connected to the past performance of his duties. This was a gangland execution intended to punish Lenny for doing his duty and not giving way to what had been asked of him, and to terrify and intimidate other prison officers into doing gangsters’ bidding in the future. Because this crime did not occur in the course of his duty but a couple of years later, the statutory framework failed to treat it as the kind of murder for which Parliament provides the highest penalty and the judge therefore did not pass a whole-life order. This is a clear loophole in the legislation, and I look to the Minister to put it right. How many more Lennies will there be?
Serving officers in prisons and in the police force must know that there is the added protection of whole-life-order deterrence after they have left as well as when they are in active service. How many serving or former officers walk our streets knowing that they will remain potential targets long after they take off the uniform, and knowing that under the law as presently interpreted, their killers may not face the penalty that Parliament intended for those who attack innocent public servants?
We cannot undo the tragedy that happened to Lenny Scott and his family, nor repair the pain, but we can ensure that the law is changed. We can ensure that the sentencing framework recognises that the risks to officers do not end when their shift finishes and certainly do not disappear when they have left the force. When a murder is motivated and driven by the officer’s service, the seriousness, risk and moral culpability are exactly the same. This is a plain gap in the legislation as currently drafted, and it must be closed immediately.
It is very disappointing that this amendment was opposed by the Government on Report in the other place. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together were in rare agreement on this amendment. I urge the Minister not to oppose it.
This amendment is modest in drafting but deep in its importance. It transcends political fault lines. I suggest that there is no reason why any noble Lords should oppose it. It simply makes no sense that a whole-life order can be imposed for the murder of a prison officer while he is a serving prison officer and while he is at work, but not if he is killed on the weekend with his family. This amendment would restore coherence to the statutory scheme and protects those who seek to protect us. I commend it to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government during the second day in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for drawing attention to this important topic, which I have carefully considered.
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.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall be reasonably brief. Amendment 51 is simple, precise and entirely consistent with established principles of sentencing. It does not create a new offence and, with respect, it does not pre-empt the Law Commission’s broader review. Instead, it addresses a real gap—and, with respect, we do not need the Law Commission to decide whether there is a gap here. Prison officers in particular need this protection. We have seen the tragic consequences, and this is the sort of threat that we are likely to see more of, not less.
We look to the Minister for assurances on this. Otherwise, it will come back on Report. It must be accepted that murdering a police officer or prison officer because of or in the course of their duty is one of the gravest crimes imaginable. The law should reflect this, not simply to punish but to deter. It must deal with and deter against calculated acts of revenge against former officers. Gangland people will learn about this. It will get about in prison. They will know. It will go down the network.
This amendment is significant for the men and women who carry out with integrity the difficult and demanding work of protecting our streets and looking after—I use that phrase advisedly—the prisoners under their care. It is important that we reassure and encourage them. We want the best people to serve in our prisons. We do not want recruitment to be handicapped. What message will it send out if the Government say, “Oh well, if you’re shot down two years later, that doesn’t count. We’ve got to hope that the judge gets it right”? We must provide the right protections throughout the careers of these officers and beyond. We have the opportunity today to close that gap.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now, but it remains very much on the table.
Baroness Hamwee
“Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or girl.(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about healthy relationships for those sentenced to offences where the victim is a woman or girl.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 52 would provide for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the benefits of mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or girl and to lay a copy of that assessment before Parliament. I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London, a charity which works with young Londoners affected by, or at risk of, violence and exploitation. Among these are young Londoners who display harmful sexual behaviours. Often, they may not have a full understanding of their actions, where their behaviours may stem from or that they themselves need support.
I am under no illusion that an intervention is likely to be quick or easy. These are young or not so young people who have had no role model or a bad role model, who may be neurodiverse, who may be resistant to relevant specialist treatment and support. They may not understand what a healthy relationship is like. They may believe that what is harmful is what a girl or woman wants. The picture over recent years has become further confused by what they see online or on social media. I am under no illusion that this is easy, but it is important. A Bill seeking to reduce reoffending is just the place where this kind of action should be taken. I am not asking for such programmes immediately, though it is good if there are some that can be accessed. However, I would like to see put into the public domain an assessment of the benefits of programmes such as this.
The other amendments in this group are in the name of the Conservative Front Bench. They seem to focus largely on the number of rehabilitation activity days. The number of days is a factor, but it is neither the first factor nor the only one; the content of rehabilitative activity and the reasons for that are more important. In other words, the approach should be more reasoned and nuanced than these amendments might suggest.
I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, many of which are in my name—Amendments 53, 54 and so on—address the Government’s proposal to transfer a significant element of sentencing discretion from the courts to probation practitioners: determining the number of rehabilitation activity days under community orders and suspended sentence orders. The amendments seek not to frustrate reform, although, as we made clear on our first day in Committee, we oppose the changes. They are intended to ensure that, if such powers are to be reallocated to the probation officer or practitioner from the judges, they are supported and buttressed by the same principled framework of accountability, transparency and procedural safeguards that have underpinned judicial discretion through the years.
The constitutional architecture of this country has long rested on the independence and authority of our judiciary. Sentencing is a judicial function and the product of reasoned evaluation of seriousness, culpability, risk and proportionality. Judges exercise that responsibility transparently, in open court and subject to appellate review. These protections exist because sentencing is a public act in which legitimacy rests on visible fairness. Society, represented by the third limb of the constitution—the judiciary—is passing sentence on outlaws and criminal offenders.
Clauses 11 and 12 would shift this discretion from judges to probation practitioners. Probation professionals are dedicated and skilled, of course, but they were never intended to assume quasi-judicial responsibilities. The Government may describe this as flexibility, but flexibility cannot become a veil for judicial discretion exercised behind closed doors without consistency or oversight. If probation offices are to take on direct decision-making powers that influence the substance of a sentence, proper safeguards must apply; the Bill, we submit, contains none.
Amendment 53 would therefore require the Secretary of State to establish, by regulation, clear national criteria governing how rehabilitation activity days are to be determined. Decisions of such consequence must not depend on local practice, staffing pressures or administrative expediency; in these straitened financial times, I emphasise “staffing pressures or administrative expediency”. Judges operate within well-established frameworks. Probation practitioners should not be left to improvise.
Amendment 54 would require written reasons for the determination of rehabilitation days. Giving reasons is a cornerstone of fairness. Offenders must personally understand what is required of them. Victims must be able to trust the process, and the courts must be able to review what is being done in their name.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. At Second Reading, I drew attention to my real concern about the potential lack of resources, in terms of both personnel and finances, to deliver all of the things contained in this Bill. Therefore, it seems very important to me that, as we go forward, we are collecting as much data as possible as the Bill beds in—information on what sort of support requirements are needed to help prevent people re-offending, on what help is being provided and on how much of that provided help is actually being taken up. I look at Amendments 56 and 58 in this group, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as very good examples illustrating the need to collect this sort of data. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 58A in the next group, and, when we get to group 7, there are two amendments from me—Amendments 131 and 133—that would have the same effect.
So, across the Committee, there is clearly concern about gathering information as we move forward. It would be helpful and save time in later deliberations if the Minister when he responds could give the broad thrust of the Government’s view on this particular issue.
I end with a point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who said that it is very clear that not only should we gather this data but we should have some explanation behind the data. For example, we may well have a situation where an offender, in prison or on a non-custodial sentence, is expected to do a number of days of education or skills work yet does not do that amount. The question is, why is that?
Well, from my knowledge of what happens in prison, it is certainly the case that a number of prisoners do not fulfil the required number of days simply because classrooms and staff are not available. I also know that in prisons it is often the case that prisoners get notified of an available slot for their education after that slot’s work has already started. So, my noble friend is absolutely right that, in addition, we must collect information about the availability of resources that are not being taken up.
Finally, speaking as chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I say that we have come to the very clear conclusion that we do not like the use of “rehabilitation” and think the public would find it easier to understand if we talked about “activities designed to reduce reoffending”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explained very well some of the reasons why this group of amendments is so important. I note, as somebody who is a fan of rehabilitation—although I quite like the rebranding that has just been suggested—that the truth of the matter is that what passes for rehabilitation, certainly in prison, is often shoddy, not available or not up to scratch. By the way, that is not a criticism of the people trying to deliver it. It is for all sorts of reasons.
I am very keen that we think hard about what kind of rehabilitation is being offered in the community. I just cannot see how, even with a pledge to invest £700 million more into probation services, the Government can deliver what is in the Bill. This is part of the problem I have with some of the suggestions around rehabilitating people via community sentences. I am worried that rehabilitation and community sentences will be discredited if this goes wrong. The amendments are trying very hard to ensure compliance and that sentences are completed, and that the victims and the whole of the community and society understand what they are trying to do. That is why these amendments are crucial.
I want to state very clearly that community sentences are criminal sentences. They are not supposed to be a soft option. They have to be taken as stringently and seriously as if you put somebody in prison. If somebody is put in prison and they escape—however that might occur—we think that they are trying to escape justice. My concern is that, if we do not have the resources, or do not keep our eyes on ensuring that community sentences happen properly, that is escaping justice. Therefore, it has to be taken very seriously.
I have some concerns about Amendment 52 in relation to mandatory “healthy relationships” courses. I have some cynicism that the way to solve the problem of violence against women and girls is through education. I have a certain dread of the kind of excuse being, “Well, you know, I committed that offence because I didn’t know that consent was needed. I wouldn’t have done the rape if I’d been sent on a good course”. I hesitate to say this, but some people are violent against women and girls because they despise women and girls: it is not a question of having sent them on a well-resourced course.
I have heard an awful lot of excuses in recent years from people who say, “I wouldn’t be a sex offender if only this had happened”. Well, you would not have been a sex offender if you had not committed the offence of sexual assault. So I do not want this to be an excuse for letting those largely male perpetrators off the hook.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has spoken to our amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of mandatory healthy relationship rehabilitation programmes for offenders sentenced to offences against women and girls. We have heard the Minister talk many times about the Government’s target of halving violence against women and girls during the course of the Parliament. That is a target we completely support.
The area of relationship education is a difficult one, but we have evidence that education in healthy relationships helps to address unhealthy preconceptions and outdated—what some used to call “chauvinistic”—attitudes in young men. Sometimes those attitudes spill into offending, and my noble friend was entirely right to talk of harmful sexual behaviours. She also spoke about what young men in particular see and experience online, and how they take encouragement from that to do sometimes unspeakable things.
The question of rehabilitation for sentenced offenders is whether education would address this. I accept that making such programmes mandatory is not easy, but doing so would or might emphasise their importance. I hear the cynicism expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about education for healthy relationships, but we have seen how relationship education in schools encourages healthier attitudes among pupils and greater understanding among young people of the concept of consent, as against the concepts of violence and force. I suggest that, for offenders who commit these offences, education would have the same beneficial effect, particularly if it is combined with a sentence for the offender, whether that is a custodial sentence or a community order. An assessment of that beneficial effect would be entirely beneficial.
In a sense, of course, this is a probing amendment, because we encourage the Government to make the position clear. We hope they will adopt the spirit of the amendment in any event, and that the Minister will commit the Government to undertaking such an assessment of the place of healthy relationship education, but we note that the amendment is also supported by the Opposition Front Bench.
I turn to the rest of the group. Amendments 53 to 55 and 57 would impose extra directions to the probation officers and impose burdens on them as regards the nature of the arrangements they make for rehabilitative activity and the flexibility they have in adjusting those activities.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As noble Lords know, I have devoted much of my life and career to criminal justice reform, in particular, how to reduce reoffending. Because of this, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 52 to 58.
On Amendment 52 on violence against women and girls, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, this is a serious and complex challenge that demands co-ordinated action. HMPPS works closely with partners to manage risk, protect victims and reduce harm through evidence-based interventions. For more than three decades, HMPPS has led in developing programmes that address attitudes and behaviours linked to offending, alongside specialist psychological support and community tools. Guided by the principles of effective practice, these services target those at medium or high risk, ensuring that resources are focused where they make the greatest impact. We are always considering research findings that we can learn from which show us what reduces reoffending both here and abroad. There is evidence that has shown that the effects of accredited programme participation for low-risk individuals are usually found to be negligible or in some cases negative. Therefore, accredited programmes are not routinely recommended for low-risk offenders.
On Amendments 53 to 58, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I reassure the Committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, reiterated, Clauses 11 and 12 do not remove the court’s sentencing powers. The decision to apply the requirement to an order sits firmly with the court and that will remain the case. For example, as is the case now, where a judge considers it necessary to impose a community or suspended sentence order, it is they who will determine whether to add a probation requirement. The probation requirement will be part of the menu of requirements available to judges to decide to apply to an order. In addition, where a pre-sentence report is requested by the court, the judge will be provided with an indication of an offender’s risk and need, and what intervention they may receive following a more thorough assessment by probation after sentencing.
The removal of court-set RAR days is needed. The evidence shows that RAR is not working effectively. Practitioners are restricted by the current approach, and we know that RAR days sentenced are not always aligned with an offender’s rehabilitative needs. The evidence from our published process evaluation is clear that probation staff and magistrates felt that the RAR was, in some cases, sentenced as a catch-all. I have been told by probation practitioners across the country, from Manchester to the Isle of Wight, that the way the RAR is applied currently, with sometimes an arbitrary number of RAR days being sentenced, restricts their ability to effectively rehabilitate offenders.
We are moving to a model that enables probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. This was a direct recommendation in David Gauke’s sentencing review report. The removal of court-specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where they will have the most impact. Decisions will always be led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer. If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties.
I agree that it is important that we are clear on how the probation requirements will be applied. That is why clear guidance will be in place to support practitioners in their assessment, and on how to deliver the change. We should trust our valued practitioners to make informed decisions about rehabilitation activity in the same way they do with supervision. It is important that they have the flexibility to do so without placing an extra burden on them to justify each decision to the court. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned probation plans. On the first day of Committee last week, I mentioned that I am happy to present the plans for probation to noble Lords. I have already had one noble Lord take me up on the offer, and others are welcome.
Data is published annually on the completion of some community requirements, and it would not be proportionate to legislate at this time to publish further specific data on the probation requirement, as proposed by the noble Lords. We keep under regular review what data is collected and published, especially in the era of AI. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that quality up-to-date information is important to inform management and policy. The way I have run my businesses in the past, and the way I am trying to do my job as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, is by using data to hold people to account, because we need to keep improving performance so that we can improve public confidence in the justice system.
In light of this information and the reassurances I have provided on the intention of these clauses, I urge the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I for one would really welcome a discussion with the noble Lord; I did not realise that we should use this occasion to accept the invitation. Perhaps at the same time, I should use an opportunity to talk to him more about what the organisation with which I am connected has succeeded in doing on healthy relationships.
Perhaps “mandatory” was misplaced in my amendment. It is more than education and more than having people sitting in a classroom being told. Nothing is a complete answer in this area—I think we are all aware of that—but I am talking about one-to-one connection and contact, which has to be built up over a long period before it can be effective. Therefore, it is really something more detailed and full than I dare say I was giving the impression of. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for supporting the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee
“Availability of probation requirements and treatment requirementsThe Lord Chancellor shall lay a report before Parliament annually regarding—(a) the funding of activities and treatments for probation requirements, and(b) the availability of activities and treatments in each region of England and in Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to make an annual report to Parliament on the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, rehabilitative activities, activities designed to reduce reoffending—whatever we call them; I do not disagree with my noble friend that what we call them is important—and treatments are often provided by the third sector. A lot of what is provided is excellent, but it is not enough, and it is not consistent across the country. The third sector’s role was acknowledged by David Gauke in his review.
We hear success stories, for instance of a middle-aged woman whose alcoholism was treated after she had been convicted several times for relatively low-level offences. She ceased offending when the alcoholism was treated and was able to lead an ordered life. I think too of a young man who, time after time, failed to connect with his probation officers. Then he found one—or she found him—whom he trusted. That enabled him to take proper advantage of the support that was available. Those are two examples of people the Justice and Home Affairs Committee met before my noble friend joined it.
I know the Minister knows all this, and he knows much more than I do, but I tabled this amendment because regional disparities are substantial and funding needs are acute. A friend of mine refers to some of these organisations as having something that is almost similar to an eating disorder—they simply do not have enough. That is not a very good way of putting it, but they are so hampered by lack of funding. It must be very difficult to work for one of these organisations, knowing that you can never do enough. I do not advocate that all services should be provided by the state, but it is a very sorry position that we are so reliant on voluntary charitable organisations, which are struggling to keep going—not always successfully.
As to Amendment 139B, my noble friend Lord Marks will say more about reporting on reoffending, giving comparative details between offenders who have completed community and custodial sentences. I would be surprised if that is not available to the MoJ now. Because one wants to see sentences that work and maintain the trust of the public in the operation of the justice system—we are becoming like a stuck record in mentioning the public’s trust—the more information in the public domain, the better.
I think Amendment 93A from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is in a similar vein, though I do not come to the same conclusion about an automatic sunset of the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. The Committee will be delighted to know that I do not intend to go into detail on Amendment 86 as I think it is quite straightforward and others may wish to discuss it, including my noble friends on the Front Bench, but I do intend to elucidate on my Amendments 93A and 127.
The point of this group is transparency in the criminal justice system. The second of my amendments, Amendment 93A, is about the efficacy of reforms to community services. I tabled the amendment, which, incidentally—it goes without saying—is a probing amendment, because it is important to test, over a period of time, the efficacy of the quite substantial and radical policy changes that these clauses give rise to. It is a probing amendment that challenges the Government to account for the success or otherwise of these proposals.
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?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question; it is a good one. However, in my amendment we are talking about future sentences, not existing ones, and we need to find a way of encouraging a radical change in prisons. This is Committee and this is a probing amendment. However, we do need to look at making an element of requirement for these long servers, or it just does not happen. I speak with my experience of the public sector and what happens if there are no requirements. I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to take this agenda forward in the new world, and I hope that he will agree that a suitable amendment to the Bill could be extremely worthwhile.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a range of different issues, all under the heading of accountability and transparency. I say, generally, that we must concede that the public, for good reason, are pretty cynical about prison policy at the moment and are suspicious of changes in sentencing. There are all sorts of controversies that have arisen around both of those things. Many of us spoke to these issues at Second Reading. For the Bill to not simply become part of that cynicism, we need to ensure that the decisions made in relation to this legislation are as open to public scrutiny as possible.
In that spirit, I particularly support Amendment 93A from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which calls for a report on the efficacy of reforms in relation to community sentences and suspended prison sentences. In some of the discussions we have had, it is as though we are saying that, if we increase the number of suspended sentences and community sentences, reoffending rates will simply go down, because people will be in the community and there will be rehabilitation everywhere. Somehow, prison is intrinsically blamed for making people in prison absolutely guaranteed to carry on offending when they leave prison. That is one description we heard from a number of noble Lords at Second Reading.
My concern is that we might fool ourselves sometimes about a rehabilitative utopia in the community. I used an analogy at Second Reading about mental health care. Of course, if you posit the situation of locking people up in psychiatric hospitals and then say, “How will they possibly get well?”, and that we should have much more community provision, I will often agree. The problem is that, if you release people from those hospitals into the community without provision, it is a disaster for everybody: both for innocent victims, in some instances, and for patients.
My worry is that the worthy aims associated with the Bill will not be able to be delivered because of a lack of resources in the community. I am also concerned that, despite the undoubtedly honourable, genuine and sincere intentions of the Minister in this House, the arguments used to justify this piece of legislation elsewhere by the rest of the Government have been much more pragmatic and utilitarian. Effectively, they are saying, “We have to review sentencing and do all these things because our jails are too full”. That is not the same as a principled commitment to improving things. So, at the very least, we owe it to the British public to check what happens once this Bill comes into action. Whether it delivers—its efficacy—is incredibly important because, if it does not work, people in the community will suffer. So Amendment 93A is crucial.
I absolutely support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her Amendment 93B. One of the reasons why we say prison does not work and people argue there is a problem with it is precisely that the purposeful activity—or just using prison in a way that could be constructive and giving prisoners access to training, work, education and so on, while being a punishment—is just not being delivered at the moment. You can say that it is happening, but it is not.
The Minister knows that I am involved in a project called Debating Matters Beyond Bars, which runs debating competitions in prisons. The prisoners involved in these often say, “It’s really good to have the opportunity to have a bit of pugilism that is intellectual rather than fisticuffs”. Having something to think about, talk about, debate and discuss is education, too. But it is absolutely excruciating trying to get those kinds of projects off the ground in prisons, because there just are not the resources. The number of prisoners I have met over the years who have been enthusiastic about doing some kind of education or training but were unable to access it simply fuels this notion that prisons are not working and have become seething morasses of frustration. That cannot be good for anyone. So I would like to make this mandatory as well. It would be quite difficult, because that is not entirely to do with accountability—except that, if we could see accountability and transparency in what is happening with education and training in prison, it would inform the broader debate rather than just being mentioned.
Finally, I am absolutely not sure about Amendment 127 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would enable public scrutiny of Parole Board proceedings. I watched every episode of the BBC series on parole—they were fascinating insights—and I think that parole hearings, the boards and what happens in relation to parole are crucial and key. The noble Lord has included reference to objections from victims, families and legal representatives, but my concern is about the notion that everything should always be open. I have argued for political transparency and accountability, which is fine, but the Parole Board does things that might require discretion and some privacy. For example, it has been drawn to my attention that members of staff might want to say off the record that the Parole Board should not let a prisoner out. I do not necessarily want that being made widely available. So it is more complicated than just saying, “Open up the Parole Board”. Those are my reservations.
The whole parole system requires careful scrutiny. The frustrations of prisoners, their families and victims often centre on what happens at parole hearings. Noble Lords will know about IPP prisoners, whose whole fate rests on what happens at Parole Board hearings. I understand people’s frustrations about feeling that they are not given a fair hearing and not being able to make public what happens, but it is not a black and white issue and I am therefore uncertain about that amendment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, at the beginning of this second day in Committee, in which we have covered Amendments 51 and 52 and now this one, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said that we can talk about doing all of this but it will all depend on whether there are resources to deliver real change.
In Yorkshire, I went to visit a pig farmer. He was very successful and the chair of governors of the local comprehensive school, where Ofsted was making a lot of demands, particularly about the testing of children. Everybody was into testing and examination, but the resources to deliver what was required were lacking. He said to me, “Come, and I will show you my pigs”. So we went to the farm and saw the pigs. He said, “Do you see them? Those are going to be sold in about six weeks’ time. What matters is not that every day I weigh the pigs to see whether they have arrived at the right weight. To fatten the pigs is not constantly to weigh them but to feed them”. That is what actually fattened the pigs, not the constant weighing. Transparency is important, but let us be very careful that we do not overburden the Probation Service by throwing at it a lot of things it needs to do and that we need to know whether it is doing them. What that did to the teachers, at the beginning of Ofsted, was to make them scapegoats to be blamed for a lack of proper resources and lack of constant training of teachers to be better teachers.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not be given so many burdens in things he has to produce before Parliament every year that our eye is taken off how we turn our Prison Service into a place where people really are rehabilitated, where those who want to learn are taught, and where reoffending begins to drop. We have to pay attention to that. I know that accountability and transparency are interesting, but we can become so obsessed that, in the end, people are given more and more burdens and take their eye off the job they are supposed to be doing. I urge a bit of caution, particularly about the Parole Board and what we mean by accountability and how we are going to get there.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that certain things need not all hang out. There are certain things which require confidentiality, and, if we are not careful, we will begin to distrust the entire criminal justice system, because the public will feel unsafe and feel that more should be put in. We are all very keen on it, but how much volunteering time have we ourselves given to helping prisoners and the Prison Service, so that they begin to deliver better?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will address briefly Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and my name. The amendment addresses the need for a report on the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements. It goes hand in hand with Amendment 139B, in my name, which proposes reporting the levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed both custodial and community sentences.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I appreciate that anything to discourage populism is a popular call in this House for some people. I just ask the noble Lord what the danger is apart from encouraging populism. When I put my name to that amendment, even though I did not speak on it in the end, some of the controversies around sentencing, crime, law and order, prison, and so on have been a failure to provide information. The noble Lord mentioned the grooming gangs, but the more information there is, the better. What is there to be frightened of? One does not have to draw the conclusion that any negative things will come from having more information. As these kinds of details have been hidden for so long, having them made available for the British public so that they can make their own decisions is something we should trust the British public with. The noble Lord is keen that we trust probation officers. I am keen that we also trust the public.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too am keen that we should, generally speaking, trust the public. But Amendment 86 requires
“all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts”
to have their
“country of birth … nationality … ethnicity … immigration status, and … the offence(s) for which they were sentenced”
recorded, published and laid before Parliament. That could encourage the drawing of entirely the wrong conclusions by the British public.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I seem to recollect that the noble Lord’s party supported, for instance, the Lammy Review, which looked at sentencing and led, by a circuitous route, to the decision of the Sentencing Council to fall out somewhat spectacularly with the former Lord Chancellor. His party has also supported the use of quite detailed empirical data around stop and search, which is looked at through the prism of race and ethnicity. What is so different? Is there a particular kind of empirical data that he does not think that the public should be made aware of, or is he just saying that this a poor amendment for the sake of it? It seems to me that the rationale is that you collect as much data as possible, you have an evidence-led approach to the policy and then you can design the legislation in the appropriate way.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the collection of data. What I am concerned about is the mandatory publication of all data, which risks being misused.
The noble Lord is quite right to suggest that my party supported Lammy. Indeed, I spent some time in this Chamber in debates on the sentencing guidelines Bill reminding the House of the Lammy Review on the inequality of outcomes based on ethnicity. That is quite different from saying that every single offence needs to be reported on and published, which can lead to unfortunate reporting.
Turning to Amendment 93B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, not only did I agree with almost every word she said, but I agreed with it profoundly in the sense of the benefits of participation in education, training and purposeful activity. I just have some concern about the use of the word “mandatory”.
In principle, all those things are sensible and beneficial for all the reasons that the noble Baroness gave. However, as we in this House know, many prisoners are struggling with addiction and mental health issues and some with problems of aging and illness. For those prisoners, the prospect of education, training, work and purposeful activity may be nugatory. I worry about too much use of “mandatory” in these contexts without consideration of all the effects. What is important, as it was in the last group when we considered probation, is flexibility and a personal approach so that offenders are dealt with having regard to their personal needs. That is an additional point to the one made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, who talked about the availability of particular training opportunities—which were important as well.
On Amendment 127, I say yes to transparency of the Parole Board. Generally, the proceedings of the Parole Board should be public, should be heard and should be considered. Reporting of them is a good thing. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there may be material that needs to be private. In these hearings, some discretion must be applied to enable the Parole Board to receive and take note of material that should not necessarily be made public. The hearing should make that decision. However, in general, the principle of transparency is one with which I and my party agree.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 86, in the names of my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and will respond briefly to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, just made in opposing that amendment.
It might be relevant here to consider the interim guidance published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on 13 August, following consultation with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, to encourage police forces to disclose the ethnicity and nationality, although not the immigration status, of suspects charged in high-profile cases. That interim guidance is currently the subject of a consultation being carried out by the College of Policing, which is trying to decide whether to make the guidance permanent or to withdraw it. The Runnymede Trust and other charities have written an open letter to the Home Secretary and the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council making many of the same arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made, opposing the interim guidance that publishing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects in serious high-profile criminal cases is dangerous, that it can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions and that it can fuel the rise of populist parties and so forth.
However, the reason for the introduction of this interim guidance was the speculation and misinformation about the suspect in the Southport attacks in the summer of 2024. The object of advising the police to publish information about ethnicity and nationality of suspects in high-profile criminal cases is precisely to avoid people speculating in that way and drawing the wrong conclusion, giving them the information to fill the vacuum that would otherwise be filled by speculation. The same arguments can be made in favour of Amendment 86. If the courts—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I invite him to clarify whether his objection to what I was saying is restricted to high-profile criminal cases, to which he has referred, or does he support the amendment in so far as it covers every case in the Crown Court and every case in the magistrates’ courts?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I support the amendment and do not think it is excessive to require the publication of this data in every case. Would the noble Lord approve Amendment 86 if it was amended, whereby it was just information about convictions in high profile cases that the amendment was asking to be published? Is the noble Lord’s objection just to the extent of the information required to be published, or does he object to any information being published?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The noble Lord sits down expecting a reply from me, and he will get one. It is that there is and ought to be a discretion about this sort of publication. To have a mandatory requirement for the recording of all information in every case—and it may be that it also goes to some high-profile cases—is to tie the hands of what is published in an unreasonable way. It may be that, in a lot of cases, publication is plainly in the public interest and should happen. I accept and agree that there should be the fullest possible recording, and then publication is a matter for the department.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
The risk of requiring Crown Courts to publish information in only some cases, but not all cases, and to expect the Crown Courts to exercise discretion, is that it could lead to public suspicion that they are suppressing data for precisely the sorts of reasons that the noble Lord articulated earlier: that it might lead to the rise in support for populist parties.
If the concern is that the publication of data showing the number of serious offences committed by people according to country of birth, nationality, ethnicity or immigration status might fuel a rise in populism, then surely the cause would be the fact that a disproportionate number of criminal offences are being committed by members of certain groups, not the fact that that information is being published. The concealment of that information and the refusal to publish it, or the concealment of some of the information, would, I fear, lead to greater public suspicion, speculation and, indeed, misinformation.
The argument made by the chief constables is that the public need to know this information if we are to avoid the kind of speculation and misinformation that fuelled the disorder in the summer of 2024. The famous Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, said the best remedy for false and misleading speech is “not enforced silence” but more and better speech. Sunlight in these cases is the best disinfectant.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 93B in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
It is well established that the literacy and numeracy rates for those who end up committing crime are much lower than those in the general population. A Ministry of Justice report into prison education found that 57% of adult prisoners taking initial assessments had literacy levels below those expected of an 11 year-old.
In his review, David Gauke explicitly references the use of purposeful activity in the Texan system and positive engagement with it as being linked to serving less time inside prison; yet under these reforms there is no such requirement. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has already referenced Charlie Taylor’s assessment of the current system. David Gauke also points out in his review just how much of a problem access to these services is in many of our prisons:
“His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons’ annual report for 2022-2023 found that standards of purposeful activity were rated poor or insufficiently good in all but one of the adult male prisons inspected”.
Despite the measures in the Bill, there will still be a growing prison population. This will make delivering these services even more challenging, but it has to be addressed. We need to make sure that people who are spending time in prison are spending it as constructively as they can. Focusing on this and prioritising resource to help reduce the chances of people reoffending is the best way of reducing crime over the longer term. I would argue accountability and mandatory requirements are what ultimately drive how we place resources.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene at all in this group, but could I just try to inject an element of reality into Amendment 86A, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, proposes? It requires the courts service to record and retain, in respect of all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court and magistrates’ court, the details that have been referred to: country of birth, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, and the offences themselves.
It is important to remind the Committee that, in the magistrates’ courts, hundreds of thousands of minor offences are dealt with every year. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of motoring offences such as speeding, careless driving, not having insurance and matters of that sort, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of failures to pay a TV licence. The vast majority of those cases do not trouble a court in the normal sense, in that there is no hearing in a court. They are dealt with under the single justice procedure. Almost all of them, save those that are contested, are dealt with, essentially, on the papers.
The information identified in the proposed amendment is not available at the moment, and it is difficult to see how it might be made available. I cannot, for the moment, think of a way that it could be done without exponentially increasing the burden on the system generally and imposing huge burdens on those who have been prosecuted for speeding or not having a TV licence, and so forth. Unless there were compulsion of some sort for this information to be given, nothing could sensibly happen. I do not seek to express a view on the merits of collecting such information, or at least parts of it, for some cases; that already happens, as in the Crown Court, to some extent. However, the breadth of this amendment travels into the area of unreality, I regret to say.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments and spoken on the topic of transparency. It is an important aspect of the criminal justice system that it is accountable and instils trust in the public, who rely on it.
Beginning with Amendment 58A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we on these Benches broadly support the aim of this measure. Knowing the affordability and accessibility of treatments and activities is an important part of ensuring that the probation system is working. Such matters are vital to persons on probation, and they can make a real contribution to those who complete their probation periods. Regional inequalities should be known and addressed, so that all who are subject to such orders have the same means with which to complete their sentence. That may be an ideal, but it is what we should be aiming for.
I offer support from these Benches for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. There may indeed be real practical issues and objections, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has reminded us of, with all his experience. He is right to draw our attention to the practical difficulties in identifying and recording ethnicity and other information—that may well be for another day. That is a fundamental objection; none the less, we would argue that the Government should certainly be looking at what information can be sensibly obtained in this area.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marks, say “yes” to the collection of data in principle but “no” to its publication. That is what I think he said. Who will see it, then? Just civil servants and Ministers? Not Members of Parliament? Not Members of this House? If collected, it will certainly leak. Maybe I misunderstood him.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I think the noble Lord did misunderstand me. I did not oppose publication in any broad way; I simply said it was a matter of discretion as to what should be published and what should be kept private. The issue of universal publication is the danger that I expressed. It is a matter of discretion, relevance and importance, and those are decisions to be taken by those who collect the information.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I think there are problems with that as to how the discretion would be exercised and who would set what rules. I will not spend any longer on this, but I suggest that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton was right when he drew attention to the interim guidance supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We really have to think about this. We need information—we need some sunlight—and if we do not have accurate information, the wrong information will be put out there, will be used by populists and will be dangerous.
We need accurate information. If it is limited to serious and Crown Court cases, that would at least be an important start. We do not need to know the ethnicity of every driving offender—that is clearly unnecessary—but why not for offences of violence and everything else in the Crown Court? If it can be done, let us just look at it.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, forgive me for interrupting the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for giving way. Why do we need to know anyone’s ethnicity? Why is that relevant at the stage that we are talking about? I am afraid I just do not get this argument. Why is ethnicity relevant and to whom is it relevant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
It is only one of the factors included. I did not mean to select just that. I was using it as shorthand for what is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment, which includes country of birth—which I suggest is relevant—and nationality.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to specifically answer the reasonable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There is and has been for many years significant concern about the overpolicing of some communities. That has given rise to a number of key initiatives, including the police action plan, which the noble Lord with his great expertise is well aware of. That is based on the collection and collation of data around ethnicity. You cannot have one without the other, I am afraid.
Therefore, to keep the faith and trust that taxpayers have in the criminal justice system, one has to collect as much data as possible. If one collects it to prevent overpolicing, one should also collect it for other reasons, so that you have a clear, transparent system.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
There is quite a lot to cover in this group. My noble friend has made the point. We never suffer from having too much information. If it is collected in bits and pieces, there is the danger of distortion.
The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, exposed a decade-long data collapse and made it clear that this should not carry on any longer. This is an area in which we have dragged our feet for too long. The majority of OECD countries have mandatory reporting statutes. The fact is that the United Kingdom does not do the same, and that is no help to anyone other than the offenders.
We need to do something to implement the recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. The amendment would give forces the necessary data to record, analyse and respond to different dynamics in different communities. Publishing data would prove to the public that the Government are not concerned with accusations of bigotry but focused on outcomes. These are clear benefits in this amendment for noble Lords’ efforts to tackle crime and reduce reoffending. I hope the Minister has considered it carefully.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for the opportunity to discuss these important amendments as part of a fascinating debate; they have certainly covered a lot of ground. Transparency in the criminal justice system is vital. We must strike a balance between promoting understanding and accountability without compromising the integrity of our public services or creating unnecessary burdens for those working in them.
I turn first to Amendment 58A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, before I begin, I must acknowledge noble Lords’ important questions on funding for the Probation Service—a crucial part of delivering the reforms in this Bill. As noble Lords know, we are investing up to £700 million in the final year of the spending review, which is an increase of 45%. As I said at Second Reading, although detailed allocations are yet to be finalised, my priorities are clear: more people in post; digital investment that saves time; and tools for probation to use. These will all make the jobs of our hard-working probation staff more manageable and rewarding. I repeat my offer to noble Lords to arrange a session in the coming weeks to take them through this in more detail.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising important points regarding the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements. I assure the noble Baroness and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that we are enabling probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. To do this, we will have guidance and training in place to ensure that they are clear on how decisions should be made and how to deliver them. This includes what interventions are needed and when to refer an offender to a specialist support service; so, if an offender whose offending is driven by addiction is sentenced to a probation requirement, their probation officer will be pointed to the right interventions to address any factors that could lead to that behaviour.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Porter, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee, rightly mentioned the availability of treatments. It is critical that offenders have access to the right activities and treatments to support their rehabilitation. That is why the Ministry of Justice works closely with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that all offenders who need it have access to high-quality mental health, alcohol and drug treatment. DHSC has made a targeted investment to support those referred by the criminal justice system, including funding 575 drug and alcohol workers with criminal justice specialisms. They work closely with prisons and probation services and in courts, as well as with the police, to improve access to, and the quality of, treatment.
Our ongoing partnership with NHS England has achieved an increase in the number of mental health treatment requirements. The number sentenced now is more than five times higher than it was a decade ago: it is up from 960 in 2014 to 4,880 in 2024. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, knows that I am always available to speak to the House about how we are ensuring that these treatments are accessible and funded. Given that, I hope that she agrees with me that a statutory requirement to publish an annual report is unnecessary.
Amendment 139B would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed a community or custodial sentence. Reducing levels of reoffending to cut crime and ensure fewer victims is at the very heart of both this Bill’s purpose and why I took this job. The evidence is clear, and we are following it. Offenders given a community order or suspended sentence order reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are exploring how we can evaluate the impact of the Bill’s provisions on key outcomes, including levels of reoffending. In the meantime, I can confirm that we already publish on a quarterly basis data on levels of reoffending by disposal type, including custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders.
I hope that my answer assures the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, of our commitment to following the evidence, regarding his Amendment 93A. However, as I am sure he will appreciate, many factors go into whether someone reoffends, and creating artificial targets will not support hard-working front-line staff in trying to improve the system.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 127 but, although we share the aim of improving transparency in the parole system, the Government believe that this proposal is unnecessary. Public hearings were introduced in 2022, allowing any hearing to be held in public where the chair considers it in the interests of justice. This amendment would reverse the current position, making public hearings the default and requiring the Parole Board to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State to hear a case in private. This would undermine the board’s quasi-judicial independence and create significant administrative burdens. It would also require victims’ views about the prospect of a public hearing to be sought in every case. This risks retraumatising victims and burdening them with an additional and unnecessary decision about their case. There is no evidence that a demand for all hearings to be public exists, so the amendment would not offer any meaningful benefits over the current process. The board holds more than 8,000 oral hearings annually, yet its website reports just 55 decisions on applications for a public hearing since 2022.
On Amendment 86, this Government remain committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders. We are working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable the early identification of foreign national offenders, which will support earlier removals. This may require a new mechanism to verify the information provided. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, set out, this must be cost effective and must prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff; that is why we are exploring both operational and technological solutions. For this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary infrastructure is in place to support it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her kind words and for raising the important issue of participation in rehabilitative activities such as work or training; I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate this today and to learn more about the history of “purposeful”. We fully share the ambition behind this amendment, which is to ensure that time in custody is used productively both to support rehabilitation and to reduce reoffending. Prison should not simply be where criminals stay between crimes. I want to make it clear that this Government are of course committed to improving regimes across the prison estate, but making participation a mandatory condition across every custodial sentence would be impractical and, in some cases, counterproductive. Prison regimes vary widely to meet the needs of different populations, and imposing a blanket statutory requirement risks creating obligations that cannot be met.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to me as his erstwhile sparring partner; I am going to have to up my game.
Amendment 58A was intended as a mechanism to introduce the issues. I am sure that the Minister will understand that one has to find devices in order to introduce subjects, and one of those most often used is laying a report. I take his point about an annual report, but this measure was intended—to use his words—to be tailored to what works. I was particularly keen to stress the reliance on the third sector and the need for its services to be available; this is particularly relevant to women offenders, but not only them.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. This is an issue that is hard to leave alone. I noticed that, when the Minister was talking about the available treatments, he understandably referred to the Department of Health and Social Care. It is not only that, though. Let me take this moment—I am aware that we are spending a very long time on this group—to refer to the purposeful amendment, in every sense, of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support it, but only so far; I hope that supporting it “so far” might give us something on which we can work after this stage in order to inject an element of reality.
In the report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Foster—it is titled Better Prisons: Less Crime—I found it quite shocking to read of the difficulties and the failures to provide education and skills training, particularly when one thinks of the functional innumeracy and illiteracy mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. Having to impose a mandatory requirement would be a great pity and would set up too many prisons and prison governors to fail.
This issue remains important, and it is very good that we have had this opportunity to discuss it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“(3A) Where a court imposes a driving prohibition requirement under subsection (3) the court must be satisfied that suitable arrangements exist for the practical monitoring of compliance with the requirement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would add a general practicability condition to the imposition of driving prohibition requirement, ensuring they may only be imposed where compliance can realistically be monitored.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. We on these Benches welcome the underlying principle of Clauses 13 to 16, which relate to new community order requirements that can be imposed on offenders as part of their suspended sentences and community orders that can be imposed on offenders as part of their sentences. However, as I asked at Second Reading, the big question is: how are these going to be made a practical reality?
There is a commendable aim here: to equip the courts with additional tools that will both enhance public protection and steer offenders towards genuine rehabilitation. It may surprise noble Lords to hear that we on these Benches do not oppose suspended sentences as a concept or in application. It has been abundantly clear, I hope, that we take issue with Clauses 1 and 2 as they are currently drafted because we believe that there should not be such an indiscriminate provision for criminals to serve their sentences in the community. However, for those offenders who should serve their sentences on a suspended basis, these clauses are a welcome measure. They will improve the regime—or, at least, they have the potential to improve the regime, if properly drafted.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their support for suspended sentences in favour of short-term custodial ones, arguing that the short-term benefits of serving such sentences in prison are largely outweighed, if not entirely negated, by the effects of custody. Although we recognise this argument and, in many cases, agree with it, I would respectfully point out that this is just one side of the coin. Of course, the outcomes for prisoners themselves are an important consideration in this debate—because, if successful, the Bill will prevent or reduce the rate of recidivism—but we must recognise the wider public. They also have an interest in recidivism—namely, that it does not occur—as well as a legitimate interest in seeing the right people be positively punished.
If we are to give support to the broader aim of this Bill, it will hinge entirely on the Government’s ability to ensure—in fact, to guarantee—that those on suspended sentences will be managed in a manner that drives towards public safety, not just the term of the sentence. If it cannot be shown that those being released into the community cannot be managed in a safe and effective way, we will fail the public by allowing this Bill to pass into statute. Noble Lords may wish to point to statistics that claim that reoffending rates are lower for those on suspended sentences, but the reality is that the statistic is not nothing. If we are to allow offenders on to the streets, we must do so in a way that does not increase the danger to citizens going about their lives and does not increase the crime rate.
A higher number will receive suspended sentences than do at the moment. It must be common sense that, when imposing suspended sentences, judges have striven, at least to date, to impose them on those for whom they think there is a lower risk of breach. But if it is to be, in effect, for everybody, inevitably there will be those for whom there is a higher risk of breach.
On day one in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke in opposition to exemptions we suggested from the suspended sentence provision in Clause 1. She said she had thought:
“If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1342.]
The reality is that there is a range of crimes for which offenders are routinely sentenced to immediate custodial terms of 12 months or less. It is a matter of fact that certain sex offenders come within that category. The noble Baroness may not consider such people a real danger to the public, but we on these Benches do. Further, the Minister has confirmed that, in reality, this presumption will extend to sentences up to 18 months once guilty pleas are accounted for; in other words, 18 months discounted to 12 because of a prompt and early guilty plea, and then suspended.
We must be very clear about this: sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment apply to categories of people who are certainly violent and certainly dangerous. They may not be dangerous to a particular identified individual, meaning that the exemptions in the statute will not apply. Instead, we are at the mercy of court orders to keep the public safe.
The amendment proposed on day one to exempt those involved in terrorist or associated offences from the suspended sentence provision was also met with resistance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked:
“If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1350.]
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a person who wears an item of clothing or displays an article related to a proscribed organisation will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment “not exceeding six months”. This means that an offender wishing to fly an al-Qaeda or a Nazi flag on the street will, in this case, now receive a suspended sentence. They are not putting a particular individual at significant risk of harm, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that they are a risk to the public and the behaviour of the public generally. Such behaviour winds people up. Yet will they not be exempt from this presumption, as currently drafted?
We will never support this measure, but if we must resign ourselves to the possibility that this will soon be the reality, we on these Benches will strive to do everything we can to lessen the risk to the public. That is why the amendments in this group have been tabled, and I will now briefly outline the practical aims of each.
Amendments 59, 64, 69 and 72 would add a general practicality condition to the imposition of the new community order requirements. This has been suggested to ensure that they may be imposed only where compliance with such requirements can realistically be monitored. Imposing these new orders will be meaningless if we cannot ensure that they can and will be enforced in practice. It is of no practical benefit to ban an offender from a particular type of public event if there is no meaningful way of ensuring that he or she will in fact not attend such events when released into the community. Likewise, there is little value in placing a driving prohibition on an offender who feels no deterrent from getting back on the road as a result of an order that he knows is fruitless in practice.
These amendments touch on a point of the utmost importance. If the Government oppose them, they are saying that they are willing to allow the courts to impose orders which they know will not be upheld in practice. This was the exact justification for the removal of the rehabilitative activity days in Clause 12; namely, that the maximum thresholds are rarely upheld in practice and so they needed reform. Will the Government follow the same logic for the new powers they are giving the courts, or will they allow conditions of suspended sentence to be given out in the full knowledge that they are just token gestures?
We make this point not only to expose the inconsistent arguments that the Government have set out in the Bill. This is not simply a matter of an ineffective law that is likely to waste the already stretched resources of our judiciary; failure to get this right will lead to more crime. It will result in more sexual offences, assaults, thefts and knives on our streets. If offenders cannot be practically managed under the new community requirement conditions, they should not be allowed to return straight to society.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have been struggling to find the amendments that I was speaking to, to which the noble Lord referred when he talked about my opposition. I remember querying terms such as “associated offences” and offences which have “a connection to terrorism”, but I think that the context was a little more nuanced than the noble Lord suggests.
I agree with the noble Lord about enforceability, but to have a particular officer responsible for enforcing each prohibition does not seem to me practicable—if I have understood the proposal properly. I have points to make about enforceability in the next group; the answer may well be electronic monitoring.
I wish to raise a point that comes a bit from left field. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have received an email invitation today to a meeting to be told about “alcolocks”, which are, apparently, programmed mechanisms installed in cars, which can detect whether the driver has been drinking. The Minister is nodding. I thought that I would use this opportunity to see whether he knows anything about this. How does the car know whether you have had six brandies or half a pint of shandy? I do not know—but it seems quite intriguing. I shall not hold him to it if he does not know.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, I have more qualms about these particular prohibitions, broadly from a civil liberties point of view. The problem with the idea of bringing in endless surveillance and state bodies to keep their eye on people, banning people and prohibiting people on the basis that this is necessary because it will allow people to avoid prison is that it turns the community into something with prison-like conditions. I do not feel easy with that in terms of there being a ban on public events and entering drinking establishments, with new restriction zones and so on.
Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is on how on earth it will work, practically. How will probation cope with monitoring these prohibitions? I cannot understand how it would be feasible. We keep discussing the problem of probation not having enough resources and we are then assured that more resources will be made available; we are now asking probation to do even more than they were doing before. Resources always implies money, but this is about a lot more than money. I would have thought that a lot of the new things that this Bill is asking probation officers to do will require a lot more training.
The Minister will know that, for example, because of the huge case loads that probation officers have, the last thing that they want to be dealing with are IPP prisoners, who are at the very least challenging. We know that, in many instances, in order to get them off the books, they adopt a risk-averse attitude, which means that anyone who even just technically breaks a licence condition—maybe they are a late for a meeting, or something like that—suddenly gets recalled into prison. So there are all sorts of complications around saying simply that probation will do it.
I know that when I raise problems with probation, immediately there is a rush with people saying how brilliant probation officers are; this is not a slight on them as individuals but a problem with the service. In fact, if anything, it is probation officers themselves who feel frustrated and are tearing their hair out because they are expected to do so much with so little. There is a real reason why there is a difficulty in recruiting new trainee probation officers and where there are insufficient staff numbers.
What I do not understand is how we would monitor this. Let us say that there is, for example, a prohibition on going to the pub or a drinking establishment—I cannot remember what they are called now. Are probation officers going to be standing outside the pub? How will they know whether someone is entering a pub or not? That is why I think that the amendments in this group are quite useful. Is this just a box-ticking exercise? If it is a practical thing, someone will have to let the drinking establishments know and monitor whether anyone goes into them. I also think that there is a whole paraphernalia, and there are potentially quite difficult issues when restriction zones are put in place. Who decides where they are and what they are based on, and who is going to monitor them?
There is a wide range of new restrictions and prohibitions that are only being put in place because of the move to remove people from prison. Community probation officers do not have the resources; this will be not just technically bureaucratic to enact, but it will not keep the public safe or enable them to keep an eye on efficacy. Consequently, I would like to tighten up the whole notion of these orders via amendments such as these, but I am not even convinced that they are the way to go or that they are anything other than a problematic example of why there is a prior problem of letting everybody out of prison too early when you do not have the resources in the community.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, one of the three key principles behind David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishments outside prison. The new community requirements introduced by Clauses 13 to 16 are designed to implement that principle. They are intended to give the courts a wider range of options to punish offenders in the community, from stopping them from going to watch their favourite football team to imposing a restriction zone that requires them to stay within a particular area.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has quite rightly raised questions about how these are to be enforced and monitored. Their amendments would prevent the court from imposing these requirements if there are not arrangements for enforcement in place or the court did not believe they can be enforced, and they seek to ensure that the relevant authority supervises requirements imposed by the court.
I hope that it will help noble Lords if I begin by explaining how these orders will be monitored and enforced. It is very important to remember that community and suspended sentence orders are already a well-established part of the justice system. This Bill simply expands the range of options available to judges when they pass a sentence.
As with all current community requirements, probation staff will monitor an offender’s compliance with their order; they use a range of tools to do that, such as intelligence from partners, including the police. This includes electronic monitoring, where appropriate, and probation staff are already skilled in using these tools to enforce community orders. If probation staff learn about non-compliance, they have a range of options. They can return the offender to court, which can result in even more onerous requirements; they can impose a fine; and, in more serious cases, they can even send the offender to custody.
I hope that an example will help to illustrate this. Let us imagine that Harry, an ardent supporter of Sheffield United Football Club, is banned from attending football matches under one of the new community requirements. To enforce this order, the court has ordered that he must wear an electronic tag. Harry breaches his community order by going to a game. His probation officer learns about this from the data from his tag. In other circumstances, a breach may be identified through intelligence sharing between agencies. They decide that the breach is serious enough to return Harry to court, where he receives a further fine.
In short, these new requirements will be enforced by probation staff who are skilled and experienced in enforcing similar requirements. This Government are making sure that the Probation Service has the capacity to do this vital job and keep the public safe through recruitment, increased funding and investing in technology, including even more alcohol tags. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to a new sort of alcohol test, which I am unaware of but sounds interesting. I also emphasise that the Bill does not require the courts to use these requirements. Critically, the court must determine that any requirements imposed are the most suitable for achieving the purposes of sentencing. For all the reasons I have set out, the Government’s view is that these amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned alcolocks. It is a system of measuring one’s breath, and if one is deemed to have drunk it stops the car ignition. It has worked very successfully in other countries.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. That is very interesting, and I will take it back to the department.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister, but the issues at stake here are not theoretical; they are practical questions about how these conditions will actually work. Will they be real, meaningful and enforceable? The Government have repeatedly asserted confidence in suspended sentences and the expanded use of community-based requirements. If that confidence is well placed, these amendments should be entirely uncontroversial; they do nothing more than ensure that what is ordered by a judge can be delivered in reality.
We are not seeking to impose obligations to enforce on the licensee of a public house, for example, but they should know so that they are then free to pass the information on to the police or the Probation Service, because they will not want someone there who is the subject of an order. It will be a public house order, for example, because the offender has a particular issue with behaviour in such places—so too with football grounds or other specified events. The host, if that is the right word, should be informed and should know that a particular individual, if recognised, should not be on his premises and can be turned away.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with her usual acuity, pointed to the civil liberty aspects of this as well. I will not embark on those, but she also identified practical and policy issues underlying these provisions in Clauses 13 to 16. We on these Benches suggest that these amendments insert a simple and reasonable test. They do not impose a condition unless compliance can realistically be monitored in practice by the Probation Service, and the Probation Service will need help from the hosts. It is not radical to say that orders issued by a court should carry weight. A prohibition that in practice cannot and will not be checked is not a deterrent. A restriction that cannot and will not be enforced is not a restriction. Without these safeguards, we will create orders that are performative rather than protective. They will offer only the illusion of safety to communities and to victims.
The Government themselves use this precise standard when justifying reforms elsewhere in the Bill—for example, removing rehabilitative activity days because the system “did not operate effectively in practice”. The provisions in Clauses 13 to 16, if they are to be enforced, must be enforceable in practice and must be effective. If a condition is imposed but nobody has a duty to enforce it, it is not a condition at all. The Probation Service is not going to have time to run around the pubs, football grounds and so on; it is going to have to rely on information from other people.
These amendments would simply ensure that the supervising authority has responsibility for enforcement and is given the means to do so, rather than the vague hope that somebody may intervene if they happen to notice a breach. Without this duty, we repeat here that the failures seen with criminal behaviour orders and football banning orders, where thousands of breaches each year go unpursued and offenders learn that compliance is optional, will be repeated. Public confidence will not be restored by rhetoric; in fact, it will be damaged. It will be damaged by visible consequences, namely failures to enforce.
The Government propose to release more offenders into the community under suspended and community-based regimes. That is a political choice. Having chosen that path, they must choose the responsibility to ensure that it works and that it is safe. We should not be asking the British Government to accept greater risk while refusing the safeguards that would mitigate that risk. Ministers who believe that this strategy will reduce reoffending should have no objection to tests of practicability, enforcement duties and notification requirements. To oppose these amendments, they must be justified as to why they will be unenforceable, unmonitored, unaccountable conditions. That is a hard case to make to the victims, to police officers on the street or to the public whose safety is being traded away.
The amendments we put forward are not obstructive but supportive. They would help, indeed allow, the Government’s policy to function in the real world, not just on the printed page. If we are to put offenders back in the community who might not otherwise have been there—indeed, probably would not have been—the very least we owe the public is confidence that these conditions will be monitored and enforced, so I urge the Government to look again at these amendments and to reflect. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the enforceability of a public event attendance prohibition requirement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too am intrigued and concerned as to how these conditions will be monitored and enforced. I did not support the amendments that are aimed at the same question in the previous group, because I do not think we should make, for instance, the licensee of a pub or the operator of a sports ground the enforcer of conditions. Many of us have been critical enough, in the area of immigration, about making landlords and so on enforcers of government legislation. But I think there is still a lot to explore in this.
I said that I assumed the answer was going to be electronic monitoring, but how is that to be done, unless we are requiring the offender to be confined to a particular place—to home, for instance? They are not as strict as that; they exclude certain events. So does somebody need to know where events—an Oasis concert, a Premier League match or a fringe theatre with a tiny capacity—are taking place? How is this actually checked? The Minister said that the probation officer will get the data from a tag. I do not know enough about how these work to know whether the probation officer can easily find out whether somebody has attended a Sheffield United match. How is that actually done in practice on a day-to-day basis? Does the probation officer have the GPS co-ordinates for everything that might be an issue? It would be helpful if we could understand more about this.
I am concerned about live facial recognition—if it is being used; I do not know whether it will be. It works on the basis of a watch list, which is created for a particular occasion but then, as I understand it, will be deleted; it is not something which would go on for several months. I had thought that live facial recognition was only for the period of surveillance. I am asking for much more briefing on this, which we would then want to be in the public domain, but we need to understand it first.
My noble friend Lord Marks will be speaking to our Amendment 106, but I cannot overemphasise the importance of this amendment, or something like it. The objective is reducing reoffending, so one must enable employment, education, rehabilitation programmes and so on. We know from the experience of other orders that, for instance, the requirement to report to a police station can be imposed with absolutely no regard to the demands on an individual, who is then forced to take a day off work. I am interested to hear how enforcement works with the support for the offender, which is implicit in the activities.
My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, in making the overarching point about necessity and proportionality, has hit on what is, to my mind, a very important point. I wish I had thought of it, but I support him in this. I beg to move Amendment 60.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 61, 66, 102 and 104, standing in my name. I find myself in the unusual position of broadly agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Amendment 60.
This is an example of what I suppose could be called legislative drag, where time has elapsed between the publication of legislation—in this case, Second Reading in the Commons was at the beginning of September—and real-life events today. I want to talk about the broader context of how these proposals and policies may have an impact, in particular on the hospitality sector.
In principle, we do not oppose the creation of new tools to protect the public or manage offenders, but their success, as other noble Lords have said, depends significantly on enforceability. Clauses 14 and 15 lack any operational detail on how the bans on pub or event attendance organisations will be implemented or enforced, making them currently unworkable in practice. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect pubs, bars, off-licences and event venues to police court-ordered bans without a clear enforcement structure. The hospitality sector is already in severe financial distress, and I will return to that shortly. If enforcement is not intended to fall on venues, the Government must explain how probation and policing will manage compliance, given existing resources and the staffing crises that we discussed on day one of Committee.
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.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on 20 September there were 26,647 people subject to electronic monitoring, with various types of tags and for a range of different purposes. It has been estimated that this Bill will increase the number of people being tagged by an additional 20,000. In other words, it will more or less double the number of people being tagged.
In our deliberations, we have already heard the Minister make it clear that his understanding is that the vast majority of people who leave prison will be among those 20,000 people. Although it is true that there is guidance which says:
“Offenders released from prison will enter a period of ‘intensive supervision’ tailored to their risk and the type of crime”,
it acknowledges that probation officers will be allowed some discretion as to whether all prisoners leaving will be tagged. My real concern is that probation officers who have heard the Minister say that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged are going to end up tagging the vast majority of prisoners. That is why I have tabled Amendment 110ZA, the purpose of which is to require
“the relevant authority, when considering whether to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a relevant order, to have regard to whether the requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the order and whether the requirement is proportionate considering the individual’s circumstances”.
The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee did an investigation into tagging as it currently stands and looked ahead at what might be coming down the track. We heard a number of worrying bits of evidence. For instance, we heard about a 77 year-old woman recalled to prison simply because there was not a tag small enough to fit her. We heard from many people about the stigma attached while they are wearing a tag, even to the point that people who see the tag—which is pretty obvious in many cases—are frightened and believe they are dangerous. None of this helps them re-establish themselves in their local communities.
We also discovered a number of serious ethical issues. For instance, we found evidence that black people are almost twice as likely to be subjected to electronic monitoring as their white counterparts. Even the Home Office acknowledged this in a 2023 equality impact assessment which acknowledged that GPS tagging may disproportionately affect some nationalities. The MoJ told our committee that it, too, accepted that electronic monitoring might not be suitable for all individuals and addressed issues such as work, childcare commitments and so on.
There are also other measures that are rarely taken into account. One very good example is a prisoner I spoke to who had gone into prison because of his gambling addiction—he had stolen money and gone into prison as a result—and then on release had a curfew order. When he said he wanted to go to a meeting at Gamblers Anonymous, he was told he could not because that took place in the evening when the curfew applied. That seems fairly nonsensical to me.
We concluded as a committee that the MoJ, alongside the judiciary and the Probation Service, should conduct regular reviews to ensure electronic monitoring is being used proportionately across all groups, as well as appropriately among vulnerable groups, in which we highlighted women in particular. In tabling this amendment, I wanted to draw attention to the committee’s concern about the blanket assumption that the vast majority of prisoners would be tagged.
We think this is really important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has said. We will also hear similar arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who has an amendment on this issue in the next group. In group 7, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will raise the important issue of allowing offenders to have a say in this so that they can point out the impact that a tag of one sort or another may have on their lives—not being able to go to work, childcare issues or whatever. My noble friend on the Front Bench has amendments later on whether driving bans and exclusion zones could impact somebody’s ability to reduce reoffending.
This is simply an opportunity for the Minister to explain that he does not really believe that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged and that probation officers, with the expertise which he points out they have, will be able to have due discretion over whether tagging or electronic monitoring is appropriate.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I very briefly beg the indulgence of the Committee just to respond to my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems that he wishes to will the ends but not the means as regards my Amendments 61 and 66. I am rather surprised he did not know where every pub was in his constituency, because when I was in the other place I knew where every pub was in my constituency. That said, I say to him respectfully that it is perfectly reasonable in terms of data management to utilise the regulatory and the licensing regimes of local authorities to reach every pub and drinking establishment in a geographical area, and certainly within 20 miles. That is not something that is beyond the wit of the Probation Service to work with local authorities so to do.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category—that is, prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events—may generally be too wide in any case, because it is going to be very difficult to define a “public event”.
Moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability but with enforcement, spoken to in the last group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, foresaw difficulties in determining practicability, which he thought might be fatal to these conditions. I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question for the Committee in considering whether these conditions ought to be permitted is to see how far they would in practice be imposed if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability.
I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points relating to community orders, if I can put it that way, and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is pretty easy to find out where the pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and intelligence-gathering techniques might be needed to address.
However, when I talk about justification, it is right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement. They are in part, therefore, punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, which is a far more serious punishment, and one that with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender having the opportunity to undertake any rehabilitative activity at all.
The other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring, as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer. Although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, monitoring by tagging is no different from monitoring by curfew or by a residence requirement, which we have had for a very great deal of time, but the new technology enables a more flexible and wider approach to conditions. However, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.
Amendment 106 in my name would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes, but those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restriction zone conditions.
The purpose of this amendment in each of its sub-clauses is to enable both the courts when imposing conditions and probation professionals to weigh in the balance, on the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition, against on the other the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It is a classic balancing exercise of a type that is undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity, and that is really what we are talking about here. The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of it is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So, the condition could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions, which will permit the desirable activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions, and of course I see that. But these conditions are not perfect, they will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. However, for the most part, in practice, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there, and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach.
Questions of affordability were raised, and of course more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions, but those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the Parole Board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I am not quite sure how that will work—it seems an onerous obligation on the Parole Board—but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones. In a general sense, that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges on how they are to be imposed, and by training of probation officers in how they are to be implemented.
On electronic monitoring, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke, if it is proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree with her points.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. In doing so, I am sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of the Committee about these provisions in the Bill.
It has already been made clear that we on these Benches do not in principle oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody, and we support that aim. But Clauses 14 and 15 do little more than say that courts now have these powers. The Government have provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced. A ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise and, indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence.
The Government want this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community-based orders. Yet to support them in this effort, they are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub, club, concert and public event bans, without explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan. Are we seriously proposing that every pub, bar, off-licence and concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? The result would be unacceptable. If such pub bans become unenforceable and are reduced to a tick-box exercise in sentencing documents while nothing on the ground actually changes, the sanction will become meaningless. That would not be an improvement in justice.
The burden that such a regime would place on the hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. Pubs and nightlife venues are already under severe financial and structural pressure, as we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association. As a consequence of the national insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed on these venues by the Government, some 209 pubs—an average of eight a week—have closed permanently and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, never mind unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court-imposed bans on individuals under threat of legal liability.
The Government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie on public events or drinking establishments, but, in that case, they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a Probation Service that, as everyone would accept, is already under severe strain. Simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough. We require specifics if we are to trust that the Government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community. If the Government cannot explain clearly how these bans will be notified, enforced or policed, how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these Benches must ask: on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders, if we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work and without the most basic detail on banning access to pubs or events?
The amendments offer a simple test. They would require the Government, before we hand out sweeping powers to courts, to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified: pubs, events, promoters, the police? What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishments? How will these bans be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring: the state, the Probation Service or venues? If the Government cannot provide that clarity, these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions. They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real-world effect, and that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and public safety.
The choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers; it is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community-based orders; they demand that, if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by a robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith. We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her Amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to another important question that is central to the debate on these orders. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to his Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, such as to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.
On the part of the amendment that requires an annual report on the orders’ use and effectiveness, we on these Benches support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that the provisions in the Bill are working or will work. We therefore fully support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important probing amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will make two apologies. The first is to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham; my noble friend Lady Hamwee tells me that I referred to him twice as the “noble Viscount, Lord Hogg”. The second is to my noble friend Lord Foster, because I referred to the points that he made on electronic monitoring as having been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I apologise to them both.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I will join the trend. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for calling him “Lord Sanderson” in my enthusiasm to agree with him. Misnaming is almost as bad as misgendering, but I hope he will let me off. I was glad to take credit for the very important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about electronic tagging, because I agree with him.
I want to query the Minister now, rather than interrupting him later, about this group. There is something I do not understand. The group is focused largely on enforceability, yet in the previous group, the Minister claimed that these kinds of prohibitions were part of the punishment. He is right to suggest that these are punishments for those people—they are not in prison, but they are still being punished. But I do not find it easy to understand how these orders punish the individuals. Are they related to the crimes they committed? The example that the Minister gave earlier was that, as part of the punishment, someone will be prevented from going to a particular football match. I understand that, if someone supports Liverpool, it might be a punishment to watch them at the moment, never mind anything else.
How do the punishments get decided? There was the example that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave of the potential downside of saying that we will have a curfew and someone cannot attend their Gamblers Anonymous meeting. Also, if we are going to say that, as part of the punishment, someone cannot go to public gatherings, who decides which public gatherings are included? Some public gatherings are obviously morally good for people. Do we not want them to go to a political public gathering?
Can the Minister just clarify how it is decided which person in the community gets one of these orders and who makes a decision about who should be banned from a pub, football match, public gathering, political gathering or what have you?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Prashar, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, for tabling these amendments.
Amendments 60, 61 and 66 refer to the enforcement of the new community requirements. I hope that the noble Baroness and noble Lord will be satisfied with a summary of the answer I gave in the previous group: responsibility for enforcement sits with the Probation Service, which has a range of options available to respond to non-compliance. This includes returning the offender to court, where they may face further penalties. This can include being sent to custody.
The noble Baroness asked how this works in practice, and I hope I can assist. Where electronic monitoring is imposed, the electronic monitoring service provider will receive an automatic breach notification if the offender breaches a licence condition predetermined by a court or probation officer. They will then provide information on the breach to the individual’s probation officer by 10 o’clock the following morning, for them then to take the appropriate action. If the noble Baroness would like further clarification and to speak to the experts whom I work alongside, I would be very happy to arrange that.
Amendments 102 and 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, concern the enforcement of new licence conditions. As with the new community order requirements, the enforcement of licence conditions will mirror current practice. Where it is supervising offenders, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach of licence conditions. It will have available to it a suite of options to respond to the breaches, including issuing a warning and increasing supervision; where needed, it also includes recall to custody.
Again, I hope that an example will assist your Lordships. Lucy has recently been released from prison after serving a custodial sentence after seriously assaulting someone in a pub. Her licence condition includes a ban on entering any drinking establishment. After several weeks, Lucy admits to her probation officer that she has frequently been going to pubs and clubs. Even though she has not been arrested, her probation officer decides that more intensive supervision is needed to manage her risk, and puts this in place.
As with community orders, where an offender is on licence, there is no expectation for businesses or venues to manage these conditions. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly pointed out, imagine a probation officer, already under pressure, having to notify every pub, bar and venue within 20 miles that certain offenders cannot go there. Imagine businesses having to store securely, monitor and update this information and, by implication, having to be responsible for enforcing these conditions. This is not for venues or people in the community to manage, and it will not help offenders integrate back into their communities. The Probation Service will continue its management and supervision of these offenders; it is best placed to respond to any breaches, including recalling offenders to prison if necessary.
However, we must be clear: we cannot monitor every offender in every moment of every day, and nor should we. Complying with licence conditions is an important way in which offenders can show a reduction in their risk as they reintegrate into their communities. It is how they can rebuild the trust they have lost by committing crimes. The punishment correlates to offending behaviour and the decision of the sentencer who takes into account the nature of the offence.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords and noble Baronesses that these measures will provide our Probation Service with a full suite of options to support it in managing offenders in the community—a task it is best equipped to do. Of course, we are also supporting the Probation Service with more funding, more recruitment and better tools to help it do what it does best: keeping the public safe. We therefore believe that these amendments are unnecessary, and I urge noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
With all due respect to the Minister, that is not a great example, because the example he gives is that Lucy has volunteered the information that she is in breach of her licence conditions. Given that the licence conditions are a de facto replacement for potential custodial centres, had she not told the probation officer, she would still have been in breach of the licence conditions as she was still going to the pub. I do not really think that that is a great example, with all due respect to the Minister.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am happy to provide further examples if that would be helpful but it may be that the tag, if Lucy had had one on, would have been used by the monitoring team to identify where she had or had not been.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions. I am proud to be a Minister in the Government who introduced this measure. These zones will pin certain offenders down to a specific geographical area to ensure that victims can move freely everywhere else. I must pay tribute to those who campaigned tirelessly for this crucial change, including Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton.
I hope that it will help your Lordships if I explain in a little more detail how the process of drawing a restriction zone will work. Where a restriction zone is deemed necessary and proportionate to manage risk, probation officers will conduct a detailed risk assessment. They will work closely with victim liaison officers, to ensure that victims have been given the chance to make representations where appropriate, but they must also ensure that offenders can access all necessary services, including employment, with consideration of public protection and risk. They must not be a barrier to employment or prevent rehabilitation; as someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, noble Lords will know that this is the last thing I would want to happen.
On a recent visit to the Serco office in Warrington, I saw at first hand how exclusion zones are designed. I saw the detailed consideration and care that is given when developing them; I will ensure that the same level of attention is given to restriction zones when those are being drawn, with due consideration given to the needs of both the victim and the offender. Let us be clear: these considerations are inextricably linked. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycling of reoffending are vital parts of ensuring that restriction zones protect victims. Restriction zones, like all restrictive measures, must accommodate rehabilitative aims, such as employment; that way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims.
Amendment 101A from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would give the Parole Board oversight of restriction zones. Although I thank the noble Baroness for raising this matter, my firm view is that, as I have set out throughout this speech, the Probation Service is best placed to monitor and request licence conditions; and that the judiciary is best placed to hand out orders.
The Parole Board is best placed to develop risk management plans on release for indeterminate sentence offenders and more serious determinate sentence offenders whose release it directs. It is not for it to do so in cases where offenders are subject to automatic release. If an offender is released automatically without any involvement of the Parole Board, it would be inappropriate for the board then to be asked to approve a restriction zone for an offender whose release it did not direct; it would have no knowledge of the individual and their case. As with current provisions, it is right that the Probation Service will manage the licence for these cases. It is the one who know the offender and the risk they pose best.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 110ZA. I agree that it is important to ensure that electronic monitoring is imposed where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. When an electronic monitoring condition is being considered following an individual’s release from custody, the Probation Service will carry out an extensive assessment of that individual’s circumstances to ensure that electronic monitoring is used appropriately as part of its wider supervision. Conducting these assessments via the professional judgment of our Probation Service remains a core principle to ensuring that electronic monitoring is used only where it is proportionate and necessary. I have full confidence in the checks and decisions taken by the Probation Service, and I have confidence in the technology that is used to enforce any electronic monitoring requirement. I can assure the noble Lord that the electronic monitoring suitability checks currently in place and carried out by the Probation Service are robust; they ensure that the imposition of electronic monitoring will not result in harm to victims or perpetrators.
We are confident that probation officers will continue to impose electronic monitoring where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when scrutiny is important to both the proponents and opponents of a proposition. Some of us want to make sure that it works; others want to show that it will not. I hope that the Minister will understand that, certainly from these Benches, we are seeking not to oppose what he is planning but to understand how it will work. To me, identifying where there is a breach is the big question mark. I enthusiastically accept his suggestion that we can have further briefings; although I never like doing things in private, those are a necessary step.
The noble Viscount criticised my drafting rather than the substance—at least, I hope that was the case. I know of the case of the lady whose wrists were too slim to take a tag. It was worse than that. She kept being told that she was in breach because it was understood that she was refusing to wear a tag, whereas she could not. There are a lot of situations that one cannot quite imagine until one discovers that they have actually happened.
I am sure that we will come back to this subject of enforcement. Having had a look at the relevant clause just now, I am relieved that these are not among the provisions that will commence immediately on the passing of the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Public event attendance prohibition statistics: duty to publish(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, direct His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to record and publish, in relation to all offenders recorded who have breached a public event attendance prohibition requirement—(a) the total number of breaches;(b) a breakdown of the prior or associated offence or offences for which those offenders were given a public event attendance prohibition requirement;(c) the number of offenders who have breached the public event attendance prohibition requirement on more than one occasion, recorded by number of repeat breaches.(2) The data recorded under subsection (1) must be compiled and published separately in respect of each of the following kinds of public event attendance prohibition requirement—(a) a requirement prohibiting attendance at a specified public event, (b) a requirement prohibiting attendance at public events of a specified description, and(c) a requirement prohibiting attendance at any public event.(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—(a) within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) annually thereafter.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require HMPPS to publish the number of offenders who breach public attendance prohibition requirements and to log what their associated offences were.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments were tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.
As we have already seen, the Bill introduces new prohibition powers: prohibitions on attending public events, restrictions on entering drinking establishments, restriction zones limiting movement and electronic monitoring to enforce compliance. In principle this all sounds very sensible, but we must again ask the critical question: how will these powers work on the ground?
On the prohibitions with respect to drinking establishments, legally the offender must comply but enforcement is then shared. Probation must monitor and the police must act. In practice, this is far from straightforward. How will breaches be reliably detected? GPS or electronic monitoring may indicate proximity but cannot confirm entry. Reporting from licensees or police may be inconsistent. Once a breach is detected, how quickly can probation services respond and are resources sufficient to manage multiple offenders across wide areas? Without clarity, we cannot be confident that these powers will work.
That is precisely why Amendments 71 and 76 are tabled. They would require the Probation Service to record and publish breaches, repeat breaches and underlying offences. They also probe the reliability of electronic monitoring. Can GPS monitoring operate reliably in towns, cities and rural areas? Will probation teams receive training to know how and when to respond? As I have said before, we know that probation services are already stretched. Surely new powers that add a substantial responsibility to their workload have to be considered with care. We simply seek clarity as to how these services will be managed in these circumstances.
These amendments come from a place of reality, not of opposition. They affirm the Government’s policy while probing whether it can be delivered reliably. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how these powers will operate in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. The new community requirements in Clauses 13 to 16 are vital reforms. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to speak to them in some detail today. Amendments 65, 71 and 75 seek to require HMPPS to publish the number of offenders who breach these requirements and to log what their associated offences were. While I am sympathetic to the intent behind this, we do not agree that it is necessary. The Ministry of Justice already publishes detailed sentence outcome statistics. These include the type of disposals handed out at court and are split by detailed offences and offender characteristic. We regularly assess the effectiveness of all community requirements.
Furthermore, HMPPS publishes a range of staffing and case load data on a quarterly basis. We must be conscious of adding more work into the service. We also place great value on the independent oversight and assurance provided by HM Inspectorate of Probation. It already inspects the service and provides insight into how it is performing. Given the information that is already available, we do not agree that adding a statutory requirement to publish this information is necessary or proportionate. But I assure the noble and learned Lord that I will keep an open mind. I will continue to review regularly what data is published, what can be stopped and what can be added.
Amendments 74 and 76 probe the use of electronic monitoring to enforce restriction zones as part of a community or suspended sentence order. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling these amendments. With regard to Amendment 74, I can assure him that electronic monitoring will be imposed alongside these orders in the vast majority of cases. However, electronic monitoring is not appropriate in all cases. Some offenders have no fixed abode. They may live complex and chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up these individuals to fail, instead of helping them to improve outcomes for victims, the public and the offender themselves. A court will be able to impose a restriction zone without electronic monitoring when it cannot obtain the consent of someone whose co-operation is required, such as the home owner, where the appropriate local arrangements are not in place to enable electronic monitoring, or where it would be inappropriate. It is right that the decision about what requirements to include as part of the sentence sits with the judiciary hearing the individual case.
If a court does not believe that a restriction zone will be effective without electronic monitoring, it has a range of other requirements at its disposal. When a requirement is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour for any potential breach. It will have a suite of options available to respond to breaches if it identifies that they have not complied—for example, from police intelligence or victim concerns.
I will end by briefly turning to the question of how these are to be monitored in practice and the reliability of the technology that allows the Probation Service to do so. The use of electronic monitoring to enforce these requirements will mean that we receive retrospective data that provides clear evidence of an individual’s whereabouts. This ensures that those receiving a restriction zone are robustly monitored. GPS is a reliable technology that has been part of electronic monitoring since 2018. This will allow the Probation Service to assess whether someone has breached their restriction zone. As I have said before, if this happens, probation staff have a range of enforcement options at their disposal.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for the constructive discussions on these matters and hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on the points raised. I therefore urge him to withdraw Amendment 65.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we have already discussed why transparency, reporting and practical assurances are essential.
First, enforcement is only as good as the system that is supporting it. It is not enough to create restrictions in law if those tasked with monitoring them lack the resources and capacity to act effectively. Secondly, repeat offenders are a particular concern. If data on repeated breaches is not recorded and published, the restrictions risk being meaningless for those most likely to violate them. Thirdly, public confidence is at stake here. To create a law that cannot be implemented correctly is unwise. Restrictions that are not transparent, not measurable and not enforceable will undermine trust in the entire system.
These amendments are not intended as a challenge to the principles in the Bill. They are seeking operational clarity. Therefore, while at this time I am willing not to press them, I indicate to the Minister that we will return to them at a later stage.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 201 (community order requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(2)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 207(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (3) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(4) In section 287 (community requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(5)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 291(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (5) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(6) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 4D (inserted by section 16(8)(a)) insert—“Part 4EGambling premises entry prohibition requirement8E (1) In this Code “gambling premises entry prohibition requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement prohibiting the offender from entering gambling premises.(2) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering gambling premises at any time in a particular period or at particular times in a particular period.(3) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering—(a) particular gambling premises,(b) gambling premises of a particular kind,(c) gambling premises in a particular area or areas, or(d) any gambling premises.(4) Where the court makes a relevant order imposing a gambling premises entry prohibition requirement, the following must be specified in the order—(a) the period for which the requirement has effect; (b) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises at particular times, those times;(c) if the order prohibits the offender from entering particular gambling premises, those premises;(d) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises of a particular kind, that kind of gambling premises;(e) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises in a particular area or areas, the limits of that area or those areas.(5) In this paragraph “gambling premises” means premises used for any of the activities specified in section 150(1) (a) to (e) of the Gambling Act 2005.”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 70 I will also talk to the other amendments in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Gold, for their support. I have indicated my support for the amendment in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. With one caveat, which I will come to, I am also attracted by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform because the thrust of this group of amendments is about the lack of reference to tackling gambling disorder in the criminal justice system and the need to do something about it.
Anyone who was looking at the BBC News headlines only today may have noticed the headline, “Skipton gambling addict fuelled habit with company funds”. The article goes on to point out:
“A web developer has been jailed for fraud after siphoning more than £500,000 from the company he worked for to fuel his gambling addiction”.
Disorders caused by drug and alcohol addiction are frequently referred to in all the legislation, procedures and processes, and in all the support, help and guidance that is given about how the Probation Service, the Prison Service and the judiciary should handle various stages when a suspect or offender engages with the criminal justice system. Gambling disorder is not; I believe it should be, and these amendments offer a way forward.
Part of the role of sentencing is to consider how best to reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending. Where, for example, it has been identified that a person is a drug addict or that he or she committed crime to raise funds to pay for the habit, that is frequently taken into account, for example by adding a treatment condition or giving a non-custodial sentence rather than a custodial one, so that more effective treatment can be provided to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since screening for gambling disorder rarely happens, it is not taken into account in the sentencing process, or in any subsequent stages during either a custodial or a non-custodial sentence. Indeed, judges, for example, do not routinely consider gambling disorder as a mitigating factor in the same way that they do for drugs and alcohol disorders.
In the other place, when a similar concern was raised, Ministers argued that gambling is a mental health issue, and since mental health forms part of the screening and sentencing decision, therefore gambling is covered and there is no need to take any further action. To some extent, that is actually true. Both the World Health Organization and the internationally recognised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put alcohol and drugs and gambling disorders under the umbrella of mental health disorders. But critically, all three are then linked under a sub-category, “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders”. It is clear that the WHO and the diagnostic manual treat drug, alcohol and gambling as a separate group in which all three need to be considered. For quite a long time, however, we have referred in all the documentation to mental health and drug and alcohol issues only, separating out drug and alcohol from other forms of mental health issues since they require a separate approach—gambling is not mentioned.
This is actually borne out in the official documents that are currently used in the main offender assessment system, OASys, which is used by both prison and probation staff. Guides on OASys say it is used by prison and probation officers to assess the needs and risks of offenders, specifically the risk of reoffending and the risk of harm. The resulting assessment then helps formulate plans designed to reduce those risks. Chapter 3 of the latest OASys guide lists “factors linked to offending” under section 3.2.1, “Likelihood of Reoffending Assessment”. The list covers things like accommodation, education, training, employability and relationships. Drug misuse and alcohol misuse also appear, but there is no reference to gambling despite the very clear evidence, as we heard from that quote, of the links between gambling disorder and crime.
Currently, the system fails in multiple interrelated ways. First, identification is inconsistent and unreliable. Many individuals enter court or prison without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Secondly, courts rarely have access to gambling-specific psychological reports, leaving judges without the evidence needed to make informed decisions about sentencing. Thirdly, there is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences. Fourthly, within prisons, treatment and peer support are largely absent and gambling culture remains pervasive. Fifthly, upon release, continuity of care is inconsistent: individuals are discharged without referral to community gambling services, without peer support and without family support frameworks, leaving them highly vulnerable to relapse and to reoffend.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading; I was not present due to domestic circumstances. Had I been present, I would have spoken on the importance—following on from the remarks of noble Lord, Lord Foster—of addressing the problems that we have with those who are sentenced with addiction problems. Here, I have written down “whether it be drink, drugs, gambling, sex, sugar, smoking”, and so on—we find new addictions coming along all the time these days.
In this group, I speak to Amendments 97 and 107. The purpose behind these probing amendments is fairly simple: to ensure that, for addicted prisoners who are released before they can be classed as well on the way to sobriety—this can cover gambling as well as drink and drugs—the Ministry of Justice will be prepared to provide funding, maybe from the prison education budget, to fund the admission of these prisoners into residential recovery and rehabilitation centres so that they can continue with their recovery.
We saw with the recent early release programme that a number of prisoners released then who were in prison undertaking recovery courses—in particular, 12-step recovery courses—were then just simply released, and there was little follow-up in the maintenance of their recovery afterwards. Some of those prisoners, however, did find their way into some residential centres; it was only a small number, and they were funded mainly by charities or by the generosity of the centres that took them in.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned in the earlier debate, many of these centres are struggling. We have seen a reduction in the number of rehabs around the country by a half over the last 10 years; we have far fewer than we ever used to have. Many of the problems that they are encountering are, obviously, financial. Many of the patients they now take in are funded primarily by the major insurance companies; alternatively, they get support from charities. This really means that, increasingly, we are finding that those who are at the bottom end, who are not working and do not have insurance, or who have little funds themselves or do not have contact with charities, including prisoners, are finding it so difficult these days to get into residential recovery.
What I am suggesting with these rather modest little amendments is that, when prisoners are released, if they are in recovery and have not completed their course, they should be permitted to go into residential centres if they are able to find those that are willing to take them, and that, in turn, the cost of their residential accommodation and treatment would be met out of a budget to be provided by the Ministry of Justice—I would suggest it should come out of its education fund as a way of finding the means. This would be money well invested. Hopefully, it would ensure people found sobriety and would break the cycle that we see so often of people going into prison due to their addiction, coming out, getting back in old company, drinking and drugging and gambling again, going around the circle and going back into prison again, which is extraordinarily costly to society.
There is an opportunity, if we get people into a residential recovery, that not only do the prisoners benefit, but it benefits their family and the wider community in the best possible way. I hope the Minister is prepared to give some favourable consideration to these ideas.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and declared my interests. I cannot start my short amendment without saying how personally delighted I am with the Minister’s department today for having raised legal aid rates in a number of very important areas such as crime, immigration and housing.
My amendment would introduce an express right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations about the necessity or the proportionality of the conditions. This amendment has the support of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been very helpful in its advice.
Of course, those of us who enthusiastically support the Bill agree that, in order for prisons not to be overused, tough new measures are sensibly proposed to restrain the behaviour and activities of offenders on release from prison—a suite of new and tough licence conditions. I think the Committee will agree that licence conditions must, as a matter of law, be both necessary and proportionate.
This amendment gives offenders an express opportunity to make representations without disturbing—this is the important part of the amendment—the Secretary of State’s, or, in reality, the probation officer’s ultimate decision as to which conditions to impose. There is no question of overriding the probation officer because you do not like it; the request is that the offender should be able to make some representation about the suitability or otherwise as far as their individual case is concerned.
This can be a safeguard against disproportionate and inappropriate use of conditions, which can, of course, lead to increased recalls if the conditions are wrong or not suitable, and thus increased pressure, leading to even more pressure on our prison system, which is under a lot of pressure already.
An unintended consequence would be where conditions might impact on, for example, resettlement or other matters such as employment and health care.
The idea behind this amendment is, of course, to prevent unnecessary recalls to prison. There is a slight irony at present: only for the most serious offences, where releasing is the decision of the Parole Board, is there a formal avenue for the offender to make representations, but there is not one for offenders who do not have to go through the Parole Board process.
This is a quick and a modest amendment, and an attempt to find a way of ensuring that all offenders who may be subject to these measures—whether they are the new, tough measures or not—can at least make representations before they are imposed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in the amendments they have spoken to in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, was quite right to draw attention to gambling and how that can be an addiction, like other addictions which are so prevalent within the prisons. My noble friend Lord Bach made a very interesting point on the right to representations about the proportionality of licence conditions when prisoners leave the custodial bit of their sentence.
I really want to concentrate my comments on what my noble friend Lord Brooke said about the addiction of many people in our prisons—to drink, gambling and drugs, as we all know. He talked very persuasively about the continuity of care that needs to happen within the prison and as prisoners leave prison. With the previous Government, it was called a through-the-gate approach. Although the aspiration was clearly there, it has not been managed very well.
I want to talk about my own experience on the street I live on in Wandsworth, where we have a residential centre and I occasionally, not infrequently, come across men—usually—who attend the community events I go to in my immediate vicinity. Invariably, they tell me about the importance of the various programmes they are going on, whether they are able to be directed to them from within prison or from the residential centre they attend.
I reinforce the points my noble friend made. I was glad that he said he has had ongoing discussions with our noble friends on the Front Bench. I look forward to hearing what they will have to say about his amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for moving his amendment. Providing care for individuals with addictions, gambling in particular, should be a fundamental role of a national health service, and we support his aims.
As the noble Lord explained, gambling addiction is a chronic issue across this country. Roughly 2.8% of all adults are engaged in at-risk or problem gambling—a huge number of people either in need of, or at risk of needing, support services. His amendments highlight this issue and the need for our services properly to address gambling addiction.
We support the sentiment behind the approach to general addiction recovery services of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Often, individuals with addiction either cannot or do not want to accept recovery services. To introduce a requirement to engage with services would serve those people. This is particularly the case in prisons. Last year, there were almost 50,000 adults in recovery in alcohol and drug treatment centres in prison and secure settings. Almost 60% of those individuals were undergoing treatment for crack or opiates. That 60% comprises vulnerable individuals being treated for misuse of the hardest substances.
The principle behind Amendments 131 to 133, from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, clearly reflects the reality of the situation. We heard an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, which merits consideration. We also heard an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who of course has great experience as a Minister in this field. We remain, however, not fully convinced that this group of amendments would have the desired effect.
There is a large question mark hovering over the whole Bill: the general enforceability of the new orders it introduces. We have explained that we do not agree with the decision to suspend sentences under 18 months—that is, 18 months because the Government have opposed our guilty plea amendment—but if the Government are to make this all work, the new orders they impose have to be effective. As I have said before, we are not convinced that they will be.
As I have already argued, the Government’s new drinking establishment entry prohibition requirement realistically is unenforceable. Public event attendance is too vague and too broad. The Government’s approach to new orders is largely deficient. We do not think they should be taking on new responsibilities, even if there is a need for them, as is the case with gambling addiction, when they have demonstrated an incapacity to plan for the existing responsibilities that are being imposed.
The onus, therefore, is on the Government to demonstrate that the noble Lord’s well-intentioned amendments can be accepted, if possible, and then implemented. We would like this to be the case, but only if possible. Gambling addiction and addiction in general require attention from our state, but the state must first prove itself competent. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which raise important issues around tackling gambling harms and the harms caused by other addictions. Just last week I met a prisoner at HMP Wormwood Scrubs whose life have been devastated by gambling harm. Although the data on gambling is limited, I understand that this is an important issue impacting the lives of offenders and their families.
Amendments 70 and 78 would introduce new community order requirements: one prohibiting an offender from entering a gambling establishment, and one introducing a mandatory treatment requirement. I wholeheartedly share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to supporting offenders whose lives are impacted by gambling. I assure noble Lords that courts already have the power to prohibit offenders serving a community or suspended sentence from entering gambling premises. They can do this through a prohibited activity requirement.
However, I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the menu of community requirements under close review. Clause 17 introduces a power to add or amend community requirements using secondary legislation. This will provide further flexibility to ensure that the framework is kept relevant to the offending behaviour.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, speak to the wider issue of how the criminal justice system can support and treat those whose offending is driven by addiction or mental health needs. I know this issue is close to noble Lords’ hearts and I agree completely that alongside effective punishment we have a duty to rehabilitate offenders with gambling addictions and other needs. We must provide them with the right support throughout the criminal justice system to rebuild their lives. I hope it will help your Lordships for me to set out the ways in which we are already doing so.
Pre-sentence reports help the court identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental ill-health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be considered at sentencing where they are relevant to the offence or the offender’s culpability. Courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to someone’s offending. Where appropriate, courts may consider mental health treatment requirements, funded by NHS England as part of a community or suspended sentence order, where mental health has been identified as an underlying factor. The use of these requirements has increased significantly in recent years.
Alongside this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, homelessness or unemployment. We also work closely with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for offenders and aligned with prison and probation services. This includes increasing the use and effectiveness of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community and suspended sentences.
For those in prison, there is already a statutory duty for prison governors to provide health services in custody, with our approach guided by the principle of equivalence of care to patients in the community. We are ensuring that prison leavers remain in treatment on release by strengthening links to prison, probation and treatment providers.
Finally, support for those with gambling-related harms in the criminal justice system will be bolstered by funding from the statutory gambling levy. The Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of this. I will also reach out to representatives in the gambling industry and will look to host a round table with them next year to better understand the impacts of gambling harm and what more we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, also tabled Amendment 108, which would give new powers to set licence conditions prohibiting offenders from entering a gambling establishment. I want to be clear that the provisions in Clause 24 will support our aim to give practitioners a full range of tools to manage and support offenders. Existing powers enable probation to set additional licence conditions related to gambling, including prohibiting offenders on licence from gambling or making payments for other games of chance.
Probation also has an existing power to request an additional licence condition, directing offenders to undertake activities to address their gambling activities, where necessary and proportionate to their risk. HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. We will be looking at issuing operational guidance to practitioners on effective usage of gambling-related licence conditions, alongside implementation of the new conditions set out in Clause 24. I would very much like to harness the considerable expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on this topic. I hope that he will be keen to work with me and my officials as this work develop0s.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for his Amendment 101. I reassure him that probation practitioners carefully consider what licence conditions to recommend as part of their supervision and management of an offender. They can tailor conditions to the specific needs of the offender, in line with managing public protection.
Although there is no formal process for representations, this is not considered to be necessary. Probation practitioners draw on a range of information when applying licence conditions and discuss conditions with offenders as part of release planning. They must ensure that licence conditions are necessary and proportionate, and they can grant necessary exemptions to licence conditions for rehabilitative purposes. This will be the same for the new conditions.
I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for allowing the Committee to debate these important subjects, but I hope I have explained why the Government do not agree that these amendments are necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for agreeing, in principle at least, with the amendments and rightly saying that he wants them accepted and implemented, but only when he can be convinced that they can be enforced. In so doing, he draws attention to the well-known problem of the shortage of support, even at present. For example, of those who are identified as having a mental health problem when they enter prison, only 1.8% actually even start treatment. He is quite right that we have to do much more. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also pointed that out. We must do much more about the provision of support.
The Minister also described this as a serious problem. He is quite right, because the percentage of people in prison who suffer from a gambling disorder is many times greater than in the population at large. The amount of gambling that goes on in prison is now very well documented and, sadly, on occasion involves prison officers.
The one disappointing thing in the Minister’s response is that he seemed to believe that it is still perfectly all right to separate out from mental health the two issues of drugs and alcohol but not even to include the words “gambling disorder” in the list, the assessment procedure and so on. I hope I can persuade him, in the discussions he is obviously keen to have—I am keen to have them as well—that we can find a way forward. I am very keen indeed to ensure that those words are included in the relevant documentation. Having said that, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.