(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
“An annual report on prison capacity(1) The Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, make a report on prison capacity.(2) When reporting on prison capacity under this section, the Lord Chancellor must include the available data on—(a) prison population projections,(b) projection for the supply of prison places,(c) information on prison service staffing, and(d) information on probation service staffing and caseloads.(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The Lord Chancellor must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(5) If this section comes into force after the beginning of a financial year, the first report may relate to a period beginning with the day on which that section comes into force and ending with the end of the next financial year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to publish an annual report on prison capacity, in line with the commitment in its Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2024 for a statutory annual statement. In line with the 2024 statement, it also requires the publication of information on probation service staffing and caseloads, given the importance of probation service capacity in managing offenders with community orders, suspended sentences and on licence.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 88, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Before I do so, it is important for us to understand why the various proposers have thought them necessary. In one way or another, most address a concern about the existing capacity within the MoJ and the very big concern that there will be insufficient capacity to deal with the new responsibilities arising from the Bill.
Most, but not all, of the amendments focus on staffing in the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Damning concerns about staffing levels in those two services regularly appear in the annual reports of the prisons and probation inspectorates. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the concern about prison officer numbers and pointed out that, as the prison population has risen, the number of prison officers has declined. Prison officers are leaving at an alarming rate—17% each year—and half of them do so after less than one year in service.
On the Probation Service, Ministers themselves have acknowledged that they have inherited a service “under immense pressure”, and the Chief Inspector of Probation has referred to “chronic understaffing”. The Bill envisages more sanctioned early releases from prisons and an almost doubling of the number of people being tagged. That means more people to be supervised and therefore more work for probation officers. Currently, approximately 7,000 officers are doing this existing supervision work, and that number is considered inadequate. As one senior probation officer put it, when talking about things going wrong:
“It’s infuriating when some of us are being told it’s our fault we’re not doing enough and that we need to up our game, but actually the workload is sky high”.
I will give an example of why this really matters. Just one year ago, 73 out of every 100 released prisoners were recalled to prison. By June this year, the recall population had reached 13,538. That is the equivalent of nine prisons, costing £3.5 billion a year. Most are recalled not for new crimes but for failing to comply with their licence conditions. That is often because, frankly, they have no home or income, and they are supervised by an overworked probation officer. Preparation for release is minimal, and support afterwards is thinner still. The easy solution for these overworked probation officers, when facing licence breaches, is to get the offenders off their books and avoid any comeback if something goes wrong by taking the risk-averse route and simply sending them back to prison.
That is the situation now, but some research has indicated that, to effectively manage existing case loads and the new ones that will arise from the Bill, an extra 10,000 probation officers will be needed. The Minister will talk about how we can use new technology to help. He is absolutely right, and we fully support him, but that alone will not resolve the situation. He will also talk about the 1,000 additional probation officers already recruited and the 1,300 additional officers the Government hope to recruit. He will talk about the £700 million over four years of extra funds for the Probation Service. We do not yet know how that money is to be allocated, but it is certain that not all of it will be spent on new staff. It is my contention that combining these measures will certainly help and certainly be welcome, but they seem unlikely to meet current and new demands combined. As I said at Second Reading, I therefore fear that we will not have the means in either the Prison Service or the Probation Service to achieve the ends.
That is the context of the amendments in this group, which fall into two categories. The first consists of amendments which call for regular reports on capacity issues. The second consists of amendments that, in effect, would prevent the main measures in the Bill being enacted until proof of adequate capacity to deliver them, or that they will deliver what is intended, is provided.
In the first category, reports on capacity issues, my Amendment 88 serves as a clear illustration. It would require an annual report from the Lord Chancellor on prison population predictions, projections of the supply of new prison places, information on Prison Service staffing and information on Probation Service staffing and case loads.
Such reports have been produced from time to time. Indeed, there was one last year, but that report had something additional within in it. It included a very specific commitment by this Government that there would be a statutory requirement for similar reports on an annual basis. I confess that I was surprised not to see that commitment appear in the Bill. I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government are still committed to this type of annual capacity report on a statutory basis, that its failure to be included in the Bill was an oversight, and that he is grateful to me for giving them the opportunity to rectify the oversight. I hope, therefore, that he will support the amendment.
I hope the Minister will look equally favourably on other amendments in this group calling for reports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 110ZB, on an annual report on the availability in prisons of education and vocational provision, and the training of staff to deliver them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has Amendment 139A, on a report on resources for the Probation Service, including regional resources, and their Amendment 153 is on a report about the operability of the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill. My own Amendment 110ZB is on an annual report looking specifically at Probation Service resources to implement electronic monitoring or tagging provisions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, get up?
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My apologies—I was waiting for a colleague to jump in. Late though it may be, it is very difficult to follow that outstanding contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. It was exhilarating for me to listen to it.
My Amendment 134 is on probation capacity. It is crucial, bearing in mind that I raise this as a consequence of issues raised with me by the probation union Napo. The amendment seeks to give the Probation Service watchdog some teeth. Currently, only the people running local probation units can trigger special measures and what is called the prioritisation framework. This has given rise to accusations that they are marking their own homework. My amendment seeks to share that power with the Chief Inspector of Probation.
Prioritisation is an important safety valve to stop probation units from being swamped, but sometimes an outside perspective is needed to gauge this accurately and honestly, for obvious reasons. It is widely accepted that the Probation Service is under extreme pressure—there is no doubt at all about that—and this Bill will only add to those pressures. Officers are trained to assess risk, but they must be given the space and time to do that properly if we want to avoid reinforcing the risk-averse culture that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. It is causing so much damage to the service—damage that we can do without.
I am sure that the Committee will join with me in paying tribute to the probation officer who, shamefully, was stabbed in Oxford last week while supervising an offender. I commend his bravery and fortitude. Thankfully, he was not critically injured. We wish him a complete and fully supported recovery. Beyond the immediate harm that was caused, this incident—the second such attack recently, as an officer was stabbed in Preston in August—underscores the increasing risk faced by probation officers and the crisis of prison violence spilling over into probation. Not surprisingly, staff morale and retention have collapsed, made worse by over a decade of real-terms pay cuts while case loads have soared to unimaginable levels, and worse is yet to come.
This amendment also seeks approval from the Chief Inspector of Probation before any extra pressure is placed on the Probation Service from within the Bill. This simple safeguard should address fears that the service may be unfit for purpose or otherwise, if it is unprepared for the extra work coming its way.
I place on record Napo support for the other amendments in this group, on capacity, which all seek to place in the Bill perfectly reasonable safeguards such as maximum case loads for probation officers and annual reports on probation resourcing and tagging operations. I sincerely hope that the Minister can appreciate the merits in these suggestions and those in my Amendment 134, which have come directly from staff on the front line. I look forward very much to his response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 134, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on his very passionate speech.
This issue has come up several times, but it does need more emphasis. It is incredibly important. Although I very much support the intentions of the Sentencing Bill, we cannot avoid at least acknowledging the strain already placed on the Probation Service. If we are going to put new demands on the service, we must first be confident that it can meet them. The latest report from the National Audit Office makes it painfully clear that the service is struggling with staff shortages, rising workloads and unsatisfactory outcomes. Only 79% of target staffing levels for qualified probation officers have been met, leaving around 1,500 vacancies across England and Wales. Of the 12 regions, 10 are operating beyond full capacity, and almost half of local delivery units are now rated red or amber for performance.
In that context, asking His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to confirm adequate capacity before we put pressure on it is a necessary safeguard. If we want the measures in the Bill to succeed, our Probation Service must be set up to succeed. This proposed new clause would ensure that—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his kind words about it; I am a complete passenger on this—and that is why I am pleased to second it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93E. In this case, the capacity is that of prison officers. The amendment calls for an annual report, but, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, the wording is really only a mechanism to introduce an issue. In this case, this is a probing amendment seeking assurances about activities and the need for prison officers to support those activities.
It is common sense that activities in prison are important. Nothing in what I say is intended to downplay the work of probation officers; this is just a different focus. Activities that are “purposeful”—a word that we used a lot on the previous day—including, in particular, educational and vocational activities, are too often either not available or not sufficiently available. They would not all be delivered by prison officers, but they need their buy-in and support. I have raised this because I have become aware, as others will have been for longer than I have, of the shortage of prison officers and the strain on them. To be attractive, the work needs to be more rewarding and to have its professional status recognised.
Purposeful activity—by which I mean meaningful and rehabilitative, not performative—should be central to time in prison to reduce reoffending and for transferable skills to be taught. But we know that activities start from a low base—they are inadequate in number and, I guess, in type—and are cancelled because of chronic staffing shortages. As a result, basic numeracy and literacy are not available.
As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said:
“The Ministry of Justice should prioritise purposeful activity as a core function of the prison regime, ensuring that work, education, and rehabilitative programmes are protected from disruptions caused by staffing shortages. This will require a strategic focus on maintaining consistent activity delivery, even in the face of staffing challenges”.
That was one of the recommendations accepted in full by the MoJ. This amendment therefore has two focuses: the activities themselves and the position of prison officers.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 93, which would remove the cap on sitting days in the Crown Court for sentencing hearings. This was an amendment moved by my honourable friend Monica Harding in the House of Commons. I will then move on more generally to sitting days and the other amendments in the group.
There has been a somewhat surreal argument in this House and elsewhere about the number of sitting days, given the appalling background of delays in Crown Court hearings, particularly with trials delayed sometimes, as we have heard, until 2029, which has amounted to a denial of justice as well as a delay in justice. Our wish is to see everything possible done to reduce court delays.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. If there is a single theme in these amendments, it is that we cannot go on legislating for increased demands on our criminal justice system without ensuring that the system has the capacity and is resourced to cope with them. Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is a straightforward attempt to put the Government’s own commitments on a statutory footing. If the Government are serious about being transparent about prison capacity and probation case loads, as their 2024 annual statement on prison capacity claims, they should have no hesitation in agreeing to Parliament receiving that information on an annual basis. It is not possible to plan sentencing policy responsibly without understanding the numbers and the pressures on the system that must administer it.
Amendments 93, 93D and 93E in this group address the issue of Crown Court sitting days. These backlogs have consequences for victims awaiting closure, for defendants waiting to clear their name, and for the overall ability of the system to move cases towards sentence. Whether the cap on sitting days should be lifted entirely or adjusted specifically for sentencing hearings is a legitimate question, and an assessment of the merits is the very least the Government should provide.
Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, calls for digital tracking of offenders’ progress and provides for the sharing of data on offenders’ progress between the courts and the agencies—this is plainly a good idea, and we support it. We urge the Government to take it on board and give teeth to the new court powers. It is difficult to think of any sensible objection. If we move offenders out into the public from prisons, we need to know how they are doing. Good, accurate data informs good policy.
The Committee has also heard important contributions on the impact on the Probation Service of new sentencing and community-based powers. The Probation Service already strains under unmanageable case loads and severe staff shortages. That is why we support Amendments 134 and 137. Amendment 134 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would ensure that provisions in the Bill likely to drive up demands on probation are not to be brought into force until the independent inspectorate is satisfied that the service can meet that demand. It would also empower the inspectorate to trigger a prioritisation framework for local areas. That is not disruptive; it is responsible. It recognises that probation officers cannot be asked to do more and more with less and less resource and without there being, in the end, a serious risk to public safety. Amendment 137, again from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require the Secretary of State to establish maximum case load limits before commencing major parts of the Bill. If the Government believe that probation has to shoulder more responsibility, they must give probation the capacity to succeed.
Amendments 139A, 149, 150 and 152 are all aimed at ensuring proper resourcing. Again, there is the need to ensure that the Probation Service is not overloaded and is properly resourced. For the reasons I have explained, that is absolutely right and necessary.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, a question. I think that the amendment in his name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, refers back to their Amendment 76, headed “Electronic monitoring: practicability of enforcing restriction zone requirements”. That amendment itself acknowledges that there may be differences in the availability and accuracy of the technology in urban, rural and indoor environments. This is a straight question: I am not sure whether we are in the UK here, or just in England and Wales, but is the noble Lord suggesting that the restriction-zone condition should not be brought in until the whole country is covered by the technology?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
We are saying that the relevant technology has to be available for this to work. It might be that it could be done on a regional basis, but the important thing is that it is not introduced somewhere where there is not the ability to make it work.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking noble Lords for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate the capacity of the criminal justice system. I must of course start by saying that this Bill is a necessary step towards ensuring that we have a sustainable justice system.
I turn first to Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to greater transparency on prison capacity. We showed this by publishing the first annual statement last December, and we will shortly publish the 2025 edition. However, setting the timing of publication and the content of the report in primary legislation would create unnecessary rigidity. Our goal is to increase transparency without compromising flexibility.
I now turn to the amendments that address the issue of capacity within the Probation Service. I am pleased that this gives me another opportunity to pay tribute to our incredible probation staff, who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I am proud to be their colleague.
I begin by recognising the close interest of probation trade unions in Amendment 134, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations; their input will continue to inform our approach. I also thank my noble friend for mentioning the two horrendous attacks on our probation staff in Preston and Oxford. These are fine public servants who turn up to work to protect the public; they, and all probation staff, should not be in fear of their safety. I send both my colleagues best wishes for their recovery.
We recognise HM Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder and value its involvement in implementing the provisions of this Bill, but it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny.
While we are sympathetic to Amendment 139A, we fear it would duplicate existing reporting mechanisms and risk delaying measures in the Bill that would themselves improve probation capacity. We already have strong and independent scrutiny, and ensure transparency on probation case loads and staffing through various publications. For example, HMPPS publishes quarterly reports covering probation staffing and case loads.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, the National Audit Office has conducted a thorough analysis of probation capacity, and this is informing a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. However, a further statutory reporting requirement, particularly one imposed within three months of Royal Assent, would duplicate existing processes and divert resources away from implementation and capacity building. Thanks to the established analysis and reporting processes, we are clear about the challenges facing the Probation Service, and, thanks to the detailed picture on capacity that this data gives us, we are taking swift, targeted action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, correctly predicted, I can inform noble Lords that we are recruiting an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March next year and are working hard to retain experienced officers. We are also investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review. While the detailed allocations of that money are still to be finalised, I reiterate that my priorities are clear: more people in post, digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use.
We are starting to see the benefits of an initial £8 million investment in new technology, including an initiative called Justice Transcribe. This cutting-edge AI tool has cut note-taking admin time by around 50%, with outstanding user satisfaction scores. I have heard that probation officers are describing it as life-changing. Furthermore, many of the measures in this Bill will have a positive impact on probation capacity. Delaying these essential reforms while we undertake work proposed by the amendment would not be helpful for our front-line staff.
Amendment 137 speaks to a similar concern about the case loads that our hard-working probation officers manage on a daily basis. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, it is important to recognise that not all probation cases are the same. Imposing a fixed case load limit would not account for these variations; it would make it difficult to manage workloads effectively across the service, it would reduce organisational flexibility and it could undermine the professional autonomy and judgment of our valued practitioners and managers. These top-down limits could therefore potentially lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks, and would serve only to mask the capacity problems I am working to resolve.
On Amendment 119, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Probation Service already uses digital systems to effectively manage those under probation supervision, but there is a lot more to do here, especially using AI. I believe that its potential is massive.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 153 and 154, which give me the chance to discuss one of my favourite subjects: the rehabilitation of offenders. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycle of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that the new restrictive conditions protect victims. All restrictive measures must accommodate rehabilitative aims such as employment. That way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims. So, where there is a rehabilitative purpose, such as driving for employment, practitioners will have the ability to grant permission for this. Restriction zones will be developed to ensure that an offender can access rehabilitative activities, including employment, while, of course, also considering the victim’s needs.
Electronic monitoring is the subject of Amendment 155, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendments 93D and 110ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is a vital tool for managing offenders in the community, and there will be a significant uplift in tagging alongside the provisions in this Bill. Where appropriate, electronic monitoring will be applied to support monitoring and compliance with restriction zones. When a restriction zone is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches if they identify that offenders have not complied—for example, through police intelligence or victim concerns. Our professionally trained staff are experts in this specialist work, but we do not feel that a report on the practicality of enforcing restriction zones is necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 93E. We share the ambition of ensuring that time in custody is used productively to reduce reoffending. Every prison has a legal duty to provide education. This is monitored through the annual HMIP report, regular Ofsted inspections and published prison education statistics. Therefore, a statutory requirement is not necessary. I reassure the noble Baroness that I look at the data regularly, and I challenge it when I am not content.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 93 and remind noble Lords that we inherited a justice system in crisis, with a court backlog at record levels and rising, and victims waiting years for justice. We have already taken action to tackle court backlogs and improve court productivity. For this financial year, we are funding a record 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded last year. This will mean that more trials and hearings can be heard, tackling the backlog of cases. However, even at maximum capacity, sitting days alone cannot solve the backlog. We need to do things differently. This is why we need fundamental reform, not piecemeal measures.
The previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of the criminal courts. We are considering its recommendations carefully before legislating where necessary. This amendment seeks to require an assessment of introducing uncapped Crown Court sitting days for sentencing hearings. However, listing decisions are a judicial function, not an executive one. It is essential to preserve judicial independence in managing court business. Introducing a statutory requirement in this area could be seen as government influencing judicial listing decisions, which would compromise that principle.
I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me. I hope I have reassured them about the seriousness with which this Government are taking the issue of capacity. I reiterate my offer to meet with noble Lords before Report.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who has spotted a drafting error in the Bill and sought to correct it through Amendment 103. He clearly has a bright future in legislative drafting ahead of him. I confirm that the Government accept that this amendment is needed and will not oppose it if the noble Lord wishes to move it formally.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I reassure the Committee that I will formally move Amendment 103 at a later stage. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, which has clearly illustrated my main contention that there are many welcome provisions in this Bill but they are unlikely to be delivered unless we address the serious capacity crisis within the MoJ and in particular within HM Prison and Probation Service.
My biggest concern about the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, relates to my first amendment, Amendment 88, which seeks to give the Government an opportunity to put into practice a commitment that they made at an earlier stage to have a statutory report on capacity every year. The Minister has just said to us that he is not prepared to accept that amendment, whereas I had hoped that he would thank me for drawing attention to the fact that the Government had forgotten something that they had meant to put in the Bill. Instead, he has told us that he is against having a statutory report, because it provides a lack of flexibility.
Therefore, I shall read to the Minister his own Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 20 March 2025, when he said:
“The Government has committed to legislating to make laying the Annual Statement on Prison Capacity before Parliament a statutory requirement in the future, when parliamentary time allows”.
I provided the parliamentary time, but the Minister has not taken it up. Rest assured, I shall return at a later stage to give him another opportunity to accept the commitment that his Government have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Woodley
“Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every individual serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (“IPP sentence”), whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge or retired judge—(a) under the age of 75,(b) authorised, or authorised immediately before retirement, to try cases of murder, and(c) nominated by the Lady or Lord Chief Justice.(4) Within six months of being appointed, the committee must lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.(5) After a report has been published under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) whenever the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.(6) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced.(7) A person (“P”) serving an IPP sentence must be re-sentenced in relation to the offence or offences for which P was originally sentenced at a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose.(8) The re-sentencing court—(a) must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon the basis of which the tariff was specified as needing to be served before an application for release on licence might be made, and(b) may substitute for the IPP sentence a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, with or without a restriction order under section 41, but only if—(i) the court is satisfied, on the evidence required by that Act, that appropriate in patient treatment is available for P, and(ii) in the case of a restriction order under section 41, the statutory criteria for making such an order are met.(9) The re-sentencing court may confirm the sentence of IPP only if—(a) the re-sentencing judge determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, P might appropriately have received a sentence of life imprisonment, and(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further serious offence resulting in substantial harm if released. (10) Cases falling within the scope of subsection (9) may only be re-sentenced by a judge authorised, or authorised immediately before retirement, to try cases of murder.(11) The re-sentencing court may recommend that P may be subject to an extended licence for a period of up to five years, incorporating such conditions as the re-sentencing court considers appropriate to minimise the risk of re-offending.(12) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (7)—(a) the power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Code, and(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 (since repealed) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 (since repealed) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or(c) a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a re-sentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise. It would also allow the court to substitute a hospital order, with or without a restriction on release for an IPP sentence in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 89 on IPP resentencing, and in support of all the other amendments in this group.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to make the argument for resentencing to your Lordships again, although I am under no illusions that the Minister is ready to announce a U-turn from this Dispatch Box to wipe this shameful stain off our justice system once and for all—at least not yet. I have no wish either to flog a dead horse but, as I said at Second Reading, it is important for us to continue scrutinising the Government’s position on this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice.
Ministers have consistently refused to consider IPP resentencing, which the Justice Committee in the other place called for as the only solution to this terrible injustice. To put it bluntly, Ministers are still defending the indefensible. We must see this for what it is: inexcusable excuses while more people die—yes, die—and more people give up hope. This must stop; action, not warm words, will be the most important thing going forward.
In this debate, I particularly want to hear the Minister’s objections to the kind of IPP resentencing exercise described by my amendment, which has not been presented to your Lordships in this form before. Crucially, what is new is that the resentencing court can impose a secure hospital order if it thinks this is necessary for public protection, and impose any kind of extended supervision post release—again, for the same reason.
It is widely acknowledged that the IPP sentence itself has caused harm, to put it mildly. Too many unfortunate souls have suffered problems between 2005 and 2012. It is understandable that the Parole Board might have concerns about the poor mental health of some of the people whose cases they are considering, but it is simply wrong and a great injustice that this poor mental health, in many cases caused directly by this long-discredited and abolished sentence passed by this Parliament, is being used to condemn anyone to indefinite preventive detention, stuck in prison where their mental health is just going to get worse. As I said, there will be more suicides and more hopelessness.
Noble friends from across the House have previously described this as a gulag sentence, and they are, of course, correct. The Minister has previously claimed that the Parole Board is best placed to decide whether an IPP prisoner should be released, but there is no evidence of this beyond the justification originally used to create this torture sentence in the first place. It is too slow and too laborious, in spite of recent helpful changes.
Natural justice dictates that it should be the courts, not the Parole Board, that are empowered to make this decision for this cohort. That distinction lies at the heart of this injustice and is the reason why IPP sentences were abolished over a decade ago. The Minister and his officials will of course say, “What about public protection?” The secure hospital backstop I am talking about—originally a suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as an amendment to my Private Members’ Bill—is an elegant solution to this conundrum.
Under my amendment, if the resentencing court considers someone to be too mentally ill to be released, it can transfer them to a secure hospital where they can receive the therapeutic resources necessary for recovery. On release, all former IPP prisoners would have the supervision and support considered necessary by the court—another key safeguard to protect the public that should address the concerns previously expressed to us by the Minister. That is why I am proposing, in a nutshell, an IPP resentencing exercise with a secure hospital backstop and public protection right at its heart. I sincerely look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the real issue in this debate is: do we persist with the so-called action plan? I pay tribute to what the Minister has been able to do with a flawed idea, but we have to decide now how we deal with this justly and remedy the injustice. It is useful to reflect that there are people who have never been released. For example, one got a nine-month tariff and has served 20 years; another got a 330-day tariff and served 17 years; one got a six-month tariff and served 16 and a half years; and another got a tariff of three years and five months and served 20 years. Those are the realities, and you judge the seriousness of what they did by those tariffs. I shall come to the misunderstanding at the heart of the MoJ about the problem it is facing.
We also have the deaths. It is important to recall that this involves people committing suicide, and we should not walk away from that. There were nine in 2023, and four in 2024. The population was down, but it might be explained by the hope that had been engendered. My concern is that, if we do not act now, we will have—I use this word deliberately—blood on our hands. We cannot shirk the responsibility for rectifying an injustice, and what an injustice this is. Perhaps we should turn in due course to the “two strikes” injustice, but that is for another day; let us concentrate on IPPs.
We need a just solution. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has put forward his amendment. I do not want to add to the time we will take on this by giving my views on resentencing, but that is one option. However, the Howard League put forward another proposal, which I have put into an amendment. Very simply, it is to give the Parole Board the power to direct, and to require it to direct, the release of all these people within two years. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has put forward an amendment to that, suggesting giving the Government the power to apply to the Parole Board. But whether we take the resentencing exercise or this, this must be the last chance of doing anything. If we funk it now, we funk it for ever and we allow the so-called action plan to trundle along for years and years, not remedying an injustice.
Why do we have to do that? There are five points I wish to make. First, the sentence is accepted to be wrong in principle by absolutely everyone. How can we as a nation continue to punish people under a sentence that is wrong in principle and rests on the fallacy of thinking that we can predict human behaviour? There is no justification for continuing this sentence. It is simply unjust.
Secondly, and it pains me to have to say this, there is a complete misunderstanding of this sentence, partly because it was imposed so long ago, and people have moved on. When we are looking at the action plan, it is important to look at what was said in the 2024-25 IPP annual report. The sentence was described in these words:
“It was intended as a means of managing high risk prisoners, who were convicted of an offence where they would be liable to imprisonment for life, but the court did not consider the seriousness of the offence was such to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life”.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the sentence. How can we have any confidence in a plan when people do not understand the sentence they are dealing with? I regard this as a very serious problem with this plan. I have had the privilege of being able to look at a number of cases of recall, and it is plain that those who are dealing with this do not understand the problem.
I recognise that when the error was pointed out, the department accepted the error, but it is important to see the harm that such a statement does. It puts the position of these prisoners on a false basis. They did not commit serious offences of the kind described. Many of them, as illustrated by the tariffs to which I have referred, committed offences that are not in the same league, by any imagination, as those committed by those sentenced to life imprisonment. Some of them were sentenced in respect of offences for which the sentence was no greater than five years—I note that the Government think that five years is the sentence for the kind of crime that does not deserve a jury trial. So please, will we try to understand what we are dealing with and recognise that we have done a great injustice?
Then one turns to another argument: that these people are dangerous. If we look objectively at the problems of many of them, they are not. But the test is high, and we have to accept that if we lock someone up for a very long time for an offence that is not that serious, we are likely to do them damage. That is the accepted psychiatric evidence, which those who will not accept that we must do something about this ignore, for a reason I cannot understand. But it is worse than that. Why are these people subjected to increased risk because they have been locked up under this unjust sentence? In all humility—and I do not seek to blame either political party for this—we made a mistake. In the case of the Post Office, we have done justice. In the case of blood transfusion, we have done justice. What is wrong with our system of justice, that we cannot do justice for those we have unjustly imprisoned? It is something to which we have to address our minds. I very much hope that we will have a cross-party solution. I am open to any suggestion, but the action plan is a failure. It will not deliver justice in time, and we must do something different.
There is a fourth important argument. Had any of these offenders who are locked up had the good fortune—and I say good fortune deliberately—to have been sentenced before this sentence came into effect, or to have been sentenced afterwards, they would not be subjected to this horrendous sentence from which they cannot escape. What conceivable justice is there in discriminating against a group of people and refusing to acknowledge our wrong in doing so?
Those arguments are to do with justice, and one would hope that justice is central to this Bill—we call this part of the criminal justice system. However, the Bill is meant, in a sense, to be a utilitarian Bill and one can praise it for that.
We are going to come later this evening to Amendment 122A—how many noble Lords will stay the course is another question—which deals with foreign offenders. We are intending to deport them so that we have prison places. We will not punish them; they can go free. What justice is there in a system that will seek to allow people who are foreign to escape punishment when we cannot look at the utilitarian advantage of releasing from prison some 2,500 people who have either never been released or are back on recall? The justice should be that we will deal with our own people first, free up the prison places, and if someone comes here to assassinate someone or shoplift, or deal in drugs, they should be punished, and we should use the prison places for them.
They are all powerful arguments; I have no vested interest in any solution, but I do have a vested interest in justice, and this Government are not doing justice.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is extremely difficult to speak after two such very powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has advanced again the resentencing option which was originally proposed by the Justice Select Committee in the other place, under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill when he was a Member of Parliament, on a unanimous, cross-party basis. It therefore cannot be dismissed as some reckless and trivial proposal; it should be taken with great seriousness. However, I am not going to elaborate further on it now because it has been debated already. The noble Lord has an extant Private Member’s Bill which would give it effect.
It is fair to say that the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is new at debate in your Lordships’ House and it emanates, as he said, from a report produced by the Howard League. There are two points in what the noble and learned Lord said that I want to present in my own way. The first relates to the action plan, which has been excellent in many ways. It has achieved a great deal but, as I said at Second Reading, the difficulty with it is that there is a large number of people—nobody can put a figure on it, but consensually there is an idea that it is several hundreds, maybe nearly 1,000—who are the hard cases left after the action plan has done its work and has resolved the issues in relation to the, if you like, low-hanging fruit. We are left with several hundred people for whom it is clear the action plan is never going to be a solution. If there is no other way out for them than the action plan, then, in effect, the Government are saying that they will stay in jail until they die, because what else is there? There is no other route out.
The noble and learned Lord has presented a proposal which would help. The process would be that the prisoner would apply for parole, be refused parole, but then the Parole Board would at that point be obliged to set a date, up to two years later, on which the prisoner would be released.
The second point is that it could be represented that this is, in effect, an automatic release that follows two years after they have failed to achieve release—but that is not the wording of the amendment. I draw noble Lords’ attention to proposed new subsection (5), inserting new Section 28(6B), which says that the Parole Board, having set the date,
“may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoner’s release at the specified future date as it considers necessary having regard to its duty to protect the public”.
This is not a reckless and automatic release that follows without any effort on anybody’s part from the decision to refuse parole. The essential idea is that the machinery of the Probation Service should be brought together and energised under the direction of the Parole Board to provide those tailored services and that tailored support, such as education and courses, and the other measures that are necessary to ensure that that person is safe to be released. That is the objective.
Let us remember that many of the people who will not be released through the action plan are in that group because they have ceased to engage with the system. Having been through the effort to achieve parole in the past and having suffered the severe psychological blow that can arise from having been refused and knocked back, many of them will simply not go through that again. But if you could offer them a date, if you could say to them, “Here is hope, in two years, if you do these things”, perhaps we can get that engagement, and perhaps those people for whom there is otherwise no exit could be engaged and brought to be released, with the approval of the Parole Board and the support they need to get them to that place. If that support turns out to be expensive and difficult to provide and requires a superhuman effort on the part of the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Ministry of Justice and the other organs of the state, is that not the least we owe those people now? That is why I really hope that noble Lords will be able to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and that the Government will be able to relent. It might need some work in detail, but I hope the whole House will be able to support the principle behind it.
Briefly, there are also amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which relate to the parallel—and in some senses, almost deeper —scandal of DPP prisoners. Noble Lords will be aware that, in essence, the only difference between DPP and IPP prisoners is that DPP prisoners were sentenced when they were under 18. Those people are still in prison. They almost certainly should not be, but they are. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, deserve support.
Finally, and I feel this is very much an anticlimax, my own Amendment 109 is almost bloodless in its technical insignificance in comparison with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It is a very modest proposal and entirely administrative. I very much hope that the Minister will support it.
The amendment would allow IPP prisoners, who are in the community already serving a licence, annually to apply to the Parole Board for the discharge of that licence. In the Victims and Prisoners Act, we reduced dramatically the statutory period of the licence, and we made it easier for people to be discharged. Hundreds of prisoners have had their licence terminated as a result of that; it has been the most significant step so far in removing the scandal of IPP prisoners.
However, there are administrative difficulties, whereby if someone misses out on their discharge, they have to wait another whole two years before they can be considered again. What I am simply doing in my amendment is introducing the idea that they could apply—I would expect nobody to do this, unless they were supported by their probation officer—after one year, not two years, to have their licence discharged.
There is no threat to the public in this. We must remember that these people are already living in the community, and all the amendment seeks to do is give them permission to apply for something. The decision whether to discharge their licence finally—not to release them from jail, because they are in the community already—would still rest with the Parole Board. There is no risk to the public at all in doing this. It is a modest administrative change that will help some—not many—prisoners get rid of the stigma of this sentence sooner and resume their lives in the community as free subjects.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, my contribution this evening will be brief, only because there is a long evening ahead for the many noble Lords on the Front Bench and no lack of enthusiasm and commitment to continue working with other noble Lords who have spoken this evening to get this mess sorted out. I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley, who has taken up the cudgel so strongly; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, whose commitment could not be doubted after his contribution this evening; and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has hunted with me for a very long time now—since I first came to your Lordships’ House, it seems.
Before speaking to my Amendments 116 and 117, I note that the three contributions that have been made already illustrate the urgency of getting this matter resolved once and for all. All three Members have put their finger on one of the tragedies of the IPP sentence, which, ironically, was in part intended to deal with the two strikes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned. The tragedy reflected in the action plan wording that the noble and learned Lord read out—what was originally intended was never in the Bill itself; it was a matter of interpretation—was one of the terrible twists of life that we now have to untangle. The main issue I have picked out concerns those people who have been in prison for so long that their mental health has inevitably deteriorated. As the noble and learned Lord said, psychiatrists have accepted that now, in a way that was not recognised in 2003—we should have done that, and they should have done that, but we did not.
On the amendments from my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe that, if we could build in a formula that allowed the transfer of some of those prisoners to a secure medical setting for support to be given—I am not talking about Broadmoor or Rampton; there needs to be an intermediary alternative—then it might be possible to accept the two-year imperative. That would go a long way to meeting what my noble friend is seeking to achieve in his amendment: to move this on rapidly. The commitment to help from my noble friend on the Front Bench is unequalled, and I pay tribute to him. Listening and responding from the Front Bench is not easy—I know that, because I was there for eight years and experienced all kinds of constraints. My noble friend understands what we are talking about, so perhaps, with some creativity, we could think of a way to achieve this aim.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I could not possibly improve on the speeches that we have heard so far, but my reason for speaking is that I think I am the only Peer here with previous judicial experience to have actually conducted a statutory resentencing exercise. Perhaps I could explain how that came about and what it meant for me.
When I became the Lord Justice General of Scotland —that is, the Chief Justice—in 1989, it was not the practice of judges to state a tariff when imposing a life sentence, whether discretionary or mandatory; that was simply open-ended. It was my job, as Chief Justice, to advise the Secretary of State when the time had come for the prisoner to be referred to the Parole Board for consideration for release. It was done in a system whereby civil servants sent the papers to me and I then had to conduct a paper exercise and, in effect, tell the Secretary of State how much longer the prisoner would have to serve before it was time for him to be released.
It was a different world, and the prisons were not crowded. Usually, they came to me when the prisoner had served about 11 years. My advice was to extend it by three or four years, so that they were being referred to the Parole Board quite early compared to what happens today. It was a paper exercise and I found it extremely difficult. There were about 50 life prisoners I had to consider. I was provided with enormous files, which described their conduct in prison, as well as the original offence itself. In order to equip me to understand them, I visited all the prisons in Scotland except one, which was too far away. I also spent several sessions attending the Parole Board to understand how it worked. I had to equip myself fairly well to understand the job I was doing.
About three years into my office, the law was changed. In the interest of transparency, it was decided that the Chief Justice in England and Wales and me in Scotland should establish a tariff. That brought to an end the system I was using, because, from then on, judges were going to produce a tariff when they passed their first sentence. That was a system that I worked with for a while and had to give up.
It is with that background that I am extremely interested in the very well-crafted amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has advanced, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I have looked at it rather carefully and it seems that it requires the resentencing judge to look at four issues. First, what should the notional determinate sentence have been for the offence or offences which were committed, thereby identifying the tariff which would be applied for the purposes of reference to the parole board? Secondly, there is the additional point of whether a hospital order should be substituted, which is a very important safeguard in working through the system that he is describing. Thirdly, if the prisoner might appropriately have received a life sentence, is there a risk of committing a further serious offence resulting in serious harm if the prisoner were released; and, fourthly, if that is the case, should the IPP sentence simply be confirmed?
As I say, it is very carefully crafted and it has public safety in mind, as well as the interests of the prisoner. However, I think we have to be quite careful as to what this would mean for the resentencing judge. He or she would need to be equipped with a great deal of information, not only about the original offence but about what has happened to the prisoner since then, considering whether a hospital order is required or, if it is a life sentence, whether the safety of the public requires that the IPP sentence be confirmed. The Minister might also like to bear in mind the workload of the judges when considering what to make of this proposal. I suspect that the volume of material would be very considerable, and therefore judicial time needs to be found for that evidence to be assimilated and understood, and then a decision taken.
What is not clear at the moment—I think this is for the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has suggested we set up—is how the exercise would be conducted. I assume that it is going to be a paper exercise rather than a hearing in court, but that is to be determined. I assume that it would require a written decision to be given—that was not required of me at that time, but I suspect that nowadays a written decision would need to be given—and of course there is always the risk of appeal or judicial review. So the decision-taking exercise has to be very carefully conducted.
In my case, in dealing with the cases I had to deal with, I had to give up two weeks of judicial time to conduct the exercise which I had to carry out. One has to assume that at least one day of judicial time per case would be needed here, because, otherwise, the decisions would be open to being set aside because they have not been properly considered. The whole point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is that the safety of the public is being protected by the care which would be taken in this exercise. So one has to bear in mind not only the nature of the exercise but the time that the judiciary would have to commit to it.
I am not suggesting that this is not a very good way of finding an answer to the problem we are faced with. However, if the Minister is not inclined to adopt it, I would very much adopt the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and, if that does not succeed, there is of course the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which I would also support.
I hope that what I have said has been of interest, to give some background to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, which has my support. I suggest that it has to be seen in its full context and what it really means for the judges who have to conduct the exercise.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the expert contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 89 and I would say that that judicial time, if it is necessary, needs to be allocated. Society and the Government have a responsibility to people whom we have put in this impossible situation to find a way out and that amendment implements the Justice Committee’s recommendations.
It is a great pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate thus far, many of whom are veterans, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, in trying to sort out this mess. I did not speak on this group at Second Reading and I apologise for that. However, as I said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 89. She very much regrets that she has to be somewhere else at the moment and so your Lordships’ House gets me instead. I did speak on the issue of IPP prisoners at Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023. I said then that it was an extremely knotty and long-running problem. That is what we have heard and what has been reflected here.
However, we can see from that debate in 2023 and today the power and force of the contributions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, someone perhaps not usually given to such language, spoke about “blood on our hands”. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, spoke about “creating gulags”. We abolished this sentence in 2021 because it was wrong, yet the people subjected to it are living with its consequences every day and we have a responsibility to sort this out. There is also the practical point that, if the Government want to reduce the prison population, here is a group who should be at the forefront of looking at how to do that. Instead, far too many of them are in prisons that are wholly unsuited to their progression—30%, according to the latest figures. We cannot claim to be serious about reducing the prison population while leaving this situation to fester. There are other amendments in this group that take us some way forward, but Amendment 89 is the best one. This is the bare minimum of justice for a relatively small group of people who were handed a sentence that Parliament has already acknowledged was a mistake.
I will make one final reflection. What is behind this tragedy is a reflex that we have seen from far too many politicians over far too many years. Under pressure, the reaction is, “Lock ‘em up” or “Lock ‘em up for longer”. That is a reflex that we cannot allow to run loose in future.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will say a brief word and apologise that I have another commitment in 15 minutes, so may not hear the Minister.
I back up what all speakers have said this afternoon—in particular the passionate and convincing words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. We all believe that the Minister’s heart is in the right place and we need to encourage him to go back to anyone who is putting constraints on what he can do and ask them to read the speeches from this afternoon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, the state has recognised other cases—the Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, to some extent Hillsborough, and others—where it has created a major injustice and has tried to make up for those miscarriages. This is not a technical issue, it is an ethical issue, and we are all begging the Minister to deliver the justice that has been called for from all sides of the House this afternoon.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put his finger on something very important when he said to us that we must be careful about giving hope and then dashing it. But without hope, what is there? That is the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made and it is why I say that I have rarely sat in this Chamber and listened to such powerful speeches.
I was very happy to hear once again that the Minister welcomes this, because he is so involved with rehabilitation. The problem for a lot of these people is that there is no rehabilitation, and that is why we really have to act now.
I am not going to recap everything I said at Second Reading, but I will pick up one point. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, who spared some time to talk to me about joint enterprise, which in some ways is connected to this. I have had a further discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has more ideas that I hope the Minister might be prepared to hear.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, in this country we really have our hearts broken when, in places in the world where there are dictatorships, people are incarcerated year in, year out with their cases not even heard. We find that quite appalling.
When I was sent to administer justice in the northern part of Uganda, where a lot of people had been locked up because President Amin did not want them around, I arrived there and they said, “No, you can’t hear those cases because the president has told us we shouldn’t do this”. I had been trained in the English way of looking at justice. I could not but hear those cases. My first job was to hear those very hard cases, and I found out that there was no evidence as to why they should be in prison.
I remember that I took nine of them into my chambers and told them, “I’m going to keep you locked up, but I’ll tell you on which day you’re going, and I’ll announce in court, when you have already left the country, that you have been discharged from this particular thing on these grounds”. That went on for four months. Then I had my time, when there were no soldiers in the court observing what I was doing. I knew that if I had released them before then, they would have been killed. Part of my falling out with Amin was to do with some of those cases.
It is not easy to deliver justice. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was clear that some of these prisoners—I have met quite a few in Birmingham and in the province of York when I have visited prisons—and their stories leave you saying, “Is this the mother of democracy? Is this the mother of the way courts work? Is this how we treat people?” Those who committed crimes when they were young, particularly, have looked at possibilities, and then what has happened? Hope has been dashed.
I plead with the Minister that, instead of asking noble Lords to withdraw their amendments—that may be the language used, in order that this does not necessarily become a strategy—there be a dialogue with people with good ideas, which the Minister is very good at, so that we solve this once and for all.
This has left me sometimes very angry, so I can understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that if we do not do anything about it, we already have blood on our hands. A just society is shown by how it deals with the vulnerable, the weak, the helpless. They have been put there for years at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and now at the King’s pleasure. Something has to be done. My view is that the Minister should gather together a group of people with good ideas and have a real conversation, rather than going through the motions of “I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment”, because that is postponing justice, and that is not on.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the speeches in this debate have been comprehensive and committed, so I have little to add to them. All noble Lords who have spoken have done so passionately and persuasively about ending this scandal. I use the word “scandal”—it has been rightly called a disgrace, a stain on our system, and many other things. The passion for justice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, shone through every sentence of his speech and has to oblige the Government to end this appalling injustice. We have been guilty, in a country dedicated, nominally at least, to ideals of justice, of the grossest of injustices in this case. It must end, and it must end now.
We have a chance to end it now, completely and for ever. We thought we had abolished IPPs in the LASPO Act when we stopped any new IPP sentences being passed. My noble friend Lord McNally, then Minister of State, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, Secretary of State at the time, believed that the power to reverse the burden of proof in that Act would be exercised, so that we would never have this long tail of IPP prisoners who have now served way beyond their tariffs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, explained how unjust it was that IPP prisoners were treated unlike any other offenders. For those prisoners, we have abandoned any principle that the punishment should fit the crime, in favour of a system of preventive detention with a heavy burden placed throughout on prisoners to prove their fitness for release after their proper punishment—often very short punishment—has been completed. The principle of punishment fitting the crime has been ignored, as has been illuminated by nearly all the speeches today. That illumination has extended to the complete ineffectiveness of the action plan in the case of many IPP prisoners, however well-intentioned it was at the time. Those prisoners could end up, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, imprisoned for the rest of their lives if they fail to qualify for release under the action plan.
The sensible way to end this now is to accept one or more of the amendments before the Committee in order to ensure the early release of all remaining IPP prisoners and to end their risk of recall within a reasonable time span. I do not mind which amendment is adopted. I note that after his detailed and learned analysis, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was broadly content to endorse any of the solutions proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Moylan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and myself. I too am content with any of those solutions. The important thing is to persuade the Government now to accept one of them and finally to put an end to this injustice.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what is a profoundly serious and necessary debate, and to those who have tabled the amendments before us: the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble friend Lord Moylan. These amendments reflect a shared recognition across parties and across the Committee that the legacy of the IPP regime remains one of the most challenging unresolved issues within our criminal justice system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, observed, a “stain” on our justice system.
Under our system of criminal justice, we do not detain and imprison people because we perceive that they are probably or even certainly going to commit a crime at some indeterminate and uncertain point in the future. But that is essentially the basis upon which we detain IPP prisoners in custody after they have served the prison term of their original offence. It is, of course, worrying that many IPP prisoners may present a serious risk to the public if released. However, under the logic that flows through much of this very Bill, the Government must be prepared to advocate for society to accommodate such a risk by community supervision rather than endless detention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, observed, the Justice Committee’s 2022 report described the IPP system as “irredeemably flawed”, and he seeks to give effect to its recommendation. Whether or not Members support that specific mechanism, it is beyond dispute that thousands of IPP prisoners remain trapped in a system never intended to endure, with outcomes that the state itself acknowledges are simply wrong.
My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment raises another vital point: the ability for prisoners on extended licence to seek annual review after the qualifying period. Whatever one’s view of automatic termination on mandatory timelines, there is clear force in the principle that people must not be left without a meaningful hope or a clear route to progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke to his Amendments 116 and 117 on recall and automatic release. Again, many noble Lords will be uneasy that individuals can be recalled indefinitely for minor, technical breaches, long after tariff expiry. This, again, points to the need for clarity, confidence and, indeed, proportionality in the present system. It cannot be simply risk aversion that dictates outcomes.
The amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, supported by others, propose a future release mechanism whereby the Parole Board can set a specified release date, subject to compliance with directions. This recognises the reality described by countless practitioners that progression can become possible only if there is a clear destination and a structure to reach it. Amendment 130 then introduces a safeguard enabling the Secretary of State, if necessary, to seek variation to protect the public.
No one in this debate has suggested that risk can be ignored. Equally, nobody advocates arbitrary release of dangerous offenders. But every proposal brought to the Committee today has an element of public protection embedded in it. Where Members may differ is only on the most responsible and principled route to resolve a system that all agree has patently failed. The point is to choose not the easiest path but the right one. The public are entitled to a system that protects them, but then IPP prisoners and their families are entitled to justice and to fairness. The rule of law should produce finality—indeed, it must produce finality.
I thank noble Lords again for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. I look forward to continued constructive engagement as the Bill proceeds—and to the necessary outcome that justice demands, not just for IPP prisoners but for our collective conscience.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will now address these amendments, which were spoken to very powerfully, on the imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentence. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that I also feel very passionately about. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley for his tireless efforts on this issue and for his amendments, which seek to resentence all IPP sentence individuals. I am also grateful for the reflections from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the requirements of a resentencing exercise and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ludford, for their thoughtful words on this important issue.
I hope it is clear that the reason for not resentencing IPP offenders is to protect the public and safeguard victims. Although we are determined to support those in prison to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk. Resentencing would result in offenders still in custody being released even when the independent Parole Board has determined—in many cases repeatedly —that they are too dangerous to be released, having not met the statutory release test. My noble friend’s amendments would allow the court to confirm an IPP sentence for those who might have received a life sentence, but this would not prevent the resentencing and release of those who do not fall within the proposed parameters but who the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released.
The amendments also provide for the substitution of an IPP sentence with a hospital order. However, at the imposition of an IPP sentence, the courts already had the power to issue a hospital order under the Mental Health Act if there was evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed. Additionally, if a prisoner now has a severe mental health need to an extent that detention under the Mental Health Act may be appropriate, they will be referred and assessed clinically to determine whether a transfer to a mental health hospital is warranted. This has always been available to those serving the sentence.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would provide IPP prisoners with a release date within two years. Again, in this circumstance, individuals would be released who have not been considered safe for release by the Parole Board. The addition to this amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would provide a limited safeguard. This would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the Parole Board for the release date to be varied or set aside. However, when considering an application to set aside, the Parole Board would be required to release the prisoner or fix a new release date at the following hearing. The Parole Board already reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly.
We have to remain focused on the best and safest way to support IPP offenders as fast as possible to a safe release. It is important to remember that IPP offenders received their sentence after being convicted of a violent or sexual offence. Therefore, for any decision that removes the protection of the statutory release test, we must be comfortable with the prospect of these offenders living in our communities; that is what we would be demanding of the public.
We know that individuals received the IPP sentence because they committed a sexual or violent offence. Extended sentences were available alongside the IPP sentence, but the sentencing judge decided that an IPP sentence was appropriate for the offender at the time. Under that sentence, a person is released only following assessment by the Parole Board. There would be considerable risk to the public and victims if we released those serving the IPP sentence who are currently in our high-security establishments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but does the noble Lord accept that, in many cases, especially in the early part of the IPP regime, judicial discretion was almost nil? It was not that the judge determined that an IPP sentence was appropriate; rather, the guidelines given to him said that in certain circumstances, where the offence for which the person had been found guilty and an earlier offence for which they had been convicted appeared on a certain table in a certain configuration, they had no choice but to give an IPP sentence. That is how the sentence was imposed in many cases. There were circumstances where two people were prosecuted for the same crime, which they had carried out together. One of them had a history which brought this table into operation, the other did not. One would get an IPP sentence, the other a determinate sentence appropriate to that crime, although they had both been involved. That point, which is of capital importance, has never been fully recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Judicial discretion was not exercised or exercisable in the case of many of these sentences.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, could he also reflect that this took place on a Court of Appeal ruling two years after the implementation of the Act in 2005? That judgment then determined the hearings and therefore the sentences granted by judges, consequent on that Appeal Court ruling.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their helpful comments, which explain why this is such a difficult and important area. We need to keep the public safe, but we also need to keep working as noble Lords to try to do what we can to address this situation.
I welcome the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, on the importance of supporting IPP offenders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Might I say to the Minister that I set the history of all of this out in a judgment? If only his officials would read it and understand, we would not be in the mess that he has been placed in.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will take the noble and learned Lord’s comments away and read that again, but that is also why our quarterly Peers’ meetings on IPP are so important in discussing all these topics.
We must do all that we can to support all IPP prisoners to reduce their risk and progress towards a release decision, but I would not be doing my job to protect the public if they were to be released without the independent Parole Board deciding it is safe to do so. My hope is that every IPP prisoner gets the opportunity to be released and have a successful life in the community, but we need to do that in a way that sets those prisoners up for success in the community. The Government’s view is that any change that removes the protection of the statutory release test is not the right way to do this.
I am aware of criticism of some parts of the IPP action plan, including those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but it remains my view that the steps we are taking through it are the best way to support this progression. It has contributed to a 10% reduction in the IPP prison population in the 12 months to 30 September 2025. The number of people who have never been released fell by around 14% in the same period. Since the publication of the first action plan in April 2022, the unreleased IPP population has fallen by 39% and is now below 1,000. The focus that I and colleagues have on the IPP action plan means that I need to do more and more work on it, to see where we can add improvements all the way.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his amendments, which seek to allow the Secretary of State to make provision for the automatic re-release of those serving an IPP or DPP sentence who are recalled to prison. My noble friend will be aware of the deep respect I have for his ongoing commitment, drive and tenacity to do all he can to support those serving the IPP sentence. I greatly value his contribution to today’s debate, as well as the thoughtful insights and individual cases he raises with me outside the House.
I appreciate that noble Lords have questioned why we are introducing fixed-term recalls for offenders serving standard determinate sentences but do not accept this change for IPP offenders. There are two crucial differences: the threshold for recall and the level of risk that the offender poses. IPP offenders can be recalled only for behaviour or breaches of their licence that are causally linked to their offending. That is a high bar, and one higher than for recalling prisoners serving standard determinate sentences. I must remind noble Lords what that means in practice: that the Probation Service no longer believes that controls available in the community are sufficient to manage that offender’s risk to keep the public safe, and that the public are therefore at risk of further sexual or violent offending.
A fixed-term recall for IPP offenders would not provide sufficient time for an individual to demonstrate that their risk had reduced, or to receive the required support to reduce their risk, before being automatically re-released. This would put victims and the public at risk. While we will return to the question of recall in more detail later in this debate, I must remind noble Lords that we have built significant safeguards into our fixed-term recall changes. These mean that many offenders who pose a similar risk to IPP offenders recalled to prison are also not eligible for a fixed-term recall.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a power for the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP prisoners where it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should remain in prison. This is referred to operationally as release after a risk assessed recall review, or RARR. Recalled IPP offenders have already been re-released using this power, when they were due to wait for a number of months before their scheduled oral hearing before the Parole Board.
The revised IPP action plan, published on 17 July this year, now includes a commitment to enable swift re-release following a recall through RARR, where it is safe to do so. This means that HMPPS is considering all IPP offenders recalled for being out of touch, or in relation to allegations of further offences, for RARR, and is trialling an extended referral period to allow more time to consider cases for potential use of RARR before referral to the Parole Board. I respectfully suggest that this power means we already have the ability to do what the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to achieve: a quicker re-release of recalled individuals where it is safe to do so.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment, for my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s reflections on it and for their ongoing interest in this important issue. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to allow a prisoner whose licence is not terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the relevant qualifying period to make an annual application to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period by reducing the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board and introducing a provision for automatic licence termination. This automatic provision provides greater certainty to offenders than the annual referrals about when their licence will terminate, which is also important for victims. These changes have resulted in the number of people serving a sentence in the community falling by 65%.
Furthermore, at the four-year point after initial release, if supervision is not suspended or the licence is terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the three-year qualifying period, probation practitioners can further consider applying for suspension of supervision at their own discretion. We must also consider the potential effect on victims of going through an additional Parole Board review just a year after the previous one, but I acknowledge that the noble Lord’s amendment would preserve the role of the Parole Board in this process. I am happy to have further conversations with him and other noble Lords on this point in the coming weeks.
I thank noble Lords for their work on this important issue, and I hope that they are assured not only of the work that we are currently undertaking but of our absolute resolve to make further progress for those serving the IPP sentence. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords and look forward to seeing them at the upcoming round table, and to discussing the points raised between now and Report. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the concept of us imprisoning individuals on the grounds of a perception that they may commit a crime at some indeterminate point in the future is utterly anathema to our whole system of criminal justice?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Our expert probation staff who manage the risks in the community are experts in determining the risk that offenders pose, including IPP offenders. It is therefore their professional judgment and their decision whether they recall someone or not.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for my stumble at the beginning. My inexperience in the process here got in the way. Having listened to all the contributions, some of them were very emotional and some heart-rending, but I am quite certain that did not change the tremendous contribution that each and every noble Lord has made in here this afternoon.
I was heartfelt as I sat here, as I know that we have dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of IPP family members—maybe even some prisoners—watching this today, hoping for maybe more than the Minister has just said. I will come back to that in a moment. Nevertheless, listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Blunkett—indeed all the other Lords who contributed—I think that the experience was absolutely unbelievable.
It is a shame that, while the Minister has listened to them, he has come up with exactly the same answer that I predicted at the very beginning, which is more and more reasons why we cannot do the right thing. There is no doubt at all about that in my mind: there were more excuses for allowing people to suffer in prison and more reasons why we will, unfortunately, see more people take their lives, with no hope, because they are still in prison and serving sentences there.
The Minister said that his efforts were to make sure that we protect the public, and I wholeheartedly support that. That is why my amendment for resentencing clearly identifies public safeguards as being at the very forefront of all we want to do.
However, it is not too late. I intend to continue to work with all colleagues and comrades in this Chamber to try to convince the Minister to talk with David Lammy and others and do the right thing on behalf of this group. On behalf of those families, prisoners and all the contributors here this afternoon, I implore the Minister to go away and rethink, re-evaluate and reassess, and, I hope, to come back, as this goes along, with a completely different response to that he has given us again today.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
With the leave of your Lordships, I would like to clarify my comments on Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. We have already publicly committed to legislation to make this a statutory requirement, and that commitment stands. We are, however, concerned that setting the precise timing for the report’s publication, and its content, in primary legislation may create unnecessary rigidity, but I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we share the intent behind the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has just said. Can he assure your Lordships’ Committee that if he is not prepared to accept my Amendment 88, he will bring forward his own amendment at some later stage in our deliberations to bring into effect the commitment that he has just repeated from the Front Bench?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We may not bring forward an amendment, but we will legislate to make sure this happens.
Amendment 90
“Independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending(1) There is to be an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. (2) The purpose of the panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources, helping to encourage a more sustainable criminal justice system in the long term.(3) The panel is to act as an authority on what works to reducing rates of reoffending, including but not limited to—(a) championing and promoting the most authoritative evidence on what works to reduce and prevent reoffending;(b) producing advice on the most effective methods to reduce reoffending drawing upon evidence from national data, international contexts and expertise within the sector;(c) championing best practice examples of technological interventions to reduce reoffending, with consideration of the risks or ethical implications of using such technology.(4) The panel must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, report to the Lord Chancellor on its work during the year.(5) The report specified in subsection (4) must include but is not limited to—(a) a longer-term assessment of the cumulative impact of government policy and legislation on sentencing and prison and probation capacity;(b) an assessment of the effectiveness of the government’s overall reducing reoffending strategy.(6) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and place copies in the Library of both Houses.(7) The panel must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(8) The panel is to consist of at least 8 members appointed by the Lord Chancellor.(9) The Lord Chancellor must appoint a chair of the panel.(10) In exercising his or her responsibilities under subsection (9), the Lord Chancellor must seek approval for his or her choice of chair from the Justice Committee in the House of Commons.(11) A person is eligible to be a member of the advisory panel if the person appears to the Lord Chancellor to have experience in one or more of the following areas—(a) judiciary;(b) criminal defence or prosecution;(c) sentencing policy and the administration of justice;(d) prisons and probation;(e) psychology and psychiatry;(f) academic study or research relating to criminal law or criminology;(g) independent inspection and scrutiny of the criminal justice system;(h) the investigation of complaints;(i) the welfare of prisoners;(j) criminal justice reform and rehabilitation charities.(12) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for—(a) The term of office, resignation, and reappointment of panel members,(b) The renumeration of panel members, and(c) The budget of the panel.(13) For the purposes of this section—(a) “legislation” means— (i) an Act of Parliament if, or to the extent that, it extends to England and Wales;(ii) subordinate legislation made under an Act of Parliament if, or to the extent that, the subordinate legislation extends to England and Wales;(iii) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or subordinate legislation made under such a Measure or Act;(b) “policy” means—(i) policy of the UK government;(ii) policy of the Welsh ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, along with others from Lord Marks to after Clause 19, would introduce an independent panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending, implementing recommendation 9.1 of the independent sentencing review.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group comprises Amendments 90 to 92 in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate not just for adding her name to these amendments but for her commitment to fairness and evidence in sentencing and criminal justice generally, which she has shown over a great time in this House. I am also grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for its help in preparing and presenting the amendments.
Together, the three amendments would establish a new panel on sentencing policy—to be called the independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending—to advise the Government on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The new panel would be completely different from the Sentencing Council, which is an independent body that exists for a different purpose: to advise judges on sentencing within the framework of the law passed by Parliament.
The amendments would implement recommendation 9.1 of the independent review of sentencing, chaired by David Gauke, which has inspired the greater part of this Bill. The independent review was keen to get away from the focus on punishment in sentencing, and the further idea that punishment meant immediate imprisonment or incarceration—in the face of all the evidence that imprisonment is often ineffective in reducing reoffending.
The review highlighted the inescapable fact that the increasing use of imprisonment and the imposition of ever-longer sentences have led to the prison capacity crisis that this Bill is partly directed at addressing. The report recommended the establishment of an independent panel to focus government on maintaining a sustainable approach to sentencing. The review saw this independent panel as an external body of experts that would give the Government access to evidence-based expertise and give both the Government and the public impartial advice on what works in reducing reoffending and therefore cutting crime. These amendments would implement and take forward that recommendation. It must be the hope that the amendments and the new panel would bring about a change of approach, on the part of the press and the public, to sentencing and the treatment of offending in general.
Amendment 90 would establish the new panel with a duty to report annually to the Lord Chancellor, who would appoint its chair. Importantly, Amendment 91 would require the Lord Chancellor to refer government policy proposals on sentencing and reducing reoffending to the panel where such proposals had significant resource implications.
The panel would advise the Government on the evidence drawn from research, both in this country and internationally, on what works in reducing reoffending, as well as on the value for money and likely effect of government proposals. The Lord Chancellor would be bound to respond to the reports of the panel and to lay both the reports and the response before Parliament. It is to be hoped and predicted that Parliament and the public would be better informed about the thinking and evidence behind sentencing policy, which is often misunderstood.
These proposals mirror those by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, the think tank Transform Justice, the Sentencing Academy, the Prison Reform Trust and the Centre for Justice Innovation. They represent a missing item on the agenda of sentencing reform. I urge the Government to accept these proposals. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I will make a few brief comments; I am aware of time, and there is a lot to get through. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I thank him for his kind comments.
When it comes to sentencing, I have believed for many years that we need more independence and not less. My own submission to David Gauke’s sentencing review focused on this, and, as has been said, followed the Justice Committee’s recommendations—I ought to underline that—in its own inquiry on public opinion and the understanding of sentencing.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for using language about “a change of approach”, because it is important that we get away from making legislation based on a public narrative that is not based on evidence—so-called penal populism. How do we enable the Government to remain focused on maintaining a sustainable approach to custody and facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation without the constant pressure from that public narrative, which is affecting the way we do our sentencing? The aim of these amendments, which uphold the principles of independence, is to support Ministers to make objective, evidence-based policy in the midst of all the pain and loss that come through crime.
A couple of years ago, I was in the Netherlands looking at its criminal justice system. Ministers there were horrified at how the public can so affect the way that Ministers act—at how people can beat a path to the door of Ministers, which then affects legislation. The Netherlands has decoupled the way Ministers make legislation and the independent factor, which is what we want to do here. I wholeheartedly agree with these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. Collectively, they seek to introduce an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The stated purpose of this panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources. I am sure that all noble Lords support that aim, and the idea of creating an independent body to help the Government in developing better policy in this area is an interesting concept that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to.
These amendments seek to implement recommendation 9.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review by Mr David Gauke and others, a document that has inspired many of the provisions of the Bill. Should the Government decide not to support this recommendation, they should make plain their reasons and justification.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for these important and thoughtful amendments. They seek to give effect to a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review, by David Gauke, which would involve creating an independent advisory body that would provide greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on the criminal justice system. I absolutely understand the sentiments behind these amendments, and we recognise that this Bill represents a big change to sentencing in the future and that the Government will need timely advice from voices of expertise and experience. I have worked with some of the organisations the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to and hold them in the highest esteem.
The Government do not believe that it is right to legislate for a new statutory panel at this stage, but I will say a little about how we think we can take forward the spirit of this. There are already many advisory and oversight authorities for prisons and probation, many of them with statutory remits. However, we will certainly continue to consider whether the creation of a new advisory body is the appropriate mechanism to ensure greater scrutiny and greater effectiveness of the impacts and outcomes of policy and legislation in this area.
Although we are considering this recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review carefully—I hope I have made it clear that we take it very seriously—we do not support an amendment at this time. As I hope the Committee will understand, creating such a panel requires a good deal of thought about its purpose and responsibilities and how it could fit within the panoply of organisations that already advise the wider criminal justice system. It is already a Rubik’s cube.
As noble Lords will know, the Government are undertaking an ongoing review of arm’s-length bodies, and this sets out clear principles, including ministerial policy oversight, avoiding duplication—that is very important—and improving efficiency. So we are not clear that the creation of such a body in statute, as this amendment would do, would quite align with these aims. So, although we do not accept these amendments today, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and indeed the whole Committee that the Government will continue to consider this recommendation.
On the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate about improving the understanding of the press and the public, we are certainly in the market for anything that will improve their understanding of how the criminal justice system, particularly sentencing policy, works. So I hope this reassurance about the seriousness with which we take the spirit of David Gauke’s recommendation, and indeed the amendment, enables the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his response and his understanding. I am, however, disappointed that he is not prepared at this stage to commit to putting this recommendation into statute. It seems to me and the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Gloucester to be an important feature. If his concern is that we should continue to try to inform the press and public of what sentencing is about, and of what government policy on sentencing and reducing reoffending is about, then the formation of this body is very important. If the formation of this body is very important, why should it not be sanctioned by statute?
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Unduly lenient sentences scheme: extension to victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 36 (reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by either a Magistrates’ or Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.(2B) An application can be made under subsection (2A) where a sentence has been passed for one or more offence under the following provisions, in either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court— (a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978,(b) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or(c) section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.(2C) An application can be made under subsection (2A) by a victim, or their next of kin where the victim is a minor, of one of the specified offences under subsection (2B)(a) to (c).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would extend the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, allowing victims of technology assisted child sexual abuse offences, and their next of kin where the victim is a minor, to apply to the scheme regardless of where the sentence was passed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to see that we are picking up the pace slightly. The last group was a fairly brisk 13 or 14 minutes, so let us hope we can keep this up and get the Minister to bed at a half-decent hour. Of course, we are missing the joys of hearing about the somewhat shaking edition of the American constitution by being in the Chamber at the moment.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 34, which we discussed last week. Again, this is as a result of working in co-operation with an organisation I mentioned last week: the Marie Collins Foundation. I will start by referring to statements by various bodies that illustrate the nature of the problem this amendment seeks to flag up. The following quotation is from the 2023 report of the College of Policing and the NPCC on the national analysis of police-recorded child sexual abuse and exploitation:
“Within the online space, perpetrators of sexual grooming are most commonly adults aged 18 to 29 years. This highlights the risk posed to children in the online space by adults looking to abuse and exploit them. Abuse of children by adults is more likely to be hidden and requires a strong law enforcement response focusing on pursuing perpetrators, as well as a response focused on prevention”.
The next quotation is from the National Crime Agency this year, in the national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime:
“We estimated in the National Strategic Assessment 2024 that 710,000 to 840,000 adults in the UK pose varying degrees of sexual risks to children”,
a pretty horrifying total.
“However, police recorded crime does not effectively reflect the full scale of online offending, as one offence can relate to multiple instances of child sexual abuse material, and the most serious physical offence is recorded instead of any precursor online offences such as grooming”.
Lastly, hot off the press, as of yesterday, is part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, which is pretty horrifying reading for those of your Lordships who have not read it. On page 173, under the heading, “The effect of pornography and social media”, Dame Angiolini says that
“there needs to be recognition of the link between perpetrators’ online behaviours and their behaviours in the physical world”.
They are directly linked.
The key issues in this area are, first of all, an overreliance on non-custodial sentences. In 2020, 80% of those sentenced for sexual communication with a child avoided prison. It is the magistrates’ courts rather than the criminal courts that dominate the outcomes. Online child safety risk is escalating rapidly. The Internet Watch Foundation reported an 830% rise in child sexual abuse material on the internet since 2014, making 2024 the worst year on record. The phenomenon of technology-assisted child sexual abuse—I think I introduced your Lordships to the acronym, TACSA, last week—lives in the shadow of child sexual abuse and is underrecognised.
We all acknowledge—it is the reason that we are talking about this Bill—that there is an issue with capacity in prison places. One factor in this area is that offenders can effectively strategise what the outcome of their offence might be. If it is a sufficiently heinous offence, with a lot of class A material, for example, on their computers, rather than going to the criminal court, where it is quite possible they might get a custodial sentence, what they can opt to do, and many of them do, is plead guilty, which automatically means the case goes to the magistrates’ court, in which case the sentencing powers are much more limited. This is a tactical way in which it is possible to get out of jail early by pleading guilty and opting to go to a magistrates’ court. That is causing a lot of concern, particularly, as you might imagine, to victims.
There is a coverage gap to do with the unduly lenient sentence scheme, because that reviews only Crown Court sentences. If a magistrates’ court with a particularly unpleasant case decides that a custodial sentence is the right way to go, there is no appeal mechanism under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to challenge that. Further, there is a misconception of harm. This type of online abuse is regarded as less serious than contact forms of child abuse. However, there is an increasing amount of research making the direct link that those who start off abusing children online are particularly statistically likely at some point to go on and actually do it physically.
I turn to what one would like to see happen. The first thing is improved parity and sentencing range for this particular type of egregious online abuse, so that the technological abuse of a child has parity with the physical abuse of a child—or they are brought more into balance, because at the moment, there is a clear imbalance between the two. Secondly, we should expand the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include all offences of this type, so they could be looked at if a magistrates’ court has given a rather lenient sentence. In an ideal world, one would like to prohibit the use of suspended sentences for these kinds of offences, many of which are deeply unpleasant. We should prohibit the use of what is called good-character mitigation in many of these cases. It is very hard to use good-character mitigation when an individual is found, as in some cases, to have more than 1,000 examples of class A child abuse material on their computer.
Last week, in response to discussion about Amendment 34, the Minister said on mitigation, or the ability to challenge the sentence, that it was possible for the offence to be challenged under the unduly lenient sentence scheme
“where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]
However, that does not cover the cases that I mentioned that go through the magistrates’ courts.
Finally, I shall give one or two examples of what happens when individuals go through the magistrates’ court. An 18 year-old from east London who had 183 category A images got a two-year community order. A 62 year-old from Cumbria had 503 category A images, and he got an eight-month sentence, suspended for 18 months, and 200 hours of unpaid work. A 26 year-old from Norfolk had 69 category A videos, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 12 months. And the list goes on. One of our more energetic newspapers, the Sun, profiled a large number of these individuals under the usually slightly brash headline. Basically, it said that something is wrong with the system if this is what is happening.
I have explained the background to why I have brought this amendment forward. It would be really helpful for us to look at this in more detail. The Minister indicated last week that he would be interested to hear more about this particular foundation and what it does. If he is willing, I would very much like to follow up his invitation to talk about this in more detail and to lay out what is happening and the imbalance that there is currently in the system, which is allowing a lot of deeply unpleasant men to get away with virtually no sentence whatever. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The noble Lord reminds me of a comment that was made, I think, during the proceedings on this Bill, but which is certainly apt. The online world and what my generation would regard as a different, real world have actually come together, and it is one world now.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, to follow on from what my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, we on these Benches support this amendment, for all the reasons given and explained at length by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I will add one point. We heard yesterday in the discussion on restricting jury trials about defendants gaming the system, with which, in the context of jury trials, I do not entirely agree. It undoubtedly happens some of the time, but not all of the time, because it is not a reason generally for electing a jury trial. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has illuminated the degree to which defendants who are guilty of particularly nasty offences can game the system by retaining their cases in the magistrates’ court and avoiding committal to the Crown Court for sentence or trial. I am bound to say that his amendment shows an ingenious solution to that, by seeking to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We support it on that basis as well.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can be brief. Amendment 93C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme so that for victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse, and where the victim is a minor, their next of kin should be able to refer sentences to the scheme, regardless of the level of court where the sentence has been passed.
The noble Lord explained the rationale for his amendment eloquently and elegantly, and with clarity. His detail was illuminating. This is a narrowly framed and entirely reasonable proposal. Technology-assisted abuse does not respect borders or ages, and is often complex, cross-jurisdictional and deeply traumatic. It cannot be right that a victim’s ability to challenge an obviously lenient sentence depends on the court level at which the matter has been disposed of and in which the perpetrator was tried.
This amendment would close that gap and ensure parity of access to this important review mechanism for victims of what are in fact some of the most serious and distressing offences dealt with by our criminal justice system. It would, we believe, stop the system being gamed, to the advantage of the offender and the disadvantage of the victim. It would strengthen accountability without widening the scheme beyond its existing remit. This is a practical, victim-centred improvement and we urge the Minister to give it serious consideration. I ask: if not, why not?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for this amendment and for raising awareness of the Marie Collins Foundation on the first day of Committee. I am looking forward to meeting a representative of the foundation, with the noble Lord, on this matter, I think in the coming weeks.
The unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any person to request that the Attorney-General consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review if they believe it is unduly lenient. I have in fact been listening to some very interesting podcasts to learn more about this topic. This amendment would create a specific right for victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences and, where the victim is a child, for their next of kin to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, even where the sentence was imposed in a magistrates’ court. Currently, the unduly lenient sentence scheme covers all indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery, as well as certain specified triable either way offences sentenced in the Crown Court, including stalking and most child sex offences.
Parliament intended the unduly lenient sentence scheme to be an exceptional power and any expansion of its scope must be approached with great care. The Law Commission is currently reviewing criminal appeals, including the range of offences within the scheme, and expects to publish recommendations in late 2026. When it comes to sentencing for child sexual offences, the data shows significant variation by offence type. Around 20% of offenders convicted of sexual offences against children receive an immediate custodial sentence. This rises to approximately 70% for the most serious crimes, such as sexual assault of a child under 13, familial sexual offences and possession of indecent or prohibited images. These patterns have remained broadly consistent over the past five years.
As I have noted previously in Committee, sentencing decisions in individual cases are for our independent judiciary, guided by robust Sentencing Council guidelines that already address technology-enabled offending. For example, the guidelines require courts to consider intended harm even where no actual child exists and to take account of aggravating factors such as image sharing, abuse of trust and threats. While I fully recognise the importance and severity of the issue raised by the noble Lord, given the exceptional nature of the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the ongoing Law Commission review of criminal appeals, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, which was pretty much what I think probably all of us expected. There is a case to be made for looking at this more carefully. The exponential rise in the volume of this type of abuse using technology has outpaced the ability of the system to understand what is going on. It has outpaced the statistics that the Minister mentioned. That is the tip of the iceberg; it does not actually tell one what is going on.
As in so many cases to do with the online world, we are all behind the curve. This is happening now, in plain sight; it is not theoretical. I hope that, in the meetings that we will have, we can explore this more fully and explain the extent and the depth of this and the deeply worrying link that is increasingly being demonstrated between perpetrators abusing online, using images, and then at some point moving on to actual physical abuse of children. I hope that we can explore that in more detail. I thank all noble Lords who contributed and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—(i) rape,(ii) assault by penetration,(iii) rape of a child under 13,(iv) assault of a child under 13 by penetration,(v) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity,(vi) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13,(vii) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence,(viii) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children,(ix) grievous bodily harm,(x) grooming,(xi) stalking, or(xii) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult.(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. It will not surprise the Minister that I broadly support the principle underlying Clause 20 of the Bill. If prisoners can prove that they have made positive steps towards rehabilitation, we would not oppose the principle that, in those circumstances, there are arguments for releasing such offenders early.
However, regrettably, this is not the outcome that Clause 20 will give effect to. On many occasions during Second Reading and Committee, the Minister has made reference to the “earned progression model” and the Texas system. Under Clause 20 as drafted, there is no such reward for good behaviour or evidence of meaningful rehabilitative steps. The independent House of Commons Library briefing is quite clear on this point: the release point is a default automatic release date and the only way it will not apply is if a prisoner has been subject to additional days for proven misconduct before a judge. That is not earned progression; it is automatic release with a very low threshold of eligibility. There is no assessment of behaviour, remorse, work or engagement with treatment programmes. There is no review by the Parole Board. There is no evaluation of risk. There is only the clock.
The Lord Chancellor said that the public can be reassured because the “most serious offences”, as he termed them, will be excluded. However, the ministry’s own data confirms that offenders convicted of rape, child grooming and attempted murder will be eligible. If such offences are not within the Government’s definition of “serious”, I must ask the Minister to outline exactly which offences are considered serious. Every rape of a child or an adult, every victim of grooming and every life shattered by serious violence represents profound and enduring harm. On what basis are we telling victims that these crimes do not count and that they will meet their offenders at just one-third of their custodial sentence?
This is not a technical or procedural matter. It is a question of fundamental justice and of public protection. It is also a question of whether this House is prepared to legislate knowingly and deliberately to reduce prison time for such serious offenders. The Bill, as drafted, would cut custodial sentences for more than 60% of rapists and over 80% of offenders convicted of child sex offences. It would allow those convicted of stalking —an offence with one of the highest reoffending rates and a well-established connection to homicide—to be released automatically after serving only one-third of their sentence, and it would do so without assessment of risk and without any evidence of rehabilitation.
Amendment 94 would exclude from the early release provisions of Clause 20 those convicted of the most serious sexual and violent offences, including rape, child sexual abuse, stalking, grievous bodily harm and causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult and ensure exclusions for other serious offence categories before these drastic changes to sentencing came into force. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the other place were in rare agreement over this amendment—it was almost like a recall of a coalition concern. In that other place, I understand that 65 out of the 71 Members of the Liberal Democrat Party voted in favour of it.
We are told that the justification for these provisions is prison overcrowding, but the emergency powers that already exist to manage emergency capacity pressures have been installed and are not to be removed. The measures in this Bill will be permanent. They are not temporary; they are a long-term shift in sentencing policy that will reshape the criminal justice system for a generation. We spent much time earlier in Committee arguing against the presumption of suspended sentences, but Clause 20 deals with a far higher category of offenders: those who have been put into custody for several years but will now automatically be released at the one-third point.
The Government propose to release an estimated 43,000 offenders into the community who would previously have been imprisoned. As with many other clauses in the Bill, Clause 20 will place yet more pressure on probation services if implemented, and they already face a shortfall of 10,000 officers. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust warns that the system is already at breaking point and that releasing thousands more high-risk offenders without necessary supervision poses a serious threat to the safety of victims and to public confidence. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that allowing perpetrators back into communities after only 28 days is “simply unacceptable”. The Victims’ Commissioner warned that victims will be left feeling “unnerved and bewildered”. These are not political opponents of the Bill but respected independent authorities speaking on behalf of victims and the public at large.
The Howard League warns that earned release models are undeliverable without a functioning rehabilitation infrastructure, yet prisons remain impoverished and dangerously unstable. Drugs and violence are rife. Education provision has been cut by up to 60% in some prisons, and half of prisoners receive no education or employment support at all. In that context, early release cannot be earned because there is nothing meaningful with which to earn it. Every Member of this House understands the need to reduce pressure on the prison estate, but public protection and public confidence must remain at the forefront of legislative change. The public expect that those who commit serious crime face real punishment and real consequences. More than 6,500 of the most serious criminals, including rapists, stalkers, violent attackers and even murderers, will qualify for early release.
The public do not expect Parliament to legislate to let these criminals out after one-third of their sentence. Every time a victim reads in the paper that the person who raped or attacked them has been released early, or a family sees the person responsible for the death of a child or a relative back in the community far sooner than they were told originally, that will create fissures in the rule of law. Public confidence matters because without it, the justice system loses legitimacy.
Amendment 94 is a proportionate and necessary step to ensure that early release is not granted to those whose crimes are simply too serious to justify automatic release. It represents the minimum safety measure that this House must insist on. The Government must accept that such serious offenders should not walk free after serving one-third of their sentence, and do so by default. If we take that step, we will lose sight of what our justice system is all about. I urge the Government to reconsider and to support the amendment in the interest of victims, of public protection, of public confidence, and of the integrity of our justice system. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for this amendment, which seeks to exclude a wide range of offences from the new release provisions under Clause 20. The offences listed are serious crimes. Although some are in scope of the progression model, many perpetrators of these offences will receive life or extended determinate sentences, so would not be in scope.
I must start by pointing out that two of the offences—rape of a child under 13 and sexual assault of a child under 13—are already completely outside the progression model. Those convicted of these offences can be given only life, an extended determinate sentence or a sentence for offenders of particular concern.
There are more than 17,000 prisoners serving extended, determinate or life sentences—those convicted of the most serious crimes. We are clear that these offenders will be unaffected by these reforms. Under Clause 20, offenders sentenced for certain sexual or violent offences will be released at the halfway point of their sentence. They will spend even longer inside if they behave badly while in custody, up to their full sentence. This approach, inspired by the effective reform in Texas, reflects incentive schemes widely used across the United States and is the single biggest measure to preserve prison capacity in the Bill.
I must remind noble Lords of the context in which this measure is needed. When this Government came into power last July, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. We were days away from running out of places entirely, from the police having to prioritise which criminals to arrest, and from the criminal justice system failing to deliver the one thing it is for—delivering justice. If prisons run out of space, we fail victims and compromise safety. Without prison space, victims are denied the justice they deserve, and a stable prison population allows for a better regime and outcome for prisoners.
We must ensure that there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. Our reforms will ensure that those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences, and that is possible only if there is enough space to house them. These measures will be crucial to ensuring that we never reach breaking point again; I must respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord that by the end of this Parliament there will be more offenders in our prisons than ever before.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, he has done nothing to reassure us that Clause 20 as drafted offers an earned progression model of any kind whatever. These are not temporary changes to relieve prison overpopulation but permanent changes to our justice system. We will, I suspect, return to these on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
“(17) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the provisions of this section so as to provide that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of the sentence unless they have earned such early release through their participation in purposeful activity.(18) “Purposeful activity” means such activity for which the regulations under subsection (17) may provide.(19) The power to make regulations under subsection (17) include powers to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.(20) Regulations under subsection (17) are to be made by statutory instrument.(21) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (17) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 94A touches on an issue that arose in a number of important speeches at Second Reading, particularly one by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I thank the Prisoners’ Education Trust for its advice with this amendment. It relates to the issue of earned progression, which all noble Lords know is at the very heart of the Government’s worthy intention in this Bill: to restore our criminal justice system so that it can once again, in time, be the envy of the world. The issue is what the earned progression model means, or perhaps ought to mean, now and in the future, and it is one of the few differences in approach between the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, or ISR, and the policy of the Bill we are debating.
The executive summary of the Independent Sentencing Review says at page 10:
“While it is for the Government to decide which of the Review’s recommendations it will accept, the Review considers its recommendations as a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.
I believe that the Committee will say amen to that. The ISR’s superb report, produced so speedily and clearly, along with the Minister’s own convictions, experience and obvious passion, are the catalysts for these once-in-a-generation, long-overdue changes to our outdated penal system.
It is not unknown for there to be differences in matters like this, even in those of serious importance. Here, though—and this is important to my amendment—there is good will on all sides and in no way is this amendment intended as anything other than a friendly, and hopefully helpful, contribution. It is obviously right when scrutinising the Bill, as is our duty, that these differences be openly debated.
Put simply, at page 57 of its report, the ISR argues:
“The criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules. Actions which violate prison rules”,
which it then sets out,
“and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings … would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back”.
It goes on:
“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available. This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding”.
The Bill, on the other hand, argues that the criteria for maximum early release will be limited to complying with the prison rules. Once those are complied with, the maximum discount will be available. The arguments for the ISR’s stronger criteria are well known and were set out at Second Reading here and, if I may say so, in an excellent speech by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth MP at Third Reading on 29 October in another place. I can summarise those arguments. First, there is the danger of too many recalls if no purposeful activity has been undertaken by the offender. Secondly, there is no need for positive effort by the offender, who knows that they will be released if they do nothing wrong. Thirdly, there is the even greater pressure on the Probation Service. These are attractive arguments to me and many others; however, the Government’s response must be listened to. I anticipate that they will not oppose the principle that earned progression should involve something more than obeying prison rules, but that the reality of the present position, bequeathed as it undoubtedly has been, is that for the prison system to function in the near future, it is necessary to ensure that prisons are never put under such pressure of numbers. Thus, the Government propose weaker criteria.
This is an important issue, but people of good will who want this new system to work can see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the case. That is why it is important that a way through be found, both now and in the future.
My amendment suggests that there should be a statutory reminder in the Bill that, in due course, regulations should be introduced to alter the criteria for participation in purposeful activity. Indeed, the Minister in the other place said that the Government would like to go further. There are alternatives to my amendment, and we may hear about them in due course.
I will make two urgent points before I sit down. First, there needs to be an even greater effort, as a matter of urgency, to increase the amount of purposeful activity across the board. I pick out education, which is crucial to any future success. It is rumoured that cuts have been made to the education budget. Can the Minister tell us the truth of the matter on cuts? Secondly, all this argument places extra concentration on the Probation Service. As this Committee has heard time and again, it is at the heart of any success or failure of this brave new scheme, and that should be remembered when we are looking at this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am going to comment on Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and then I will present my Amendments 95 and 128. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.
I very much agree with the spirit of the amendment tabled by noble Lord, which he presented very powerfully. As I said at Second Reading, earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, but this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, just reminded us, allows early release at the one-third point without any real rehabilitation having been earned. A prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of prison rules such as offences against discipline; threatening, abusive or violent behaviour; or possessing unauthorised articles.
The experience of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 teaches us that release is truly “earned” only if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation, where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, recognises that the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to purposeful activity is severely limited, and that early release cannot currently depend on engagement in purposeful activity. It therefore proposes an enabling power so that, when the time is right and staff capacity issues allow, provision can be made for purposeful activity to be taken into account in deciding early release at the one-third point of the sentence, not least to give prisoners an incentive to undertake purposeful activity which they otherwise would not have.
I previously supported, and indeed suggested, this approach at Second Reading. However, it raises issues of fair and equal treatment of prisoners, and the quality and consistency of the regime available to them. I listened carefully to the debate on Monday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on mandatory purposeful activity for custodial sentences, and it was clear that there are concerns about the impact on prisoners who are unable to take part in many forms of purposeful activity due to learning or physical disabilities, as well as problems with the estate having insufficient resources to provide such opportunities. Amendment 94A therefore has the potential to create unfairness for prisoners who are not offered such opportunities or cannot take them up for reasons beyond their control. However, I am very interested to know the Minister’s view, especially on when this sort of change might be feasible, since it is obviously sensible when resources allow.
I now turn to my Amendments 95 and 128, beginning with Amendment 95. For certain serious violent and sexual offenders, the Bill retains an automatic release point of 66% without an opportunity for earned release at the halfway point. The new clause introduced by Amendment 95 would bring this cohort into the scope of earned release. The Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise his or her discretion, at the 50% point in the sentence, to refer the case to the Parole Board for consideration of release. It thereby gives effect to the recommendation of the ISR that a progression model apply to all prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence.
This amendment and my next one relating to EDS prisoners would not create the same risk of unfairness that I mentioned in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, since the Parole Board would consider a much wider range of factors than purely “purposeful activity”: for example, whether the offender has worked on addiction issues, whether they have addressed their offending behaviour or whether they will be honest with their offender manager, et cetera.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for earned release, that in addition to compliance with rules to earn early release, there should be meaningful, purposeful activity. Irrespective of how we look on a prison sentence, whether as a punishment, a sanction or a deterrent, engaging in purposeful activity will certainly help prevent recall from early release or reoffending. For all kinds of reasons, it is very important to stop the revolving door of somebody being released from prison and coming back, for one reason or another including reoffending.
In support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I will mention here some work we did at the think tank Politeia, where I am research director. We called it Jailbreak and looked at schemes for what should happen to prisoners once they are sentenced. Among the various proposals that worked was a one-to-one adviser from the moment the offender came in to the moment they were released, who saw they had an education—which has been mentioned before—and that they had engaged in meaningful activity.
Noble Lords might be interested to know about one firm in Sheffield which taught offenders how to make umbrellas and promised them a job on release. Another meaningful activity—if the Minister will forgive my mentioning it—was provided by Timpson, which trained offenders in the craft of shoemaking and repairs, and also offered them a flat when they left, so they could live in a new place to start a new life and cut themselves off from their previous life and contacts, often in a criminal world. These things depended on engaging in meaningful activity, but they certainly contributed to avoiding recall, whether on early release or as a result of reoffending.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 139C takes a rather different approach to the adjudication system. Not for the first time, “The Archers” has drawn to aficionados’ attention issues that we had not considered before, and the adjudication system is a current example. I cannot say that I listened to every episode—although I make quite an effort to do so—but, in that context, an offender who was coming to the end of his sentence had a weapon planted in his cell. He was very worried that he was going to be on the wrong end of an adjudication and that his sentence would continue.
I understand that the current system is handling much larger numbers than would have occurred to me. In a three-month period last year, there were almost 69,000 adjudication outcomes, punishments rose and additional days were imposed more than 1,500 times. I was interested in the consistency between prisons and different governors. The Minister has told us that he gets reports about education and activities. I do not know what comparative records are kept by the MoJ about adjudication outcomes—I am sure that records are kept—and I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that tonight.
I was interested for another reason. I read somewhere —although I could not track it down again—a concern about the quasi-judicial nature of these decisions, which are made without recourse to appeal and without any of the other protections that one might normally see. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister has any comments to share. He had no warning of my asking these questions, so it is probably not fair to expect anything tonight, but I would like to place my concerns on the record. Perhaps he can write later, if he or the MoJ have anything to say.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting group. When the concept of earned progression was originally floated and considered by the Government, considerable stress was laid both on the Texas model and on the concept that there should be an element earning release rather than simply being told that you would be released unless days were added. I agree with the proposition that the concept of earned progression should involve a combination of reward and deterrence. To put it informally, there should be carrot as well as stick.
I also agree—I am sure the Minister does too—that the Bill introduces a scheme of early release provided that no delay on release has been imposed for bad behaviour. Having thought about this, I accept that it is a difficult challenge to import into the Bill more opportunity to earn release by engaging with opportunities for rehabilitative activities in the widest sense. It is certainly difficult to do so without damaging the Government’s desire to ensure that the prison population is limited and reduced.
I was attracted by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular by the way he introduced it and his reasoning. It would give a role to the Parole Board in recognising a prisoner’s earning release. While I found many of the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, persuasive—as I always do—I remain concerned by the element of compulsion in the amendment that would prevent some offenders earning release, through no fault of their own, if they were unable, for whatever reason, to participate in rehabilitative activity. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.
On these Benches, we would welcome proposals from the Government to introduce a measure of incentive to the earned progression model. As I understand it, currently when days are added, there is a quasi-judicial determination by a district judge. One would hope that such a district judge hearing an added-days case would always take into account a prisoner’s progress towards rehabilitation. However, that could be further developed to introduce some statutory element, whereby added-days hearings would always take into account any progress that the offender had made.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments, as they seek to turn the Government’s earned progression scheme from a superficially attractive promise into a credible and responsible model for rehabilitation and, consequently, for public safety. As drafted, with release contingent only on the absence of serious misconduct, the provision does not amount at all to earned progression; it is simply accelerated release by default.
We know from recent evidence that meaningful rehabilitation in prison, such as through education and vocational training work, is far from universal. Only this year, the Government cut the provision of education services for prisoners by 20%, and for some prisons by up to 60%. The Justice Committee’s 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisoners are not engaged in education or employment programmes, and many remain confined for 22 hours a day. In those conditions, expecting that prisoners will earn their release by default is neither realistic nor responsible.
In that light, it is not only reasonable but imperative to link early release to engagement in meaningful activity. That is what Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, seeks to do: it insists that a one-third release point is conditional on participation in meaningful activity. That would ensure that early release is genuinely earned and based on reform rather than simply time served.
Equally, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to embed an earned progression principle for both standard and extended determinate sentences, rather than treating release as an automatic milestone after half the sentence has been served. This makes the model proportionate and conditional on real change, rather than automatic and unearned.
If we accept the Bill without amendments to the supposed progression model, we will knowingly legislate to release on terms we cannot expect to support rehabilitation or protect the public. Frankly, that is not reform; that is risk. But, if we accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we would reprioritise a system that balances the need to manage prison populations with the social imperative of reducing reoffending.
I thank all noble Lords for their submissions on these matters and for the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in reply.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; I thank her for her kind comments about my previous work.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill by regulations, so that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of their sentence unless they have earned release through purposeful activity. I want all prisoners to be in work or education, if they are able; however, we need to be realistic about what is possible in different types of prisons. Currently, prisoners do not have equal access to the full range of classes and employment required to meet their needs. To confirm, our education budget has been increased by 3%—but, unfortunately, that buys us less education. So, while one is up, the other is down. However, I think there are other things I can do to make improvements in that area.
We also need to be mindful that many prisoners may behave well but still struggle to engage with some activities. There are high levels of mental ill-health, trauma and neurodiversity that should be considered, and we often need to meet these needs before engagement with education and work can be productive. As noble Lords know, this is an area that I am passionate about. Positive change is necessary, but it is better achieved through gradual operational and policy improvements rather than legislative measures. I also agree that the Probation Service is vital to the ongoing support of offenders after release.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for Amendments 95 and 128, which address release points for more serious offenders. Regarding Amendment 95, I must clarify that Clause 20 already sets an automatic release point of half way for these offences. Of course, if the offender behaves badly, they could have days added to their sentence. It is essential that the progression model can be implemented quickly and effectively. The best way to do that is via a system which we know works and is legally robust: the existing adjudication system.
Through Amendment 128, the noble Lord also raised an important question about prisoners serving an EDS. It would allow the Secretary of State to refer offenders serving an EDS to the Parole Board for consideration for release at the halfway point of their custodial term. At present, offenders serving an EDS are referred to the board after serving two-thirds of the custodial term, which is a statutory requirement.
The noble Lord’s amendment is similar in effect to a recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review that the extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward to the halfway point. But the Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that, for an offender to receive an extended determinate sentence, the court will have decided that they are dangerous. These are offenders who have committed serious offences, such as rape, other sexual offences or violence against a person. To impose an EDS, the court will have decided that there was a risk of them doing so again in the future. This is not the case with standard determinate sentences. Having seen all the evidence, the trial judge will have imposed a custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the offence. Prison is the right place for dangerous offenders such as these. Our firm view is that they should not be able to achieve an early release through progression and should remain in prison for as long as they do now.
I turn briefly to Amendment 139C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I assure the noble Baroness that we monitor the performance of the adjudication system and it remains under constant review. I get regular data on prisons, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the answers to her question.
We have effective scrutiny structures in place through His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards. They are able to provide valuable insight into the operations of the prisoner adjudication system. To reassure noble Lords, I ask questions about the adjudication system on every prison visit.
As noble Lords are aware, I am passionate about this area and have routinely pressed for improvements, but my view is that this is best achieved through existing monitoring and scrutiny rather than legislation. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all other speakers in this interesting debate on this important part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, although I have one remark for him before I sit down.
The noble Lord accused me, in the nicest possible way, of wanting this to be compulsory. I hoped it was a little bit more careful than that. I am saying that it is for the Government to decide, if progress is made in this area—I venture to think that that might take some time—that they might then bring in a regulation which would have a compulsory element, no doubt with exceptions. My amendment definitely does not seek a compulsory change from the Bill so that it is important that every offender has to have done some purposeful activity. That is not the intention of the amendment; it is to leave it to the Government, but to ask them to bear it in mind when the time is right. Sorry, I put that rather clumsily, but I think he will know what I mean by that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
If I may say, it was only the use of the word “unless” that caused me to think there was an element of compulsion.
Lord Bach (Lab)
I will leave it there. Of course I am going to withdraw the amendment, but this is an important point that we should consider now and in the months to come. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, linked to another in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool, enables an additional condition to be added for consideration by the Secretary of State, when determining if an offender should not be released at the end of the section 255BA automatic release period.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 118 and the related Amendments 114 and 115 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for adding their names to these amendments. I am concerned that the provisions in Part 2, which allow the automatic re-release of recalled offenders after 56 days, will put victims of domestic abuse at serious risk of harm if, as drafted, perpetrators of domestic abuse remain eligible for automatic re-release.
These amendments have the full support of Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. She stated her concerns directly to the Secretary of State, David Lammy, in a letter on 11 November.
For victims and survivors of crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking, their perpetrators know everything about them: where they live and work, where their children go to school, and all their regular routines. They remain fixated on their victims, and escalations in the risks they pose are consistently in relation to particular individuals. If we think about this provision from the perspective of a domestic abuse victim, they are already likely to have been subject to years of abuse before reaching the point where their perpetrator is convicted and sentenced.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 118, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name.
I will start by referring to the basic intention of the Bill, which is to use our prison places more effectively and to focus custody on those who most need to be there—an aim that many support. We all want a system that is proportionate and effective and that reduces the pressure on the prison estate, but we cannot pursue those aims at the expense—whoops, I think I am speaking to the wrong amendment. Are we discussing Amendment 118?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thought so, but I got confused.
Amendment 118 responds to a serious problem: automatic release after 56 days of individuals who have been recalled specifically because they breached the licence condition relating to the victim of the original offence. In other words, they have shown, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, that they are willing, even while on licence, to breach restrictions designed to keep that victim safe. This is a behaviour that may indicate continuing risk, which, under Bill as it stands, will not be assessed before release.
The victims, overwhelmingly women in these circumstances, must not be put in this potential danger. The amendment is essential to ensure that if there is a victim-related breach, the individual is not released automatically. If necessary, the case must go before a parole board—an expert independent body whose very purpose is to assess risk. The Government have been very clear through the Bill that their aim is to ensure that public safety remains paramount. This amendment seeks to deliver on that aim.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments 111 to 113. When asked by the Deputy Chairman, I said that I did not wish to do so, but that was because I did not realise that we had jumped an amendment.
These three amendments concern recall for a fixed term. The first point is the question of whether recall should be for a maximum of 56 days rather than a fixed period of 56 days. As presently structured, recall to prison is to an automatic release date 56 days after the recall occurs. The purpose of my three amendments is both to make the 56-day period a maximum period, not a fixed period, and to make automatic release subject to the exclusion in those cases where it applies—and in that it has much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The process for determining the period will need to be fixed by regulations, but the intention is clear, and I am happy to discuss how substituting a flexible period for a fixed period might be implemented.
The fact is that recalls happen for a number of reasons, some of which may be relatively trivial breaches of conditions. I am concerned—as was my honourable friend Jess Brown-Fuller, the MP for Chichester, who moved similar amendments in the other place—about the effect of a blanket fixed period of recall irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, and believe it may be inappropriate.
It may be that 56 days or eight weeks, which is quite a long time, is far too long for a prisoner who faces recall for missing a probation appointment, for example. It would almost inevitably interfere with work where an offender had found work. It could interfere with housing and educational or rehabilitative programmes in the community. Community programmes are, I understand, typically held open for four weeks, so eight weeks would mean that they were closed. An eight-week recall might have a damaging effect on mental health treatments which a recently released prisoner was undertaking. Addiction programmes might be undesirably affected. A shorter recall might avoid that.
Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of conditions would do nothing to reduce the prison capacity shortage as it continues, while a shorter recall would mitigate it. Other recalls may be much more serious. In such cases, 56 days may be too short a period. The 56-day automatic release provision in our Amendment 113 would take effect subject to the provision excluding automatic releases in serious cases, so that those who had committed more serious offences would not be automatically released at the 56-day point. That might be particularly appropriate if an offender who had been guilty of domestic abuse or stalking had been recalled for intimidating, harassing or stalking their victims. While they would presently be required to be released under the proposals as I understand them, our amendment would rectify this.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would make the cause of an offender’s recall a necessary consideration when determining whether the offender should be released at the end of the automatic release period. This is a prudent approach. We do not want people with a record of breaking probation conditions given the chance to do so again after just 56 days. We therefore support the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for these amendments and for providing me with the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on recall reforms. The policy in this Bill is designed to support rehabilitation and reduce the need for future recalls, but recall remains an essential safeguard to protect the public when risk increases. The 56-day period provides more time to undertake a thorough review of an offender’s release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed. There is a specific focus on mitigating risks against known victims.
I turn first to the amendment tabled to Clause 26 by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The existing recall test set out in operational guidance already provides a clear and robust framework for decision-making. It ensures that recall is used appropriately when risk can no longer be safely managed in the community. Legislation is a blunt and inflexible tool and would create barriers to recall where swift action was needed to protect the public. Let me give a brief illustration. An individual on licence for stalking and harassment begins to show a marked deterioration in their mental health. They commit breaches, entering an exclusion zone and making indirect contact with a victim online. None of those incidents taken alone would have met a rigid statutory test such as imminent risk or persistent non-compliance but, viewed together, they clearly indicate escalating risk.
It is important to note that the clause already includes a power for the Secretary of State to amend the recall power in Section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, specifically to make provision about the circumstances in which a person may or may not be recalled. This means that there is already flexibility to adjust the recall framework in future should evidence show that further refinement is needed. For these reasons, it is not necessary to legislate to amend the recall threshold at this time, but I am keen to review what more can be done beyond the Bill to bear down on the use of recall and ensure that it is really the last resort.
The offences listed in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are extremely serious. While some of these cases would fall within the scope of the new recall model, many of the perpetrators of the offences referenced are excluded. This is because they will have received life sentences or extended determinate sentences and therefore remain subject to standard recall arrangements. This means that their re-release will be subject to approval by the Parole Board or the Secretary of State.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can I ask for a bit of advice on the procedure, because we got slightly out of order in this group? Mistakenly, the first four amendments in the group were not moved but were then spoken to. I stood up first and spoke to Amendment 114, so I am not quite sure whether it is me who is meant to reply to the Minister, but if everyone is happy and Jake the clerk is happy, then I am happy.
I thank the Minister for his response, but the Domestic Abuse Commissioner feels that she has genuine reasons for concern. It would be helpful, if the Minister agrees, for him to meet us between now and Report. We feel strongly enough that if we are not able to resolve this to her satisfaction, we will certainly want to bring it back on Report and may take it to a Division.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am very happy to meet as suggested. It is a very good idea.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.