Flooding Interventions
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what outcome-based measures they use to measure the effectiveness of flooding interventions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, properties better protected is currently our main measure for tracking the current flood investment programme. In addition, we measure asset condition. A new 10-year programme starts in April this year and will benefit 840,000 properties by 2036. Our new strategic objectives will drive funding towards the most beneficial interventions. This will be measured by a set of outcome metrics covering economic benefits and reduction in flood risk to properties.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. In October 2025, the Government committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences to protect nearly 900,000 properties. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what assessment they have made of this investment in flood defences, reducing insurance costs for those residents, bearing in mind the ever-present problem of climate change?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is correct that we have committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences, the reason being that flood risk is one of the factors that determine home insurance prices. Our investment programme is designed to manage flood risk by reducing it and by preventing further increases. Clearly, this can also take properties out of the need to use Flood Re for their insurance. To remind noble Lords, Flood Re is a joint government and industry flood reinsurance scheme designed to help UK households at high risk of flooding to access affordable insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, one of the most efficient ways to reduce flood risk is sustainable drains. When do the Government expect to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to make sure that they will be mandatory for major new housing developments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that sustainable drainage is an important factor in managing flood risk. I am sure she is aware that I am personally supportive of this measure. The department is looking at it and is working with MHCLG, which, as the planning department, also has a particular interest in this. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date as we progress.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that farmers remain a critical partner to government in the fight against flooding? Will the Government therefore consider the EFRA Select Committee’s recommendation of a more comprehensive compensation strategy for farmers who store floodwater on their land to serve and protect downstream communities?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. As someone who lives in a rural area that floods regularly, I am aware of the important role farmers play in managing flood risk and storing water on their land. Farmers can access payments in a number of ways, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. One is the farm recovery fund, in cases where damage has occurred and farmers need to recover costs. It pays up to £25,000 and can be important to farmers when they have suffered flooding. We are looking very carefully at the Environment Audit Committee’s recommendations in this area. Farmers storing water on their land is an important way of moving forward, and it is certainly something we are looking at.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, when Flood Re was set up, my understanding was that it was a transitional body that would no longer be necessary after a certain period, once other means of insuring homes at risk of flooding were put in place. Does Flood Re have a limited life expectancy, and if so, what is the estimate?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Flood Re was set up for a certain period of time. I am doing this from memory, and I shall tell the House if I am wrong, but I think it was due to run through to 2036.
We are looking at possible alternative arrangements. Clearly, the last thing we want to do is take away households’ ability to have insurance. We do not want to go back to how it used to be—people being completely uninsurable or having excess limits of, say, £10,000. That is not the future we see for insurance. The noble Lord is right that it has been set up as an intermediate system, and we are looking at ways to move forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Environmental Audit Committee’s fourth report on flood resilience in England in October 2025 highlighted that Defra’s flood budget is increasingly a thin blue line protecting the nation’s transport, energy, housing and utilities from escalating flood impacts, yet it remains siloed, with no cross-government accountability for measurable outcomes or value for money. Will the Minister clarify what work the department is doing beyond using standard HM Treasury guidance to ensure value for money in flood investments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we have invested a record amount of money in addressing flooding. We have also reviewed the way funding is applied and how communities, businesses and so on can apply for it. The new programme we have set up has four metrics, and if I briefly go through those, it will help to answer the noble Lord’s question.
There are two outcome metrics and two output metrics. The first outcome metric is around economic benefits. It captures all the damage that has been avoided to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and a range of other areas, as well as the positive economic benefits of such things as natural flood management, which we are very keen to invest in. The second is around the risk to properties. The Environment Agency is developing a way of reporting on the reduction in flood risk due to the investments made through the national flood and coastal investment programme. I think that is due to report in April.
The first output metric is around how properties benefit from the new investment. That is made up of three parts: whether it is large reductions in, small reductions in, or prevented increases in any size of flood risk. The last metric is around asset condition, which initially remains the percentage of Environment Agency high-consequence assets at target condition. So we have a whole new system of managing exactly those outcomes and investments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the floods that occurred in Wales in recent months—in particular, the difficult ones just before Christmas in Monmouth, a border community. She may also be aware of the Written Questions I tabled on whether there is adequate co-ordination of efforts on the Welsh side and the English side of the border to minimise the danger. Can she confirm that she has had discussions with Welsh Ministers or civil servants to minimise that danger?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. The noble Lord makes an important point: floodwater does not recognise boundaries, as I think we all know. I live in Cumbria, which, again, is a community with a border with one of the devolved nations. I meet regularly with my Welsh and Scottish counterparts, as well as those in Northern Ireland. It is important, as we make policy decisions and decide what legislation investments we are going to make, that we all work together. It is something I am very committed to.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Some floodwater is highly toxic and dangerous to humans, particularly if it comes from a sewage treatment works or from farms. What extra interventions are done on such floodwaters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons why we are investing in anti-pollution measures, working with farmers, for example, to see how we can stop run-off and better manage slurry, and working with water companies. A water White Paper is coming up that will look at many of these issues. As someone who lives in a flood high-impact area, I know that the damage that can be caused by pollution is immense and is something we absolutely need to tackle.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, in the middle of last year the excellent report came out from the Independent Water Commission which, among other things, recommended a certain restructuring of the Environment Agency. We were promised a White Paper later last year, after that report. I wonder what has happened and whether the Minister has any idea of when the White Paper will be published.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is very interesting that the noble Duke asks that, because I asked that question this morning. The answer is that it is being “actively worked on” at the moment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am giving the noble Duke the answer I was given. It is an absolute priority for the Government’s next Session to have a water Bill in place in order to have a water Act to deal with all the issues we have been discussing for so many months and years in this House. The White Paper is the first step towards that; I hope he will see it before the end of the Session.
Graduate Jobs
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decline in graduate jobs and the extent to which it is a long-term trend that requires intervention.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, while the employment rate remains higher for graduates than for non-graduates, we recognise that there are challenges faced by young people leaving university. We are delivering for graduates by investing £1 billion in sector skills packages to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, by launching the jobs and careers service so that everyone can access quality careers advice and by delivering the youth guarantee so that 16 to 24 year-olds, including graduates, have the best support to enter work.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer and agree with many of the points she has made. For a number of decades now, Governments of all shades have encouraged school leavers to go to university. I did not. I attended one of the old technical colleges, Dundee Institute of Technology, where I got an HND in building management. With the structural changes in employment opportunities for young people that we are now seeing, can we not do more to ensure that careers advice and the likes of technical education are better tailored for the generations of the future and the skills they will need in the new world of work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is a tribute to Dundee Institute, and indeed HNDs and the country, so we all have cause to be grateful for its investment in him. My noble friend is right that there are clearly challenges in the graduate market, but I want to say up front on AI that we do not yet see the evidence that this necessarily means a long-term decline in graduate jobs. AI is having a range of impacts; its impact is contested and it is different and it is changing as we go. However, his point is incredibly important, and the Government need to act to ensure that graduates and young people generally have access not just to entry-level jobs but to proper high-quality careers. That means investing in sectors which are producing growth, making sure we have the right skills, and that career services, both within education and in the new jobs and career service, are supporting people to make sure they develop the skills needed to go into the sectors where there are increasing numbers of jobs and those jobs are better paid. I am very optimistic. AI offers opportunities as well for young people. Young people are much more technologically savvy—than me anyway, I hope—and much more optimistic about the impact of AI, so there are real opportunities as well as challenges.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, instead of finding jobs for graduates, we should be trying to persuade more 18 year-olds not to go to university. In the colleges that I support, 25% of our leavers become apprentices compared to 4% from an ordinary school. Apprentices can earn as much as £30,000 a year at the age of 18. May I persuade the Minister that what she really ought to be doing is to persuade more schools to produce apprentices?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord has done in this important area of technical education, working with employers and looking at how we teach our young people. I am grateful to him, and I am sure the whole House is, for his track record in that area. Secondly, he does not need to persuade us, which is the good news. The Prime Minister has recently made a new ambition for two-thirds of young people not just to go to university but to go to university or to take up one of these gold-standard apprenticeships. That includes targeting at least 10% of young people to go into level 4 or level 5 study. We know that getting people into the right areas with the right skills means they are much more likely to get jobs. Most graduates get jobs, but so do people who come through good apprenticeships and significant numbers end up staying on with the employers who hired them—the noble Lord knows all of this, but I am telling the House. Our job as government is to recognise that there are challenges coming down the track. We need to be the country which sees the opportunities, skills up our young people to take them up, encourages and supports employers to train them correctly, works with those who are doing the teaching and gets growth in the areas that drive jobs. We are going after all of those.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the brutal truth is that the number of graduates in the UK has almost doubled over the last 20 years, far outstripping the supply of graduate jobs, and that was before the decline in the last five years. This gross mismatch in supply and demand has resulted in a mountain of student debt—£270 billion at the last count—much of which will never be repaid. Does the Minister accept that this is a raw deal not just for students but also for taxpayers, and that our universities need fundamental reform, particularly in the area of funding, to face up to economic reality?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, one thing I want to say to any students or graduates out there is that the evidence shows that graduates are more likely to be in work, to be in higher-skilled work and to earn more. Graduates continue to experience higher lifetime earnings, and they are nearly three times as likely to be in high-skilled employment than non-graduates. Having said that, the most important thing is that young people get appropriate advice to choose the forms of study that suit them. This is not a message to say that people should leave school and go straight into work. We are increasingly going into an era when employers will need skills, especially in a world where AI could automate some activities but it could also augment others. We need people to have the skills, so I am with him about the need to get the right people going into the right kind of education and training. On the question of HE funding, the HE sector clearly needs a secure financial footing to face into the challenges coming down the track. We have therefore acted to increase tuition-fee caps for all HE providers in line with forecast inflation, but future fee uplifts will be conditional on those providers achieving a higher-quality threshold through the Office for Students.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I am grateful for the replies that the Minister has already given and for the work the Government are doing in this area. To pick up on the question of apprenticeships, what are the Government doing to promote graduate internships? In an economy like that of the north-west, which depends on small and medium-sized enterprises, those are a vital way into work. Specifically around healthcare, the noble Baroness will be aware of the Jisc report from November 2025, which says that six out of 10 first- degree employment is in the area of health, social care or education, so how can the limited hiring, particularly of nurses, be addressed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, on the question of internships and apprenticeships for those who are going into specialist areas, the DWP has been working to find internships or work experience opportunities for young people. We all know from the number of requests we get from them that it is an awful lot easier to get internships if you have money and connections. One of the challenges for us is to make sure we create opportunities for work experience and internships for those who do not have those things. We are doing a huge amount of work specifically with the one in eight young people who are not in employment, education or training, of whom some will be in the north-west—they are around the country, but they are more likely to be in areas of deprivation. So, we are looking at how we can support that. At the other level, for example for young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months looking for work and not getting it, at the end of that we will give them a guaranteed job for six months to make sure that they have that experience of work.
On the question of professional apprenticeships, the Government are prioritising young people but that includes apprenticeships up to level 7 for those who are under 22 when they begin. The right reverend Prelate mentioned nursing; sometimes they will be post-degree, but they will often be level 6, and there are young people who qualify as solicitors or accountants, for example, through the apprenticeship route. Again, we are interested in where we can grow jobs. I read an interesting World Economic Forum report about the areas that are growing, and one of the growth areas is nursing.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, can the Minster assure us that university undergraduates are not only learning academic skills but skills that will be useful for work? Many years ago, when I graduated from Oxford and told them that I was marrying an RAF officer, I was told that I was unemployable, which was actually pretty accurate. Can the Minister say whether university career guidance is more positive these days than the guidance that I was given?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
For someone who was unemployable at the age of 21, the noble Baroness has not done too badly for herself, and I am sure that the RAF has also benefited from the work that she has done over the years. This is incredibly important. University career support has come a long way, as anyone who has had children or known others who have engaged with it will know. There is more and more engagement with local employers, and we on the DWP side are doing huge amounts with employers. Our aim is to try to make sure that, as we develop the skills requirement, we are working in areas of labour demand, and that we work with those who provide both FE and HE apprenticeships to make sure that the right skills are there, that people are going into the areas where there is growth and that they will get jobs. That is quite broad. A good degree takes somebody into lots of areas. Employers want a good range of skills, including creative thinking, analytical thinking and resilience, and those can come from any discipline.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, there is a national shortage of electricians, plumbers, plasterers and people of that nature, yet there does not seem to be any focus on the development of apprenticeships for those young people for whom a university education quite simply is not appropriate. Can the Minister comment on this?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The priority has been on sectors, some of which will include a range of those skills. For example, the £1 billion that we are putting into sector skills will cover AI but also engineering, green energy and all kinds of areas that use a wide range of those skills. If the employers need them, we will support people to train to get those jobs.
Defence Spending
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the military Chiefs of Staff have expressed concern over in-year defence spending.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, Defence is collectively working to deliver the strategic defence review as a deliverable and affordable plan, backed by historic funding increases. Further detail will follow in the defence investment plan. All the Chiefs of Staff are fully engaged in that planning, as they are in the routine budget management exercises that ensure we can respond appropriately in-year to the changing nature of the threats that we face.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, our nation is standing into danger. I do not need to articulate the dangerous geopolitical situation that we are in, and which is getting worse. I think people understand that, and they believe that we need to spend more on defence. Unfortunately, there is no urgency in that. For example, the defence investment plan, which was just mentioned, is already six months late. Does my noble friend the Minister—who I think understands these issues but whose hands are rather tied, judging by that Answer, on what he can say—agree that wars do not wait until the nations involved are ready? In an era of might is right, we need to grasp the nettle and seriously increase our defence spending today, not in the weeks and years to come. Then perhaps we can rebuild the Armed Forces and some of the might that is required.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise
“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.
That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on why the investment plan has been delayed for so long? Is it because there is disagreement within the Government about its affordability and how we can develop our capacity if we were to reduce dependence on Americans and yet have walked away from joint procurement with the EU, which Canada has joined, and we have rejected?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord often raises capability and defence investment in our industry. One of the challenges we faced was the fact that our industries have declined. Much of the ability of defence infrastructure to produce the things that we need has gone, and the Government are trying to do something about that. We have announced new munitions factories and we have got the defence investment plan coming. We are trying to recognise that, in order to fight wars now and those which may come in the future, we need a defence industry which has the capacity to deliver the equipment and goods that we need.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the defence industry will judge the Government not by the promises they have made—which the Chief of the Defence Staff welcomed, as the Minister mentioned—but on what they actually deliver. One of the ways that will be judged, for example, is when we see the defence investment plan. When I asked the Minister about this on 8 December, he said Ministers were working hard to deliver it by the end of the year; that deadline has passed. I heard the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, but can he give us some more detail? When are the Government aiming to do that—by the end of the month, or the end of the quarter? If they do not start delivering, people will think their promises are just words, not actions.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the challenge that the noble Lord makes, but I cannot give him a specific time—next week or by the end of the month—by which it will be published. We are determined, through the defence investment plan, to make sure that we get this right; that we make the right choices and that we do not have a situation where, in order to meet some timetable, we produce a defence investment plan that does not enable us to have the war-fighting capability that we need. The noble Lord challenged me to say what we are doing at the moment. The CDEL budget in 2024-25 is £22.7 billion. In 2028-29 it will be £31.5 billion, which is nearly £10 billion more. The total DEL budget was £60.2 billion in 2025 and in 2028-29 it will be £73.5 billion. There are billions of pounds of additional investment, much of which we hope to be spent in our own country, with our own industry.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
Can the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding all that we have heard, we are fully up to speed with the commitments to be made to deliver them within the right time going forward? That is very important post Brexit, with all the threats, as we know, to the rules-based order.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are certainly trying to do exactly as the noble Lord says: to deliver properly, effectively and coherently on the choices that we face within the defence investment plan. Whatever we increase the budget to, there will always be debates on where that should be invested and what choices we make within that. We want to make sure that we get those right. On Europe and the alliances, the noble Lord will know that we are trying to work more closely with our European colleagues and have strengthened bilateral relationships with a number of countries, not least Germany, France and Poland.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, investment is clearly vital, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are willing to spend more on defence, but this House needs to be reassured that the expenditure is going to come and that the capabilities will be in place in such a manner that we will be able to act more as a middle-ranking power, not a diminishing power. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are going in the right direction and that we will be able to play a full and effective role in NATO?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.
The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, who I am pleased to see has just taken his place, said in answer to a previous Question in this House that any increase in the defence budget beyond 2.5% is a matter for the next Parliament and anything beyond 3% is a matter for the Parliament beyond that. Does the Minister realise that this is a wholly irresponsible attitude? If we are to achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035 in a sensible, graduated manner that expands the defence industrial base in this country at a sensible pace, along with military capability, we need a plan for doing it now, and it needs to start today, not in 2030.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord will know the Government’s position, as laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. We have a plan for the achievement of 2.6%; we have the ambition of 3%. It was remarkable for the Prime Minister to say at The Hague that we will have a commitment of 3.5%, with an overall commitment on defence and security of 5%. That is an important step forward and an important statement by the Government on their ambition for defence spending, and one that I look forward to us trying to keep.
Channel Tunnel Infrastructure: Reliability
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Getlink about the reliability of the Channel Tunnel infrastructure given the recent failure of the electrical supply and the subsequent cancellation of train services between London, Paris and Brussels.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, it is important that there is a full investigation into the three separate incidents which disrupted tens of thousands of passengers’ journeys on 30 and 31 December last and saw some passengers stranded throughout the night, which is clearly unacceptable. I am therefore commissioning the relevant authorities—the binational Intergovernmental Commission, the IGC, which oversees the Channel Tunnel, and the Office of Rail and Road—to review last week’s incidents and also the implementation of recommendations from previous reviews of similar incidents, to ensure that urgent lessons are learned for good.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Am I correct in thinking that, when these occurrences happen in and around the Channel Tunnel, it seems to take twice as long to restore services on that part of the line which is the responsibility of HS1 or Getlink as it does on the other side of the channel, where the infrastructure is the responsibility of the French and Belgian railways? Does he agree with me that the latest outage ruined the new year holiday for thousands of people? Could he assure the House that the Government will do what they can to ensure that proper compensation is paid to them for having their holiday ruined? Finally, could he assure me and those of us who are interested in these matters that companies such as Eurostar and Getlink have proper resources, not only to own the infrastructure for which they are responsible but to repair it when things go wrong—something that obviously did not occur promptly on this occasion?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I share my noble friend’s concern about the disruption caused to travellers, in particular those whose holidays were spoiled or at least delayed. There is appropriate compensation made by Eurostar and Getlink, which are private companies, for that.
I take a particular interest in the noble Lord’s last point about ownership and proper maintenance, because there have previously been similar incidents and they do seem to take a long time. I am not sure that I can distinguish between incidents that take five hours on our side of the tunnel and, for instance, one last summer that took seven hours on the French side—but all that time is too long. My concern in this review, which is why I specifically mentioned the review of previous recommendations, is that it is not currently clear to me that all the previous recommendations for better maintenance, fewer incidents and for dealing with incidents when they occur have been followed through to completion by any of the parties that the noble Lord mentioned.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the review the Minister has mentioned, given that there is widespread support for increasing competition and international rail travel from the UK to other European destinations, what assurance can the Minister provide to passengers that the infrastructure is capable of running more services for both passengers and, indeed, freight in the future?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The review that I have talked about already will look at the resilience of the infrastructure and at previous recommendations to make sure that the infrastructure is resilient. Obviously, everything that we are talking about is certainly less than 40 years old, which, by railway standards, is like yesterday. There should be no reason—I cannot think of any good reason—why the infrastructure cannot support the much-increased level of service.
To that end, as the noble Baroness knows, the Government are committed to expanding the use of the tunnel for both passengers and freight trains. She will know that Virgin has been granted access to the depot in London, which it believes is necessary for its competitive activity with Eurostar. She will also know that Trenitalia, which is the Italian state railway, has found a funder to independently start additional competitive services with a depot in France, but not needing one in London. So, I am confident that all the infrastructure she mentions can support those services in the future.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned compensation in his response. The Government want people to travel by train rather than by plane. He will know that the compensation available to the Eurostar passengers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is much less than the compensation offered to air passengers, such as those disrupted at Heathrow recently, leaving many of the Eurostar passengers severely out of pocket. Is there not a case for aligning the compensation regimes between the two modes?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that we used to have far more influence over Eurostar and its commercial policies because we were once part-owners of it, but, sadly, a previous Conservative Government sold their 40% share in Eurostar to what has turned out to be the French state railway 10 years ago. So, we have no commercial influence over what Eurostar does.
If there is a case for what the noble Lord suggests, it would certainly require some examination, but I am not sure that we particularly want to interfere in people’s commercial businesses. What I do want to do is make sure that the infrastructure provided by Getlink, HS1 and SNCF on the other side of the tunnel is reliable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, so that the services that currently run and additional future services run reliably.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, to hold a private railway company to account. Can the Minister tell us how we will hold Great British Railways to account when it is in operation, given that it is only obliged to “have regard” to guidance from the Secretary of State rather than to comply with it, according to the Railways Bill currently being considered in another place?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We are quite a long way from the New Year’s Eve disruption in the Channel Tunnel, but never mind.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the principal means by which the Government hold arm’s-length bodies to account is by control of the appointment of the chair and the board. That is a pretty reasonable level of control. If he reads the Bill that is currently in the other place, he will see that there is a variety of mechanisms for the Secretary of State to make sure, on behalf of customers and passengers, that Great British Railways does what the Government want. I do not think there is any defect in those arrangements, but no doubt we will discuss them further when the Bill comes before this House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is rather curious that we have a situation where many providers would like to join in and provide services to the continent through the tunnel. However, I am concerned —and I would like the Minister to respond—by the limitations and regulations that seem to be being applied, which are preventing the speedy setting-up of these new services. Is he happy that there are no impediments whatever to further commercial services being provided?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am happy, because the principal constraint is actually the availability of trains compatible with the infrastructure on both sides of the channel and in the tunnel itself. They are very specialised; there are few manufacturers who can make them, and the constraint on Virgin starting its services will be the availability of trains. My department is working very hard to make sure that the depot facilities needed in London are provided for it. The relatively recent announcement from Trenitalia that it believes that it can also provide competitive services without a depot in the UK—and it may have access to trains sooner because it has already ordered some for other services in Europe—is a very welcome development.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we will get a report back on what happened in late December? Whether it is an electricity failure that knocks out the Channel Tunnel or an electricity substation fire that knocks out Heathrow, the national grid is an absolutely priceless part of our critical national infrastructure and I am sure the House will want to know that everything is being done to prevent these events taking place again.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I think it is a distraction to regard the electricity suppliers as the principal reason for the three separate failures. In fact, the first failure, we believe—or it is believed—was a train failure which brought down some of the wires. The second failure was an alarm on a freight train that suggested that the train had a seized wheel, although that proved not to be the case. The third was some form of failure, but it does not look like a particularly strong failure of the electricity supply. That needs to be fully examined. I agree with my noble friend that all these failures are unacceptable. The review I have already mentioned, along with previous reviews, ought to do their very best to make sure that these failures are obviated in future.
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government quietly announced over Christmas that the agricultural and business property reliefs threshold would increase from £1 million to £2.5 million. That change is welcome but it is plainly a U-turn, following well over a year of pressure from farmers, other family businesses and the Conservative Benches. First, does the Minister accept that this cruel delay caused unnecessary anxiety and real distress for the farming community and those operating family businesses across the country? Secondly, given that the harm was clear and the opposition sustained, why did the Government wait so long to act, which maximised the damage as families took important and irreversible decisions?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. May I first take this opportunity to wish her a belated happy birthday for the weekend just past?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for the measures that we announced shortly before Christmas. It is absolutely right that, following the reforms to the reliefs that we announced in the Budget in 2024, the Government consulted about the reforms with the farming community, as she says, and with family businesses. We have now carefully considered this feedback and have acted, and that was the right thing to do. We have acted to protect more family farms and family-owned businesses, while maintaining a core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should make a greater contribution.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recommend a carpenter’s rule to the Government: “Measure twice, cut once”. Can the Government tell us their assessment of the serious harm that was done to our vital family farming sector by the devastating mistake of their original tax policy? I am glad that they have recognised that and have at least made some change. However, would it not benefit the economy more to abandon this tax policy altogether—it will now raise next to nothing—close the tax loopholes exploited by private equity, which were never actually touched by the policy in the first place, and focus on rebuilding trust and revitalising our critical agricultural sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, I do not agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. She says this will raise next to nothing; it will still raise about £300 million for our public services. I do not know whether she thinks that is next to nothing—I do not—and I do not know where she would get that money from if she wishes to cut this. There is also an important core principle that we have maintained: that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. There is, I believe, a need to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief; I think she is saying that she does not agree with that. However, the status quo is not sustainable, because a very small number of claimants currently benefit from a very significant amount of agricultural property relief and business property relief. The top 7%, the largest 117 claims in 2021-22, accounted for 40% of the total Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief, and the top 4% of claims, the largest 158 claims, accounted for 53% of the Exchequer cost of business property relief. We are now getting the balance right between protecting those farms and those businesses, supporting the public finances and supporting our public services.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
Can the noble Lord clarify how much this change will cost and how it affects the forecasts in the Budget’s EFO?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The OBR will cost it precisely in the next EFO. I believe it will now raise approximately £300 million, but the OBR will confirm that in the next round of forecasts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I welcome, without reservation, the change made by the Government. The Minister will be aware of the considerable concern that there was among small farmers in Wales and the impact that the uncertainty was having on their sector. In that context, can he also have a look at the threat to that sector from the uncertainty arising from the possibility of imports from Australia and the southern hemisphere, which in a few years’ time could well undermine our domestic sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what we have announced. I absolutely hear what he says about those trade agreements made by the previous Government and I am more than happy to look further at what he asks about.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench made it very clear that farmers had to campaign long and hard to get this necessary change, and it happened at the very last minute. A similar campaign is being waged by the hospitality industry, which faces a near doubling of its business rates over the next three years. Will the Government force it to campaign long and hard and insist on no change before they do the right thing in the end?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic. Rateable values were much lower—perhaps artificially lower—at that point. I understand that pubs and other hospitality venues, such as hotels, are now seeing increases as a result of the latest revaluation. We have provided a £4.3 billion support package. Without that, pubs would have faced a 45% increase in total bills for next year. Because of the support that we have put in place, we have got that down to 4%. However, I acknowledge that the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle with the business rates that are applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector and will continue to do so. We are very open to discussions with it about other measures, such as more freedom for licensing and the freedom to open for longer.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Farming is a very important part of the rural economy and the basis of the food and drink sector. The Treasury is to be congratulated on recognising the reality of asset values while maintaining the principle of inclusion for inheritance tax—that entrepreneurs more generally cannot use farmland to shelter their business assets. The emphasis must now be on rebuilding relationships with the farming sector, especially following the very poor trade deals that were done by the Conservative Governments, in which agriculture has been jeopardised in favour of industry. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on better trade alignment with our European neighbours on standards more generally and SPS regulations in particular? I declare my interest on the register as having a farm in Cheshire.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the support that he sets out for the measures that we have announced. He is right about the importance of the farming sector to our economy and our society. The Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament. That includes the largest financial investment in nature-friendly farming that has ever been seen. My noble friend is also right to point to the importance of the EU reset to the farming sector. I was very pleased to see the commitment to an SPS agreement as part of that EU reset. I assure him that the UK Government are ready to move very quickly to secure that agreement and that the negotiations are ongoing.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I commend the Government on adjusting the threshold to £2.5 million, which I and other Cross-Benchers advocated a year ago in this place and which strikes the right balance. However, how many agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses closed in the 12 months since the 20% IHT measure was announced? How does that compare with the year before? I believe that the ONS has released this data. What redress, if any, will be offered to those businesses that have closed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have that data to hand, but I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, if there is now a shortfall in resources for the Government, can the Minister look at trust funds? These are the major weapon used by very rich people to avoid tax on inheritance.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is right that everybody pays their fair share towards the public services and that the tax system is based on fairness. I am confident that we have announced measures in the previous two Budgets to make sure that the tax system is fairer.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, further to the question from the Cross Benches, does the Minister accept that some family farms, frightened as they were by the original plan, have taken irrevocable actions in terms of assets and how they run their businesses? Does the Treasury accept any responsibility for scaring those people into business threatening decisions—unnecessarily, as it turns out?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said in answer to previous questions, it was right that we consulted with the farming community and family businesses about these reforms, that we listened to the feedback that we received, and that we acted to protect more family farms and family-owned businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agriculture and business assets should make a greater contribution.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
On that point, why did the Minister not do it before rather than after?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said, it was right that we took time to listen to the consultation with the farming community and family businesses. It is right that we have listened to that feedback and that we have now acted.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.
We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee pointed out, the current legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, managed to do one thing, which was to unite the parties of Northern Ireland against it. The Minister is right that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Can he reassure the House and veterans that the proposals that are coming forward really will ensure that veterans are not left vulnerable? In particular, as my honourable friend the Member for Lewes said:
“Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 63.]
Will the draft legislation actually ensure that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness, as always, has asked a very important question. A number of people will listen to her question. There are a number of people in this Chamber who know Northern Ireland far better than I do—it is good to see my noble friend Lady Anderson here. The Government will continue to discuss with veterans’ organisations, veterans themselves, people across this Chamber and indeed the other place, and people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that is fair to our veterans, the families and the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that is the continuing discussions which are taking place.
We are pleased that the protections for veterans will go into the Bill. There will be five protections in the Bill and there is continuing discussion about the sixth. But I can reassure the noble Baroness and others that we will continue to talk across this Chamber and the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that, as far as possible, we build a consensus and take into account the views of everyone, but most especially our veterans.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend the Minister in what he is saying. There is no moral equivalence between any member of the security forces and a terrorist. There is no question about that, and he is right to say that. I remind the House, as I am sure he will, that while nobody wants to see people well into their retirement dragged out and hauled before the courts—it rarely ever happens; it is not going to happen—equally, nobody wants to go back to a dreadful Act which found its way into a judicial judgment that found that we could not actually proceed in the way that the last Conservative Government wanted to, and he is striking exactly the right balance.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, with his experience and knowledge, for that. We are trying to replace something that was unworkable and judged by the courts to be illegal. It is not an easy process; we are trying to go forward in a way which adheres to the principle that everyone in this House would respect—the moral equivalence point—but how do we deal with the legacy issues that are there? We need the support, help and advice of people across this Chamber, in Northern Ireland and in the other place to ensure that we can do that.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, has warned in the last few days that the current draft of the proposed legislation treats terrorists better than veterans. We know that terrorists have the protection of weapons having been destroyed with no forensics. The documentation from terrorist organisations is not coming. Indeed, they are protected by a form of omertà among their members. So what changes will the Government make to the legislation to provide at least some level of additional protection to veterans beyond what is there at present?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point, but the protections we have in the Bill are an important starting point. Of course, we will talk to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, the veterans’ associations and everyone—indeed, those discussions are taking place. No doubt amendments will be tabled in the other place and here. We are seeking to build a consensus to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that commands as widespread support across the community as it can. We will certainly take on board the noble Lord’s comments.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, might I suggest that instead of a Northern Ireland Bill, it would better to introduce an amnesty in respect of all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think people want answers, and investigation into many of the things that have taken place. I do not think an amnesty is the right way forward to achieve that.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, members of my family have served in the Armed Forces for some 120 years. Is the Minister aware that in the 55 years since 1969, while some 300,000 members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland over 30 years, the British Army reported that there were very few prosecutions of military personnel for serious offences? A dozen or so were reported in 30 years, and only four soldiers were convicted. Some 30,000 to 40,000 paramilitaries were convicted in those 30 years.
Most recently, Soldier F was found not guilty of charges arising from Bloody Sunday, because the judge said that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof. But the judge did say that Soldier G, Soldier H, Soldier F and Soldier E were part of the initial group of soldiers who entered the square and were responsible for two deaths and four, possibly five woundings.
It is not the case that there has been a witch hunt, and I think the Minister will surely agree with me that our soldiers should be reassured that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, and that the people of Northern Ireland will all be subject to the rule of law.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Obviously, I agree with the points the noble Baroness has made.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, central to the legacy Bill is the impetus to protect victims and survivors. Therefore, does my noble friend Minister agree with me that there is a need for an adherence to a human rights-compliant approach in all aspects of the legislation impacting on various parts of society within these islands?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, the application of human rights legislation is important. The one thing I would say is that the ECHR cannot be applied retrospectively.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner was a creation of New Decade, New Approach, which brought the Government of Northern Ireland back together in 2020. Given that, will he listen to the very strong opinion of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner that veterans feel that they are treated as less than terrorists? Surely that is something the Government should be very concerned about.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course that is a concern, and of course what the veterans commissioner has said is important. We are trying to reassure. We are meeting veterans and various associations. We do not shy away from doing that, and we will continue to do so, to try to ensure that the Act that we bring forward is an Act with which they agree.
Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 6th January 2026
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 151-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (5 Jan 2026)
15:53 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
16:25 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 219 - Amendment 25 disagreed.
19:10 - Division on Amendment 68 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 68 agreed.
19:47 - Division on Amendment 74 - Ayes: 134 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 74 disagreed.
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 1 and 27 concern the interaction between the presumption of suspended sentences in Clause 1 and the application of credit for a guilty plea at the first opportunity.
In Committee, I raised what I consider to be a straightforward but important point of drafting and of principle: whether the presumption for a suspended sentence is intended to apply to the sentence before or after credit is given for a guilty plea. The purpose of that amendment was to probe how widely the Government intend this presumption to operate. The Minister’s response in Committee confirmed that the presumption would apply after guilty plea credit had been awarded. That confirmation is important, as it means that the presumption of suspended sentences is not confined to offences attracting sentences of up to 12 months, as has been repeatedly suggested, but in practice extends to offences carrying a sentence of up to 18 months, which is of course beyond the sentencing provisions of the magistrates’ court and takes us into to the realm of what is generally regarded as serious crime.
The Minister opposed this amendment on the basis that it would create inconsistency. He argued that the presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea reduced a sentence to 12 months or less but could still apply where other forms of mitigation achieved the same effect. That objection, I say respectfully, misunderstands both the purpose and the effect of this amendment. The distinction between credit for a guilty plea and other forms of mitigation is deliberate and long established. Credit for a guilty plea is not mitigation in the ordinary sense. It is a structured formulaic reduction applied for a specific policy purpose: to encourage early admissions of guilt and spare victims the ordeal of trial. Indeed, Parliament and the Sentencing Council have always treated it separately.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the starting point for the court, whether an offence ordinarily attracts custody or suspension, is determined by the seriousness of the offence and not by a subsequent procedural discount. Without this amendment, Clause 1 operates in a way that the Government have never openly acknowledged. An offender facing a sentence of up to 18 months’ imprisonment can, by entering an early guilty plea, reduce that sentence by one-third and thereby bring himself within the automatic presumption of suspension. That is not a marginal effect but a substantial expansion of the scope of Clause 1. That is what I described in Committee as opening Pandora’s box.
Once the presumption is allowed to apply after a guilty plea credit, it ceases to be confined to genuinely low-level offending. Offences such as robbery, serious assault or the possession of knives—offences that Parliament and the public would reasonably expect to attract immediate custody—are surreptitiously drawn into the presumption, even though they can carry sentences of 15 months or more. If that is the Government’s intention, it should be stated plainly, but if, as Ministers have repeatedly suggested, the presumption is aimed only at genuinely short sentences of up to 12 months, this amendment is necessary to give effect to that stated policy.
We also heard a wider concern in Committee that I think was left unacknowledged: by allowing guilty plea credit to determine eligibility for suspension, the Bill risks creating perverse incentives. Offenders may come to believe that pleading guilty is not merely a matter of sentence reduction but a route to avoiding custody altogether, and that risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.
This amendment does not undermine the policy of encouraging guilty pleas, nor does it widen the scope of custody. It is a technical clarification designed to ensure that Clause 1 operates as the Government have publicly described it and not in a far broader and unintended manner. If the Minister cannot give us these assurances, I will seek to divide the House.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, if nobody is going to speak before me on this amendment, I shall do so, but only very briefly. I hear everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has said, but it is my view and my suggestion that that misunderstands the nature of the discount that is given for a guilty plea. A discount for a guilty plea may not have originally been formalised, but it has always been treated, and should be treated, as mitigation of itself, properly so called, because it recognises guilt, and by recognising guilt, the defendant goes some way to establishing reform. It is the starting point for reform. It also, as the noble and learned Lord has recognised, avoids the trauma of a trial for victims and is a further indication of remorse. So I fully understand why a guilty plea, while it may be that without a guilty plea a sentence would have exceeded 12 months, should attract exactly the same discount as in the case of not guilty pleas.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I start by setting out my appreciation for the support that the Government have received for Clause 1. Throughout the Bill’s passage, noble Lords have highlighted evidence showing that those given a community order or a suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, creating fewer victims and safer communities, and we are following the lead of the previous Conservative Government, who originally introduced this measure during the last Parliament without the amendment we are debating today. I am a great believer in working across the political spectrum to get the best policies that reduce reoffending. I have dedicated myself to solving this problem and creating a sustainable justice system. I strongly believe that the clause as drafted, without any further amendments, is the best policy, and I must repeat that we are not abolishing short sentences.
I can assure noble Lords that I have considered the issue of early guilty pleas, raised by Amendments 1 and 27, with great care. I have met the noble and learned Lord to discuss his concerns and I value the attention given to this issue, but it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence where a defendant pleads guilty. This avoids the need for a trial, enables cases to be dealt with quickly and shortens the gap between charge and sentence. The Government do not wish to disincentivise early guilty pleas, in part because of the urgent need to reduce the backlog in cases coming to court. Early guilty pleas can save victims and witnesses from concern about having to give evidence, which is particularly important in traumatic cases. These amendments risk reducing the incentive to plead guilty, potentially causing further avoidable trauma for victims, and they would create a clear and significant anomaly in sentencing.
For reasons of simplicity and coherence, it is the final sentence length given by the judge that must be relevant for the purposes of the presumption. Under these amendments, the presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea had brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, yet it could still apply where any other mitigation, such as age or being a primary carer, had the same effect. The inconsistency is stark. Two offenders receiving the same final sentence could be treated entirely differently, based solely on the type of mitigation applied. This is neither coherent nor fair.
Finally, the sunset clause proposed in Amendment 103 would introduce unnecessary instability. It would undermine public confidence and complicate operational planning for courts, prisons, probation services and local authorities. The last thing we need at the moment is instability in the justice system.
I am a firm believer in dealing with problems head-on and solving them for the long term. We inherited difficult decisions that needed to be made, but someone had to make them, because we simply cannot run out of cells. We are building 14,000 new ones, but that takes time. I came into this job to rebuild our criminal justice system to lead to fewer victims, not more. Clause 1 is a crucial means of achieving that, and undermining it through further exclusions is not the right way forward. There will be a long shadow over those who vote for amendments to put even more pressure on the prison system.
I hope that I have explained why the Government’s position is the right one and I hope for cross-party support for a truly cross-party policy. After all, this was originally a Conservative measure, reintroduced in this Bill by Labour and supported by the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in Committee in the Commons. I therefore kindly urge noble Lords not to support these amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to the Minister for his observations. However, I have a number of points.
First, the apparent use of statistics comparing repeat offending by those who suffer a suspended sentence with those who are given a prison sentence is, potentially, very misleading. In general, repeat offenders will receive a sentence of imprisonment, whereas single offenders will often receive a suspended sentence. It is those who are inclined towards the repetition of criminal conduct who are imprisoned, and therefore the comparison made with these statistics is, potentially, highly misleading.
Secondly, I do not accept the reference to any other mitigation. The procedural mitigation—procedural discount, in reality—granted in respect of a guilty plea is not comparable. It was not in the past considered comparable with the other aspects of mitigation mentioned by the noble Lord.
The Government have repeatedly described this policy as targeting only genuinely short sentences. Sentences of more than 12 months are not genuinely short sentences; they are sentences that can be imposed only by the Crown Court. They are regarded as sentences applicable to serious criminal conduct; that is not the purpose of Clause 1 in its present form. The Government wrote in their own manifesto that the sentences criminals receive
“often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
Allowing serious offenders to evade custody will do little to rebuild public confidence in the justice system. If the Government truly intend to suspend sentences of up to 18 months as a matter of policy, they should have plainly said so. If they do not, they should accept this amendment. In these circumstances, with some regret, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(i) the offender has been convicted of a sexual offence, within the meaning of section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or (j) the offender has been convicted of an offence which constitutes domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, this amendment concerns an exemption to the presumption of suspended sentences for those convicted of sexual offences and domestic abuse. We listened carefully to the points raised by noble Lords in Committee. It was suggested then that our amendments were overly expansive, risked undermining the central objective of the Bill—to free up spaces in prison—and that we might constrain judicial discretion.
We have listened to, and taken into account, those concerns. The amendment before your Lordships today is far more tightly drawn. It does not seek to carve out a long list of offences, even though that might be our preferred position; nor does it attempt to undermine Clause 1’s central objective. Instead, it is narrowly focused on two categories of offending, where the case for custody, even for shorter sentences, is at its strongest: sexual offending and domestic abuse.
This amendment would preserve the presumption in favour of suspended sentences in the vast majority of cases, with exemptions only for sexual offences and domestic abuse. That seems proportionate and indeed, I would venture, necessary. Much of the debate in Committee rested on the assertion that short custodial sentences are ineffective or even counterproductive when judged solely by reoffending rates. Even if one accepts that the data paints a mixed picture, it is a mistake to treat sentencing policy as though it serves only one function. Prison is not simply about reoffending statistics; it serves other essential purposes: deterrence, public protection, the expression of society’s condemnation of serious wrongdoing, the maintenance of public confidence in the justice system and, crucially in cases such as these, the protection and reassurance of victims.
For victims of sexual assault or domestic abuse, the distinction between a custodial sentence and a suspended one is not an abstract policy question. It is the difference between knowing that their abuser has been removed from the community and knowing that they remain at liberty. This point is reinforced by the Government’s recent recognition of the scale of the problem. Violence against women and girls has been described as a national emergency, and a strategy announced to halve such violence within a decade, including the creation of specialist rape and sexual offence investigation teams in every police force by 2029. These measures, this Government note, will provide officers with the right training to understand the mindset of both abusers and victims, and ensure consistent investigation of sexual offences across the country.
Much has been made of the evidence on reoffending, but even the Government’s own publications urge caution on these. Official statistics emphasise that comparisons between custodial and non-custodial sentences do not control for differences in offender characteristics. Those receiving short custodial sentences, as I noted earlier, typically have far longer and more serious criminal histories than those given community or suspended sentences. The reality is not a simple dichotomy between bad short custodial sentences and good suspended sentences. Outcomes depend heavily on the risk posed by the offender and the need for immediate public protection. In cases of sexual offences and domestic abuse, those considerations weigh heavily in favour of custody. Nor should we overlook the deterrent effect of custody. While difficult to measure with precision, deterrence remains a central principle of sentencing. Removing custody from the toolkit for these offences was sending the wrong signal to offenders, and indeed to victims and the general public.
In Committee, it was also argued that carving out exceptions undermines judicial discretion. With respect, that argument sits uneasily with the structure of this Bill. The Bill already imposes a statutory presumption in favour of suspended sentences. This amendment simply ensures that, in the most serious and sensitive cases, Parliament does not compel courts to start from what I suggest is the wrong place. We believe this amendment is modest and targeted. It reflects a simple proposition that, for sexual offenders and domestic abusers, short custodial sentences continue to have a vital role to play. If the Minister cannot provide the appropriate assurances for this limited exception, then I will seek leave to divide the House.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, and I wish to echo two points. The first is that it is so important to victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse that they do not fear that their abuser, the perpetrator of those crimes, is somehow automatically going to be back in their community. The reassurance that they would get from knowing that the custodial sentence is available is important to those victims.
The second point is, as my noble and learned friend has raised, the issue of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls and the strategy for violence against women and girls that is being brought forward. May I gently suggest to the Minister that, if the Government are serious about that, then they should accept this amendment? If they do not accept it, then that suggests that they are not as serious about their intentions on violence against women and girls as they are claiming.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too will be brief because I have agreed with everything that has been said so far. It is important to acknowledge that a strategy and policy on violence against women and girls can only mean something if in practice it results in taking that issue seriously. I would expect everybody across the House to agree that this exception is proportionate and correct, but if this amendment is not accepted, then I am afraid it makes me query whether a policy on violence against women and girls is anything other than a piece of paper that does not mean very much and certainly it will be viewed by women and girls with some scepticism.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that sexual offences and domestic abuse are escalating issues. Somebody might do something considered to be quite minor as a sexual offence which therefore may not require the full weight of a custodial sentence, but we know that these particular offences get worse. Ask anybody who has been a victim of them and you will find out that the perpetrators, once found guilty, have built up to what they have done. So we have to have custody as a mechanism for dealing with even the less serious examples of sexual offences and domestic abuse.
I also remind the House that David Lammy, the Secretary of State for Justice, has talked about the importance of taking the issue of pursuing alleged perpetrators of rape and sexual assault so seriously that he is even prepared to sacrifice jury trials. I completely disagree, by the way, with the use of the issue of sexual assault to undermine jury trials—there are empty courts as we speak where people could be being tried, and I do not think this would resolve it—but it does indicate that the Government are prepared to say that they will make exceptions when it comes to such cases where women and girls are victims of heinous crimes. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment as being perfectly sensible. It will get cheers from around the country, because it is right that we take this particular form of crime very seriously and act on it rather than just using the words and the rhetoric.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches do not agree with this amendment. That is not because we do not take the issue of sexual offences extremely seriously—we do, just as we do the issues of domestic abuse and domestic violence. That is why we sought to make domestic abuse an aggravated factor in sentencing, and why we have argued for the fact of domestic abuse in an offence to be recorded even in the case of offences that, of themselves, do not imply domestic abuse, such as common assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm. We fully share and applaud the Government’s determination to halve the number of incidents of violence against women and girls over a decade, and we will do everything we can to help the Government achieve it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
While the Government understand the concern that underpins this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. It was not included by the last Conservative Government when they originally introduced this measure. Let me be clear: we are not abolishing short sentences. Public protection is our main priority, and we will make sure that the most dangerous offenders are put where they belong: behind bars.
In response to the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Fox, I recognise that prison sentences, even if short, can be critical to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse or VAWG. Courts will still have discretion to impose immediate custody in any case involving significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual—for example, to protect an at-risk domestic abuse victim. Courts will also have discretion to impose immediate custody in exceptional circumstances and where offenders breach court orders.
Through Committee stage amendments in the other place, we strengthened the wording in the Bill even further, so that there can be no doubt. Where offenders breach court orders, including VAWG-related protective orders, they can receive an immediate custodial sentence. For example, if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order—a civil breach rather than a criminal offence—and assaults their partner, the presumption would not apply and they could go straight to prison.
With thanks to the Liberal Democrats, and, importantly, the Member for Eastbourne in the other place, we are also introducing a new judicial finding of domestic abuse at sentencing, so these offenders are better identified and monitored throughout the system. This has been welcomed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and, in this place, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
The noble and learned Lord clearly cares deeply about the experience of victims. But if this amendment were to pass, it would undermine the fundamental problem that this legislation will fix—the issue the previous Government neglected for 14 years. I urge the noble Lord and noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment, and to support the Government’s position.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about fault for the issue of prison capacity, staffing and resources will bring little comfort to the victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse. His reference to offences that attract a sentence of 12 months or less omits the point that, of course, Clause 1 in its present form would apply to offences attracting a sentence of 18 months or less, albeit there is then a discount for a guilty plea because of a procedural provision.
I am obliged to my noble friend Lady May and to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for their contributions. The fact is that sexual offending and domestic abuse are uniquely serious and harmful—that has been recognised by the present Government. They are characterised by repetition, coercion and control, and they have a profound victim impact. In such cases, custody serves functions that a suspended sentence cannot: protection of victims, reassurance, deterrence and public confidence. For sexual offences and domestic abuse, immediate public protection should take precedence over other considerations, including questions of prison capacity. That includes abstract arguments on rehabilitation and what is non-conclusive data regarding reoffending rates as between suspended sentences and prison sentences.
This Government have pledged in their manifesto to halve violence against women and girls. They are hardly proposing to go in that direction with the present form of Clause 1. It is not enough that there should be exceptional circumstances; the very essence of a sexual offence and of domestic abuse is an exceptional circumstance. The public recognise that, and this Government should recognise that. I seek leave to divide the House.
“Purposes of imprisonment(1) Where a court is imposing sentence the court must have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.(2) The Secretary of State must have regard to the purposes of imprisonment when exercising the Secretary of State’s duties under this Act. (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) the purposes of imprisonment are—(a) the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to re-offend in the community,(b) the rehabilitation of prisoners under safe and decent conditions to reduce re-offending,(c) the deterrence of prisoners and others from committing further offences, and(d) the just punishment of prisoners, including provision to achieve justice for the victims of crime.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would define the purposes of imprisonment in law and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am bringing back this amendment on Report as I do not think it was adequately addressed in Committee. Amendment 52, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would define in law the purposes of imprisonment and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.
We know that depriving someone of their liberty is an action taken by courts with caution and care. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s strategic objective is to carry out sentences given by the courts, in custody and in the community, and to rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment. However, there is no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Indeed, if we had this legislative definition, it would actually have brought into focus issues we have been talking about in debates so far. In Committee, the Government disagreed that a definition in statute was needed. The noble Lord, Lord Lemos, stated:
“The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1399.]
I respectfully disagree that the purposes of imprisonment are set out in law in this way.
At present, the public expresses little confidence in the courts and prisons, in part as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment. A clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve both prisoners and victims well and provide clarity at all levels of decision-making for those involved with and within the criminal justice system. This amendment holds together clarity around the reduction of offending and justice for victims. With this in mind, I beg to move.
Briefly moving to other amendments in this group, I have added my name in support of Amendments 71, 72 and 73, which I know will be well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Suffice it to say, I am in full support of the proposal to set up an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. I am also in full support of Amendment 98 in this group.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support Amendment 52, and I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.
Although Section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020 sets out the purposes of sentencing—namely, punishment, reduction of crime, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation—it does not provide guidance to judges on whether imprisonment is the appropriate sentence, nor on what should occur once an offender is in prison. This lack of guidance on the purpose of imprisonment is all the more damaging in the light of the greater push for longer and longer sentences of imprisonment which we have seen over the last 30 years.
In rejecting this amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
“The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and … in Sentencing Council guidelines”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1399.]
With respect, Section 57 of the 2020 Act does not mention imprisonment at all. By contrast, the amendment we are debating is focused entirely on the purpose of imprisonment, so as to give the sentencing judge guidance on whether that is the appropriate sentence among the different sentencing options available.
In addition, and importantly, this amendment would indicate what should occur once the offender is in prison so as to fulfil the statutory purpose of imprisonment. There is currently a major gap in our legislation addressing that critical issue. This helps to explain the shameful statistic that 80% of offending is reoffending. The amendment would chime with the rest of this excellent Bill in helping to reduce that reoffending rate as regards those released from prison, since they would have benefited from clear statutory purposes behind their sentence of imprisonment, and in turn would have benefited from a corresponding obligation on the Secretary of State to deliver treatment regimes in prison consistent with these new statutory purposes of imprisonment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 64 and 66, and I thank my noble friend Lord Hailsham for his Amendments 65 and 67. Although my amendments would apply only to new sentences, because that is the scope of the Bill, I am content with my noble friend’s amendments because, disappointingly, as we heard in Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to education and training is severely limited. Indeed, as we were told, the Justice Committee’s 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisons are not now engaged in education or employment programmes. It is therefore fair to provide that a breach of the condition I proposed bites only if the relevant purposeful activity is available.
We have a tragic situation. At the end of 2024, there were 87,919 people in prison, and the numbers receiving education were closer to 50,000 on most metrics. Something must be done so that we make use of the time that a prison spell provides to give more offenders the skills they need to return to employment and to avoid the temptation to return to crime, and probably to prison. The Prison Reform Trust—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who I know has a role there —agrees. I have been struck by the support for action to deal with the concerns I have raised—and among people who might not normally warm to me.
To cap it all, the chair of the independent monitoring boards took time, amid the Christmas break, to write to the Minister to raise concern about cuts in real terms in prison education budgets. It is particularly worrying that courses, especially vocational courses, have been or will be curtailed dramatically across all categories of prison. These are the courses that provide a route to steady employment after release. The IMBs say that cuts affect prisons in all regions and across all functions and performance levels. This is despite prison rules dictating that prisoners, other than those on remand, are required to work or take part in training or education if physically and mentally able to do so. That is what most voters want to see, though I wonder whether the caveat carve-out is not too broad and allows too many prisoners to bury their heads and avoid purposeful activity.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, some years ago I visited a local prison twice in about three years. The first time, I heard that local businesspeople had put together a workshop so that prisoners could learn how to make furniture and do a lot of other similar jobs. I went back three years later. It was closed. I asked why and was told that they were too busy taking prisoners to and from the courts.
The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate would be a push towards the requirement that prisoners do not spend 23 hours a day banged up in their cells or doing something which is of not the slightest use. We have a Minister who really cares about this, so I am interested in whether he sees that this sort of thing should require every prison to do something effective—which clearly they are not—and if not, why not?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support what my noble friend has said, and, indeed, to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester’s amendment. I come, as it were, from a prison background, in the sense that I was Prisons Minister, God help me, 40 years ago. Also, until relatively recently—by which I mean 10 years ago—I was on the monitoring board of one of our local prisons. I agree entirely with my noble friend, and indeed with the right reverend Prelate, about the importance of out-of-cell purposeful activity. I agree too with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that far too often the prison workshops are not functional. That is a very great misfortune.
There are just two points I will make—a proviso and a question. The proviso, in a sense, is self-evident: if a condition is going to be imposed, it can operate only if the purposeful activity is actually provided within the Prison Service. Although that may be implicit in my noble friend’s amendment, it is not explicit. If the Government, in due time, come forward with an appropriate amendment, I hope that the provision is made explicit.
There is a different question, which I would like guidance on, perhaps from the Minister. I suppose it really reveals my own ignorance. If there is a condition that a prisoner is compliant with the requirement for purposeful activity, what is the consequence of non-compliance? My noble friend has addressed that, at least in theory, by her proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 66, because she contemplates, very sensibly, a report which might lead to the provision denying a prisoner early release for non-compliance, but if there is no consequential legislation to that effect, are there any existing statutory or other binding provisions which would penalise a prisoner who is deliberately not complying with purposeful activity that is made available? There should be, but if there is not any such requirement which can be enforced then my noble friend’s aspirations may prove to be ineffective.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s second point illustrates his first point: if there is no purposeful activity available, how can one enforce the denial of an early release by virtue of a person’s failure to comply with a purposeful activity?
I want, briefly, to go back to the late and much lamented Lord Ramsbotham. In his book about prisons, which I know the Minister will have read many times, he said that the three things that will reduce repeat offending are that a prisoner, on release, should have a place to live, should be able to return to a loving relationship and should have a job. I took that very much on board when I wrote a paper nearly 20 years ago entitled Prisons with a Purpose. I wrote it when I was the shadow Prisons Minister, in the days when my noble friend Lord Cameron was the leader of the Opposition.
I visited about 75 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units during that time. One of the things that struck me was that there were some wonderful examples of purposeful activity going on in a number of prisons but, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has pointed out, it very much depended on the leadership of the prison. If you had an inadequate governor, you had an inadequate regime within the prison, particularly within the education and training sections of that prison.
I have made a few visits to a number of detention centres and I remember being taken with great pride by the governor on duty to a workshop in a great big shed in a West Midlands category C prison. I will not name it, because things may well have changed by now. In the workshop were adult men aged between 21 and goodness knows what, and they were making hairnets. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a market somewhere for hairnets. But I equally had no doubt then, and have no doubt now, that the prisoners in those workshops, having been released, would never go to work in a hairnet factory. So, it was just time filling.
I went to another prison in Wales, where I saw male adult prisoners sorting blue plastic bits from green plastic bits and putting the blue ones in one tray and the green ones in the other tray. They were apparently parts of some electrical connection system. Again, these are the sorts of activities that would achieve nothing in so far as Lord Ramsbotham’s provisos were to be complied with.
I went to an open prison in the south of England where, far from the prison, prisoners and prison officers taking advantage of the farmland and market garden within their premises, now long closed of course, I found men playing cards behind the wheelbarrow sheds—and who else was in the card game but a couple of prison officers? Again, this is just time filling.
The problem is further exacerbated by prisoner churn. If you are sentenced in, say, Canterbury Crown Court and are sent to Canterbury prison that evening, within a few days or weeks you will be transferred to Maidstone prison to allow others to come in. Maidstone prison will be receiving prisoners from Maidstone Crown Court. The Canterbury prisoners who have been moved to Maidstone will be required to move to Lewes, then from Lewes to Southampton, and from Southampton to Winchester. So there is, metaphorically speaking, a jumbo jet of prisoners moving around the prison estate. How can they do any sensible activity? How can they go on any sensible course if, having barely started it, they are then moved to another prison?
I am happy to advertise on behalf of Timpson. I have seen a number of its workshops in operation in prisons up and down this country, and I have been served in shops by graduates of the Timpson in-house system in prisons. There, people are learning a real job that can translate from inside prison to the high street. They can go out and earn a living, pay their rent and taxes, and look after their dependants. That is the sort of work we need to see done, and more of it, in prisons.
That is why I wholly applaud Amendments 65 and 67, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham: they hit the nail on the head. If we do not have real, genuinely purposeful, activity in prisons, the whole thing is a sham, and you will get repeat offenders coming in and out like a revolving door, and the prison population will simply grow and grow.
So, whether we vote on this or not, it is absolutely essential that the Government get a grip on the way in which training and education are dealt with in our prisons. I know of course that the Minister knows this personally—he has known this for 30 years—but lots of people in government do not, and lots of people at the Treasury do not, either. They do not seem to realise that by reinforcing failure—junk in, junk out—all you are doing is wasting the public’s taxes and not producing one ounce of public safety.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I had better stand up quickly, while I could still take the pleasure of agreeing with everything that has been said so far on this group—if the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me.
I have Amendment 98 in this group, which concerns remand, but I support every sentiment that I have heard so far about the other amendments. In particular, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate, because it is important that sentencers, like legislators and the public, are constantly reminded of the seriousness of incarceration and its justifications and purposes. They are: public protection, rehabilitation, deterrence and justice for victims—not political virtue signalling, which has too often been the purpose over the last 30 years, during an arms race involving people from all sides of our political discourse. In no small part, this has led to the current crisis in our criminal justice system, let alone in the prison system. So I certainly support that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was so quick to assume that I was going to say something with which she would disagree. I hope, in fact, to disappoint her: she might be able to agree with what I am about to say. I added my name to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 52. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with every detail of her amendment; the reason I added my name, now and in Committee, is that I strongly believe that we need greater clarity about the purpose of prison.
Other noble Lords have given some very good arguments and reasons as to why the right reverend Prelate’s amendment deserves support. I am not going to repeat those. I am just going to make one comment of my own—and I will try to be very brief—which is that there has been a very big change over the past 50 years. There was a notion—it was certainly current when I was young—that the purpose of prison was based on a classical notion of justice; that is, that the perpetrator had incurred a debt to society, a debt which was to be discharged by a fixed period of imprisonment, after which that perpetrator was free to go. Nowadays, we do not hear about that form of justice. The rhetoric and the argument we hear—it appears across all parties; it is not an accusation against this Government or this Minister—are that the purpose of prison is the protection of the public.
Now, that is a hopeless case. It is hopeless, first, because its logic ends with every prisoner being subject to an indefinite sentence. We are back to the thinking about IPP prisoners, to whom we are going to come later this evening. If the protection of the public is what you are aiming at, that is the logic of where you are going. Secondly, it says nothing about the prisoner; it is entirely outward looking towards the public. It leaves the prisoner there in prison, but to what purpose as far as their activity, their purpose while they are there, is concerned? That is why some of the suggestions made in the amendment, and the suggestions made by other noble Lords in this debate about activities for prisoners and facilities, are so important.
Thirdly, it has been one of the contributing factors to longer and longer sentences, because if you are constantly under pressure to think about protecting the public, and you have a huge 25 year-old man in front of you who has done something very violent and you are going to have to think about protecting the public when you send him down, you are going to have to think about quite a long sentence. I think that adds to the longer sentences which are at the root of the problem that we are facing and which this Bill is to some extent intended to address. We will not complete this task in the course of this debate, obviously, but at some stage we need to have serious thought about trying to get back to some notion of justice and querying this idea that the purpose of prison, and the purpose of the criminal justice system, is the protection of the public, because of the dangers I think that involves. It has crept into our thinking without a proper debate as to its consequences, and I think it deserves some challenge.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has probably been in your Lordships’ House long enough to understand how rare it is that we are getting a degree of unanimity around the House on the amendments that we have debated so far. I am the first to admit that I am not particularly socially savvy when it comes to how people run the country, because I do not get the idea that we put people in prison for their own protection, when prison is a really dangerous place for vulnerable people to be. Also, as I have told the Minister before, I am extremely anxious about people being put in prison on remand for many months, because people on remand face the poorest access to healthcare and the highest rates of self-harm and are routinely held in the most overcrowded and unstable parts of the prison estate. Courts have no control over which prison they go to and for how long.
It seems that we are here trying to correct an injustice: that vulnerable women and children are put into a prison where they are clearly not safe is horrendous. I know that there is an inquiry about this, but the Minister is seeing and hearing from people who know where the problems lie, so I urge him to take this back to the Ministry of Justice—I am sure he will. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment, through the Mental Health Act, that remanding people for their own protection on mental health grounds is wrong, but this power has to be removed completely. It really does not fit with a decent society, and I would be very happy to vote for quite a few of these amendments if they went forward.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, now for something completely different. I am not absolutely sure why my Amendment 100A is in this group, so I apologise for coming in at this stage when we are talking about such important matters. The debate is really around those matters, but it is important that this amendment is at some stage debated—it has been put in at this point, so I apologise for that. I thank the Law Society for supporting my amendment and for the help that it has given. I also thank Zoe Bantleman for her assistance.
The Government’s asylum statement Restoring Order and Control: A Statement on the Government’s Asylum and Returns Policy makes it clear that reforms within the Sentencing Bill will “make foreign national offenders”, which is what my amendment is about,
“eligible for immediate deportation from the first day of their prison sentence”.
In the interests of access to justice, this amendment probes what access to legal advice and representation will be available to foreign national offenders, who may now face immediate deportation.
Clause 32 removes the requirement that a foreign criminal must serve a minimum pre-removal custodial period before they can be deported from the UK. In practice, this means that the Government will be able to deport a foreign national offender upon sentencing.
The House will know that there was an early returns scheme which allowed foreign criminals to be removed from prison before the end of their custodial sentence for purposes of immediate deportation, yet previously, deportation was not immediate. The minimum custodial period was the longer of 50% of their requisite custodial period or 18 months before their earliest release point. Last year, secondary legislation reduced this pre-removal custodial period from 50% to 30%. The Bill will now reduce the pre-removal custodial period to zero per cent, meaning that a foreign national offender will not need to serve any of their sentence here, or only a very minimal portion, before deportation.
Despite the consequent tight timeframes, no provision is made for access to legal advice and representation. It is known that there are significantly more barriers for foreign nationals in prison to access legal advice and representation. The prison environment relies upon restriction and isolation from the outside world, hindering an individual’s ability to access justice. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons highlighted this in 2022, when reviewing the experience of immigration detainees in prisons. He said:
“An inability to access and contact legal representatives … created a risk that detainees were unable to fairly challenge the Home Office’s decision to remove them”.
This amendment therefore probes what access to legal aid advice and representation will be available to foreign national offenders, who may now face
“immediate deportation from the first day of their prison sentence”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who has just explained why his amendment should perhaps not be in this group, but I am not going to talk about what he has just said. I want to go back to the purpose of this group, which is to discuss the purpose of prison, and to make a couple of quick points.
One of the problems I have with the whole of this Bill is that sentencing issues were originally motivated and framed as necessary by the Ministry of Justice because of an overcrowding crisis. We were told that we had to reduce sentences or let people out early from sentences because there were too many prisoners in prison and there were not enough prisons, and that it was all the previous Government’s fault and all of that argument.
In a way, that has felt far too pragmatic to me when discussing the very serious issue of who you put in prison and why, and what the purpose of prison is. This small group of amendments indicates that there is an appetite for that kind of discussion. It is one of the reasons I was particularly pleased to see the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Earlier, in group 2, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, set aside what we were discussing and said, “By the way, we on these Benches think that too many people are sent to prison for too long, that prison is generally terrible and that it leads to bad results”. That is a caricature, but I am making the point that it is a debate one can have. But this Sentencing Bill was set up as being about how we can reduce the number of people in prison because there are too many prisoners. That has allowed something of a muddle in some of the discussions that have gone on, and that is why I have reservations about it.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on purposeful activity are important because it matters what prison is for—it should be considered all the time. We should remove from ourselves this notion that prison is always a horrendous situation. On the one hand, it is not meant to be a holiday camp, but it is not meant to be something so horrendous that we say that we cannot send anyone there—which is effectively what we have done. We have basically said that prison is awful, drowning in criminal activity, with gangs of all ethnicities ganging up against each other, ideological coercion going on—we hear about that all the time in relation to Islamism—and people self-harming. It is so grim. If you read the chief inspector’s reports, you would think that we should never send anyone to prison. That is a disaster. We need a justice system where we can be confident that we can send people to prison and that while they are there purposeful activity will be important.
It is a mistake to imagine that purposeful activity—education, training and so on—is not happening because of overcrowding. For as long as I have been interested in this issue, purposeful activity has not been consistently happening in prisons where there is no overcrowding or other such issues. To say that is a cop-out. I was pleased to see these amendments because they say that this has to be done as it is part of a prison’s job. I would like to see that hardening up, with no excuses given.
I want to slightly challenge the idea of what counts as purposeful activity. It is not only about practical skills, with accredited training, where you can then go off and work in a practical job. Purposeful activity can be, believe it or not, activity of the mind. I have done work on debating competitions in prisons. The point is that it gives people things to think about other than fighting each other or their awful conditions—it can be quite instrumental in that. Being locked in the cells and bored is a recipe for disaster.
One of my favourite initiatives is where prisoners take pups and train them as therapy dogs. It is an expensive activity and it happens only in a limited number of prisons. Often, it is long-term prisoners who may never get out who are doing it. They are doing something useful and practical, and they become completely transformed by the fact that they have a purpose in prison. They spend all their time thinking about how they can rear the dogs, train them and get them ready, as well as writing to the people the dogs get sent to afterwards to see how they are getting on, and so on. Some of them are in for life, but who cares? To me, that is a humane and useful purposeful activity, and one that does not necessarily mean that they will go and work—no disrespect—in Timpson. There is more to life—that is the point I am making. I want people to be trained to get jobs, but I do not think that purposeful activity should be narrowly confined to only that.
To conclude, we need a proper debate in this country about the purpose of prisons. We should not allow the state of prisons to mean that we do not send anyone to prison—that would be disastrous for justice and for public protection. The state should get over its incompetence and sort things out. Further, this Sentencing Bill has relied far too much on the problem of too many people in prison to be seriously trusted when it comes to making decisions about what sentences people should get based on justice, rather than based on pragmatism. That is a mistake.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71 to 73, in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who unfortunately is unable to be here today. I thank them both for their support.
The House will have seen that the amendments call for the establishment of an independent panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. I will not repeat in detail the arguments that I made in Committee, but I will summarise them. The establishment of such a panel was a firm recommendation of the Gauke review and it is a recommendation that we support. The point made by the review is that it would be of great value to government to have an independent body assembling evidence on what works in punishment and advising government on sentencing policy.
That is, of course, a totally different function from that of the Sentencing Council, which advises sentencers on what sentences they should consider imposing within the context of the law as it stands. Not only would such a panel assist government but it would assist the public in understanding sentencing policy—what works and what does not; what the thinking is behind developments in prison policy, probation and community sentences more widely; and, of course, on the resource implications of policy. The public are entitled to understand how public money is spent and what public expenditure achieves, as well as where that expenditure fails in its objectives. We have suffered for a very long time from popular misunderstanding among press and public of the evidence in these fields, and an independent panel such as the Gauke review recommended would do much to let in light on this difficult area.
Texas, not often regarded as the most liberal of states in the union in many ways, as the Minister has reminded us, has succeeded in closing prisons and reducing crime by minimising reliance on imprisonment and introducing an earned progression model. I suggest that informing the public and advising government, and so ensuring that policy follows the evidence, are important functions of policy generally, nowhere more so than in the field of criminal justice. If Texas can move in that direction, so can we.
I will just say a few words on the other amendments in the group. I fully support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on the importance of defining and being very clear about the purposes of imprisonment. Our system accepts the concept of imprisonment without, frankly, our being entirely clear on what the purposes of imprisonment are. In that, I agree with one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I also agree with her that her portrayal of my arguments earlier this afternoon was a caricature and inaccurate. But I do agree with her that we need to be very clear about what the purposes of prison are. In that context, it is right that we have been reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, of the work of the late Lord Ramsbotham on the purposes of imprisonment.
I agree with every word the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said on the importance of education, skills, employment and vocational training. Although I saw some difficulties with her amendments in Committee, she has softened them, as she said, and they are now worthy of complete support—subject, though, I suggest, to Amendments 65 and 67 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which have been accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, emphasised the importance of making time in prison meaningful and productive. Of course, prison is intended, and functions, as punishment, but it needs also to be thoroughly and carefully directed at turning offenders’ lives around and so reducing reoffending.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, spoke of prisons with a purpose. That is the object that should inform our entire approach to all elements of our penal system. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have both highlighted important injustices—the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on remand and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on legal assistance for foreign offenders before deportation. I close by expressing the hope that the Government will respond to both their very specific but completely justified points with a legitimate response.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the positive contributions of all noble Lords to this debate. From these Benches we are supportive of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which focus on purposeful activity in custodial sentences and on ensuring that offenders have access to suitable education and training.
On defining the purpose of imprisonment, as proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, we welcome the recognition of rehabilitation as one of many purposes. At the same time, we note that the Bill addresses the objectives of sentencing and imprisonment far more generally and question whether it is necessary to place a statutory definition in the Bill.
We remain opposed to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to remove the court’s power to remand a person in custody for their own protection or, in the case of children or young people, for their welfare. As I observed in Committee, this power is tightly circumscribed and used only in rare but very real circumstances where it may be the only safe option available to the court. Removing that safeguard would potentially leave vulnerable individuals, including children, without protection at a time when they most need it. I take issue with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this very limited power involves some element of injustice.
I do not agree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, albeit I recognise that he may have been somewhat surprised to find himself in this group with an issue regarding legal aid. Again, I acknowledge the important contributions from all noble Lords on this issue.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. They speak to the fundamental questions about the purpose of the criminal justice system, and I recognise that a sincere desire to improve it underpins them.
Amendments 71 to 73 raise important points about transparency and evidence-based policy-making. The Government fully appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments. An independent body could offer valuable insight and security, and it is a concept that requires careful consideration. The Independent Sentencing Review recommended establishing an independent advisory board in the longer term. It noted that it could help ensure a “strategic, evidence-based approach” to the use of custody and provide transparency for the Government and the public. We are therefore considering this recommendation carefully. As I hope your Lordships will understand, creating such a panel requires detailed thought to ensure that it fits coherently within the wider criminal justice system, and I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are carefully considering this recommendation in detail.
In the meantime, we will continue to publish comprehensive data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences on a quarterly basis. Ultimately, our shared goal is a fair, sustainable justice system that protects the public and reduces reoffending. The Bill is a key step towards that, and I hope this reassures noble Lords.
I appreciate the sentiment of Amendment 52 proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as well as the thoughtful contribution from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is necessary. This is because the five existing purposes of sentencing must already be considered by the court when imposing all sentencing disposals, including imprisonment. We are not aware of any gap in law or practice that would justify introducing a separate purpose of imprisonment into statute.
I also share the ambition to ensure that time in custody is used productively to support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending, expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Fox, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whom I thank for his service with the independent monitoring board. I have dedicated many years of my working life to this, setting up work- shops in prisons so that offenders leave custody ready for employment.
However, making participation mandatory for every custodial sentence would be impractical and, in some cases, counterproductive. Prison populations vary widely, and rehabilitation works best when voluntary and tailored to individual needs. Many prisoners face educational trauma, neurodivergence and mental health challenges or are nearing retirement age. Some prisoners have many or even all of these issues. A blanket statutory requirement would risk undermining genuine engagement.
That said, we are not standing still. Last year, over 50,000 prisoners took part in education, marking a 10% rise year on year. We are expanding digital tools such as Launchpad to increase prisoner access to educational content, and I look forward to showing the noble Baroness some of the work in progress on a joint visit.
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as to the importance of employment for rehabilitation. That is why we are increasing work opportunities through prison industries and opening workshops with employers such as Halfords, Greene King and Marston’s. Our new Working Week pilot in five prisons will further boost purposeful activity and strengthen links with businesses to improve employment prospects on release. We publish prison performance data that includes attendance and progress in English and maths and the percentage of prisoners in purposeful activity in each prison in the prison performance framework.
This takes me on to the need for legal aid to lodge deportation appeals, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment. I recognise and pay tribute to his long-standing experience, expertise and contributions in the area of legal aid, both as a Minister and as chair of the commission to review legal aid and access to justice which bore his name. I reassure my noble friend that legal aid is already available to appeal a sentence and in the other circumstances set out in the amendment. I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary.
I recognise that this legislation makes changes to the early removal scheme. We are working closely with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Home Office to make sure that the new arrangements take account of the need for some prisoners to have access to legal aid. We will of course also continue to keep under review the overall effectiveness of operational processes regarding access to legal aid in prison.
I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 98 and for writing to me setting out her considered effort on this. Repealing this would remove an important safeguard that, although used very infrequently, remains an option for the courts as a last resort and out of concern for the defendant; for example, if an individual could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected. I know that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would like more transparency on the use of this measure. The Ministry of Justice currently publishes court remand data within the criminal justice statistics. However, source information on reasons for remand is not currently available. We are continuing to monitor and assess the quality of the data captured on the reasons for remand. This will enable us to publish more detailed data in the future, which I think will be helpful.
The Mental Health Act, which has now received Royal Assent, ends the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. This is good news. This reform ensures that remand for own protection is used only as the last resort for a short period and where no reasonable alternatives have been found. It has been found by the High Court to be compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am grateful for my noble friend’s challenge on this. I want to go further and am in the process of organising a cross-government round table to discuss how we can reduce the number of people who are remanded for their own protection. I would be delighted if my noble friend would support me in these endeavours. I thank noble Lords for raising these important points but respectfully ask that Amendment 52 be withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I have listened carefully, especially to the Minister, and I am disappointed that he has not accepted my Amendment 52. The purposes of sentencing do not go far enough and bringing clarity to what prison is for would not only assist public understanding but provide clarity in decision-making and purpose for those working with and within the criminal justice system. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Timpson
“Whole life order: murder of police, prison or probation officer
Whole life order: murder of police, prison or probation officerIn paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code (mandatory life sentences: starting point of whole life order), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) the murder of an officer of a provider of probation services in the course of his or her duty, where the offence was committed on or after the day on which section (Whole life order: murder of police, prison or probation officer) of the Sentencing Act 2026 came into force,(cb) the murder of a person who was serving or had ceased to serve as a police officer, a prison officer or an officer of a provider of probation services where—(i) the offence was motivated wholly or partly by something done by the victim in the course of their duty as a police officer, a prison officer or an officer of a provider of probation services, and(ii) the offence was committed on or after the day on which section (Whole life order: murder of police, prison or probation officer) of the Sentencing Act 2026 came into force,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a whole life order was the normal starting point for a life sentence in the case of the murder of a probation officer acting in the course of their duty or the murder of a serving or former police, prison or probation officer motivated by something done by the officer in the course of their duty.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for raising this important issue. I also thank the shadow Justice Minister in the other place.
A whole life order is the most severe form of punishment that the courts can impose. The sentencing framework for murder already provides that a whole life order is normally the appropriate starting point for the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of their duty. I am pleased to confirm that, through Amendment 53, we are broadening the current whole life order starting point. This will mean that it applies where the motivation for the murder is connected to the current or former duties of a police officer, prison officer or probation officer. This could apply to revenge killings where the murder occurs for reasons connected to the duties of a current or former officer, but not while the officer is acting in the course of duty, such as the tragic murder of former prison custody officer Lenny Scott. I look forward to meeting Lenny’s family soon.
Amendment 53 also expands a whole life order starting point to include probation officers. A whole life order will become the normal starting point for the murder of a probation officer in the course of duty, or where it is motivated by their current or former duties. We recognise the unique and dangerous job that police, prison and probation officers do. They perform a distinctive role involving routine contact with dangerous offenders in difficult situations, and I am proud to call them colleagues. We want to ensure that the exceptional seriousness of murders motivated by their work are expressly recognised in the sentencing framework for murder.
I conclude by thanking both noble Lords and Members of Parliament for advocating for this change and the family of Lenny Scott for so admirably advocating for their son. I am pleased that we have been able to work together to bring about this change. Given the Government’s amendment, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord will be content not to press Amendment 62.
Turning to Amendment 89, I thank noble Lords for the points of concern about this clause that they raised during the Committee debate. These echo the concerns raised by many throughout the passage of the Bill. I have listened carefully and recognise the issues raised. I am satisfied that the current delivery of unpaid work, bolstered by the wider provisions in the Bill, means that unpaid work will continue to be tough and visible enough without the addition of this specific measure.
As unpaid work often involves physically demanding work out in the community, it is, by its very nature, a visible form of punishment. Moreover, the public are involved in nominating unpaid work projects, and local agencies are consulted on the suitability of projects. Beneficiaries, such as charities and local councils, often publicise the positive work that goes on in this space.
Wider measures in the Bill aim to increase the effectiveness of unpaid work by streamlining processes and incentivising offenders to comply with and engage in their placement. These come alongside a suite of changes that ensure robust management of offenders in the community more generally. These include making new community requirements available to the courts to punish offenders, such as banning them from certain activities, restricting their movements to ban them from attending bars, pubs, clubs, sports events and concerts, and increasing tagging upon release.
It is on this basis that I accept the noble Lord’s amendment to leave out Clause 35 from the Bill. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that noble Lords agree that this is the right course of action. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the removal of Clause 35 from the Bill. I completely appreciate the importance of unpaid work orders, and I completely appreciate that they can do a great deal of good. However, the idea that they would be the subject of what I called “naming and shaming” in Committee—whereby offenders carrying out such unpaid work would be photographed and their photographs would then be given publicity—seemed to us on these Benches to be potentially profoundly damaging to their rehabilitation and the important relationship of trust that needs to exist between probation officers and their clients. We think that for probation officers to carry out this photography and publication would be profoundly damaging. The Government have recognised the need to remove the clause, and I am very grateful that they have done so.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement on the issue of whole life orders, and I acknowledge that the Government have now stepped forward with their own amendment to address the previous inconsistencies in the statutory provisions. In light of that, I will not press Amendment 62, which is rendered unnecessary by virtue of the Government’s amendment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords from across the House both for their support for Amendment 53 and for raising their concerns around Clause 35. I confirm that the Government will accept Amendment 89.
Lord Lemos
“(2A) As soon as practicable after receiving a business plan submitted under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor must consider the plan and decide whether to approve it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to respond as soon as practicable to the Sentencing Council’s request for approval of the Council’s business plan for a financial year.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I begin by thanking noble Lords for their careful and detailed scrutiny of Clauses 18 and 19. I and my noble friend the Minister are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keen, Lord Thomas and Lord Burnett, for their further engagement in the meetings we have had since Committee.
In Committee, I promised your Lordships that the Government would reflect carefully on our current approach. Amendments 54 to 57, in the name of my noble friend the Minister, are the product of those considerations and reconsiderations. I must first note for the record that we shared the amendments in draft with the Lady Chief Justice and the Sentencing Council before tabling. I stress that, in keeping with convention, they were not invited to express a view on the merits of our proposed approach, nor did they do so.
The Government remain of the view that providing for approval of the Sentencing Council’s business plans and guidelines is the best way of maintaining public confidence in the council and its work. That said, we recognise that it would help to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when considering any requests from the council. Our amendments seek to add important safeguards to both processes and to increase their transparency. We are particularly grateful to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee for the recommendation concerning Clause 18, which has informed and inspired the Government’s approach through these amendments.
I first turn to the concerns raised about the consequences for the council if the Lord Chancellor were to reject a request to approve a proposed business plan. As I explained in Committee, Clause 18 provides the Lord Chancellor with the opportunity to review a business plan before it is finalised. This ensures that the council has appropriately considered priorities from the Government and Parliament in developing the business plan. This should help to give the council a greater understanding of the Lord Chancellor’s priorities and help minimise the risk of disagreement later on during guideline development. If the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, Amendment 55 requires them to notify the council and, as soon as practicable, lay a document before Parliament stating their reasons for that decision. Amendments 56 and 57 make similar provision in respect of sentencing guidelines.
Taken together, the Government’s amendments will ensure that any reasons for rejecting a business plan or guideline are publicly available and drawn to the attention of Parliament. This is an important commitment to accountability that will increase the transparency of both approval processes. Since this is a point that was raised in Committee, I confirm that nothing in this clause is intended to prevent the council from carrying out its statutory functions in the event that a business plan was to be questioned or rejected.
I will now address the concerns arising from Clause 19’s requirement that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must each individually approve definitive sentencing guidelines before the council can publish them. We want to make it clear in the Bill that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected.
Amendments 56 and 57 therefore provide that guidelines can be rejected only in instances necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Our intention is that a rejection will occur in only very rare cases, when it is truly necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system; it is absolutely not our intention for guidelines to be rejected arbitrarily. It is with that in mind that we have put these safeguards in place.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that this approach represents a significant constraint on any involvement in the guidelines and will help safeguard against guidelines being rejected without proper justification. By requiring approval from both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, it is the Government’s intention for there to be close collaboration between the two on any approval requests from the council. In drafting this measure, we have also had regard to their existing joint responsibilities for the council, including, for example, the appointment of its members. We are keen to ensure parity between them in respect of the approval of guidelines.
Finally, we are also keen to provide assurance that the council’s work will not be subject to unnecessary delays, which, again, was a concern raised in Committee. Through Amendments 54, 56 and 57, we therefore propose that any approval requests from the council are to be considered by the Lord Chancellor and, in the case of the guidelines, the Lady Chief Justice, as soon as practicable.
I stress that we remain very grateful to the council for its continued work in bringing greater consistency, transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process. We look forward, from the Government’s perspective, to working closely with the council in the months ahead. I beg to move.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships may recollect that, in Committee, I supported an amendment which would have removed Clause 18 from the Bill altogether. While also suggesting that Clause 19 would be best removed, I laid an amendment to the effect that a guideline could be prevented from being issued only if both the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed that that should happen.
I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Lemos and Lord Timpson, for the time and trouble they have taken in discussions, which have included me and my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also particularly relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, explained in the all-Peers letter that went round—forgive me, I do not remember the precise date before Christmas—which drew attention to the fact that both the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice had been engaged in these amendments, that that should not be taken in any way as suggesting that either are happy with them or supported them.
Indeed, on 25 November, the Lady Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and explained that the clauses that we are concerned with do not sit easily with the independence of the Sentencing Council. She explained that there were no conceivable circumstances in which the Lady Chief Justice or Lord Chief Justice would seek to exercise the veto. She also made the important point that the mood of the Sentencing Council is “pretty bleak” because of the uncertainty hanging over its head. That was particularly important, as she explained, because the Sentencing Council is due to be very busy revising sentencing guidelines, which will be necessary as a result of the contents of this Bill, particularly because of the reduction in the use of suspended sentences. It will also be busy if the proposals that the Government have foreshadowed—to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates—come to be enacted, because, again, guidelines will have to be changed to reflect that. None the less, as I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, agreed in Committee to consider these matters further and I am particularly grateful for the care with which he and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, have treated my concerns.
I regret that His Majesty’s Government were not able to accept the amendments that I laid in Committee, because these clauses remain unfortunate, to put it as mildly as I can. Clause 18, requiring a business plan to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, might be thought to serve no obvious purpose, save to empower the Lord Chancellor to exert some pressure on the Sentencing Council. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, just explained to the House, that pressure will have no statutory effect. That is because the Government have just now accepted that the Sentencing Council would still be obliged to carry out the positive statutory duties laid on it by statute, and to exercise the discretionary powers conferred on it by statute. But if the Lord Chancellor is to exert pressure—pressure which, in my respectful opinion, continues to be inconsistent with the independence of the Sentencing Council—he must at least do so as soon as practicable and explain himself, which are both positive steps.
Clause 19 as now proposed to be amended remains—this should not be sugar-coated—a potential executive veto. That veto too, if it is to come, must now come as soon as practicable, and the grounds on which it can be exercised have been identified. I recognise that that is an improvement, if perhaps only a slight one, on the original drafting.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, explained, there is perhaps a hope—and, indeed, an expectation—within the Government that these powers will never be used in a way which brings conflict between the Government and the Sentencing Council, and between the Government and the Lady Chief Justice. But it is important, when conferring powers, to contemplate how they might be used by others who perhaps are not so benign in their attitudes as the current Government and Lord Chancellor.
It seems that the Government have laid the foundations for what could be the destruction of the Sentencing Council through executive interference. Were such interference to occur, I fear that the Sentencing Council would cease to function for the simple reason that all its members—all fiercely independent—would leave.
I concluded that there would be no purpose in relaying my amendments. I am grateful to both Ministers for the tentative steps that have been taken to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and for that reason I support them.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has decided that he will make some submission.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Well, that apparent position represents the truth.
First, I agree with—and in a sense have only very little to add to—the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. Your Lordships will remember that I moved in Committee that both Clauses 18 and 19 should not stand part of the Bill.
That said, I join with the noble and learned Lord in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Timpson and Lord Lemos, for their engagement with us on some compromise position. I am not sure that this represents an entire compromise of their position, because I still feel that the Bill would be better off without these clauses. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, has explained that the intention is entirely benign. I share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, that other Governments may not take such a benign view, but express the hope that that will not eventuate.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I will make a very short intervention before my Front Bench replies. I believe we should remember that Farage, in more or less a chance remark, said he thought that the council should be abolished. So, the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, are very important, and I very much admire the detailed presentation he made to your Lordships’ House on these clauses.
I am grateful for what I would regard as the rescue mission on which the Government have gone to make the best of a bad job. Certainly, the hare that was run in March last year, to which the Government made their reply, was a very unfortunate hare. It was something to do with two-tier justice. It would have been better to let that hare run. Hares run in circuits: they come back to where they started and, very often, everything settles down. Instead of that, we have had to have some very careful work done to get us to where we are.
All over the House, we will be grateful that the Sentencing Council has in effect received a vote of confidence. We were looking for that and we are very grateful that it has happened. But we should not forget the rather troubled way in which the two parties that have the greatest experience of government and the implementation of policy got themselves into a tangle quite unnecessarily.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to the Ministers for their engagement on this issue. However, we should bear in mind that our statutory provisions are designed to address powers and not intentions. It is certainly questionable whether we should be enacting provisions which we consider will never be used. They are on the statute book and they are available for use.
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for outlining the issues here. The language he used was indicative of the reservations we all have with regard to this course of action: “unfortunate”, “inconsistent” and “a slight improvement”. It is not a ringing endorsement of anyone’s legislation.
The Government’s stance on the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary remains demonstrably unclear and uncertain. On the one hand, they repeat that sentencing is a matter for our independent judiciary—I quote the Ministers. We did not support the original Clauses 18 and 19 as drafted, but nor do we support these amendments, as they appear to simply illustrate the Government’s internal inconsistency with regard to the Sentencing Council. These amendments simply add more confusion to the puzzled stance the Government have towards the Sentencing Council.
On Report, the Government have now implemented amendments to reduce the degree to which their own Bill reduces the Sentencing Council’s independence. But do the Government retain any idea of how independent they would like the Sentencing Council to be?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. It is obviously a subject on which your Lordships have thought very carefully and deeply, so I appreciate those contributions and note them all with great significance.
However, I hope all noble Lords will agree that these proposed amendments at least reflect the seriousness with which we have taken concerns raised in Committee. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, acknowledged that. I also hope we have answered the important questions about how the provisions will operate in practice, which both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, again acknowledged.
We recognise that there is further detail to work through around how both these approval measures will work, and I am very grateful for the ongoing discussions between officials in the Ministry of Justice and in the Sentencing Council on these important considerations.
Lord Timpson
“(4) If the Lord Chancellor decides not to approve the business plan for a financial year, the Lord Chancellor must—(a) notify the Council, and(b) as soon as practicable after doing so, lay before Parliament a document stating the reason for the decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out what the Lord Chancellor must do in the event that the Lord Chancellor decides not to approve a business plan that the Sentencing Council has submitted for approval.
Lord Timpson
“(c) after subsection (8) insert— “(8A) The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor must consider any request for consent under subsection (7) or (8) as soon as practicable after receiving the request.(8B) The Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor may withhold consent under subsection (7) or (8) only if the Lord Chief Justice or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor considers that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.(8C) If the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor decides to withhold consent under subsection (7) or (8), the Lord Chief Justice or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after making the decision, lay before Parliament a document stating the reason for the decision.”;(d) in subsection (10), after “and (8)” insert “to (8C)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may withhold consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines only if it is necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and requires the reason for withholding consent to be laid before Parliament.
“(b) after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor must consider any request for consent under subsection (5) as soon as practicable after receiving the request.(5B) The Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor may withhold consent under subsection (5) only if the Lord Chief Justice or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor considers that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.(5C) If the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor decides to withhold consent under subsection (5), the Lord Chief Justice or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after making the decision, lay before Parliament a document stating the reason for the decision.”;(c) in subsection (7), for “(5)” substitute “(5C)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may withhold consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines only if it is necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and requires the reason for withholding consent to be laid before Parliament.
Lord Timpson
“Prison capacity report
Annual report relating to prison capacity(1) The Secretary of State must, for each year, prepare and lay before Parliament a report relating to prison capacity.(2) The report for a year—(a) must include information about—(i) the number of people in prison and the number of prison places on a particular date or dates in that year, and(ii) projected changes in the number of people in prison and the number of prison places, and (b) may include any other information that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The Secretary of State must publish the report after it has been laid before Parliament.(4) “Prison” does not include a naval, military or air force prison.(5) In the Prison Act 1952—(a) omit section 5 (annual report on prisons);(b) in section 43 (places for the detention of young offenders), in the table in subsection (4), in the second column for the entry for “secure training centres or secure colleges” omit “5,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on prison capacity and repeals section 5 of the Prison Act 1952 which is about annual reports on prisons.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, in my first month in this job, I told your Lordships’ House that this Government would introduce a new standard of transparency. We demonstrated this by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity last December. This amendment goes further by making it a statutory requirement to lay this statement before Parliament each year. When the requirement to publish an annual capacity statement comes into force, we will also repeal Section 5 of the Prison Act 1952. This is to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap in statute between the new duty and Section 5 of the 1952 Act.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for raising this issue in Committee and for his continuous engagement since to help keep transparency at the heart of our approach. The Government resisted the noble Lord’s amendment because we want to retain the necessary flexibility on timing for publication and content.
The 2024 annual statement included a section on probation capacity and the 2025 statement will do the same. We agree that probation capacity is an essential part of understanding pressures across the criminal justice system. The Government already publish detailed statistics about the prison and probation workforce on a quarterly basis. This contains detailed information about both prison and probation staffing. This was last published in November and I encourage noble Lords to review it carefully. I am happy to commit that we will continue to publish this information.
I agree that probation staffing and case loads are important metrics. We know that the risk profile in the probation case load is dynamic and can change over time, so these metrics do not by themselves provide the full picture. Retaining flexibility on how probation capacity is presented allows the statement to evolve and reflect changes in delivery and ensures that the information provided remains genuinely informative for Parliament. However, I am happy to commit that probation will form a part of the annual capacity statement in future. I can also commit to providing regular updates to noble Lords on our plan to rebuild the Probation Service. I thank the noble Lords who came to the presentations I gave yesterday.
I recognised the close interest of probation trade unions in Amendment 134 in Committee. Trade unions play a vital role in representing their members, and I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations. We also recognise His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder, and I meet up regularly with Martin Jones. But it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. The amendment would have risked shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny. It would have harmed, not helped, the justice system by preventing vital measures in the Bill being commenced. Many of these measures will alleviate the pressure on both prisons and probation, and it would be counterproductive to delay their introduction.
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Farmer, that evaluating policies is key to achieving objectives such as reducing reoffending. I hope noble Lords are reassured by the fact that reducing reoffending is so important to me that I had it added to my job title. This is why the Ministry of Justice publishes proven reoffending statistics on a quarterly basis. Our analysts are scoping how we can monitor and evaluate the Sentencing Bill measures across a range of outcomes, including reoffending rates. We keep the sentencing framework under ongoing review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. I can assure noble Lords that we will of course continue to do so in the future, taking account of the available evidence, including changes introduced by the Bill.
The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence order reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. However, there are many factors that go into whether someone reoffends. Creating artificial targets would not support hard-working front-line staff trying to improve the system. In fact, it would bring considerable uncertainty to those staff—that is not helpful either. Of course, we keep the sentencing framework under ongoing review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to do so in future, taking account of the available evidence, including changes introduced by the Bill. I look forward to updating the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Jackson, on the evidence we gather as it comes through.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their continued advocacy for a child cruelty register. I pay tribute to Helen Grant MP and Paula Hudgell for campaigning to protect children from the appalling abuse such as that inflicted on Paula’s adopted son, Tony. As I set out in Committee, we are already taking decisive action in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect our children from those who would commit abhorrent crimes against them. Further work is needed to identify the best way to close the gap that Paula has rightly identified, so we are not in a position to accept Amendment 92 at this time. This week, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls is meeting policing leads to get their insights about how a register with notification requirements would work in practice. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that Government Ministers will continue to pursue this issue vigorously. With those reassurances, I hope that at this stage the noble and learned Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
I now move on to Amendment 97. I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his contributions to the debate around justice in Wales and for taking the time to meet me and officials. Despite the challenging period we are facing across the prison estate in England and Wales, prisons in Wales have performed well in their inspections by His Majesty’s inspectorates. North Wales probation delivery unit stood out as the highest-performing PDU across England and Wales in its inspection in November 2025. All Welsh prisons have robust action plans in place to ensure continued improvement. There are clear strengths in leadership and governance in Wales. But the criminal justice system works in Wales because it is part of a wider system. The noble and learned Lord’s report on justice in Wales, published in 2019, spoke of the interface between devolved and reserved services in Wales. The partial devolution of criminal justice would create a new interface between these services and reserved matters such as sentencing, policing and the criminal law.
We should continue to the examine ways in which things can be done better. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, the Government have committed in their manifesto to undertake a review of probation governance. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government on commitments on justice in Wales. However, it is important that the recommendations of the sentencing review and the review of the criminal courts are implemented and that we bring stability into the Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales before undertaking any structural review. I therefore ask that the noble and learned Lord does not press his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, during our various deliberations throughout the passage of the Bill, I have on a number of occasions expressed great support for many of the measures within the proposed legislation but, at the same time, a concern that we may not have the means to deliver the ends—in particular, the concern that we would not have the right number of sufficiently and adequately trained staff within the Prison and Probation Service. I have suggested on previous occasions, therefore, that it would be appropriate that we look at, for example, not only the number of prisoners and prison places but at the same time the number of staff in the Prison and Probation Service. That is particularly important because, if many of the measures in this legislation go ahead, they will increase demands on both those services. For instance, there will be more tagging having to be taken up and, of course, more people—hopefully—engaging in a wider range of activities in our prisons and in non-custodial sentences to reduce reoffending.
The two amendments in my name, therefore, simply propose adding those two issues—staffing in the Probation Service and Prison Service—to the amendment that has now been proposed by the Minister. However, I am reasonably confident, in light of the comments that the Minister has made, not only about the assurance that there will be a continuation of the quarterly reports but that there will be a bringing together of the data from that and the annual report that we are going to get as a result of the amendment, that we have probably got to the point where we will have the relevant information in a very transparent way. I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had on this particular issue.
So I will not press my amendments to a vote, and I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he has. I just say to him that it is slightly difficult to understand why simply adding in the wording I propose has not been done, but I know that the Minister really wants to make this work. I believe he is going to achieve that—I hope he will—and so I shall not be pressing these amendments to a vote.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I have tabled Amendment 97A, which is again about probation capacity. I know that the Minister has done his best to convince us, and I completely understand that, with his business drive and determination, he is going to do the absolute best possible for this problem. But I remain unconvinced that the concerns raised by Peers in Committee and by probation staff themselves have been properly addressed.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is not going to push his amendments to a vote, and I certainly will not push this to a vote. However, in Committee, the Government charged that this amendment would risk duplicating existing reports and delaying reform, but I do not see that, because this amendment is not about producing more data for its own sake; it is about independent assurance at arm’s length from Ministers and operational management that the Probation Service has the capacity to safely absorb the additional demands that the Bill will place on it. Quarterly staffing statistics published by the Probation Service are not the same thing as a system- wide assessment that the Probation Service has that capacity.
In addition, the amendment balances investment plans. The Minister referred in Committee to the recruitment of trainee probation officers, to digital innovation and to welcome investment over the spending review period. We heard about those issues from the Minister himself at a briefing yesterday. All of that is positive, but none of it guarantees that the capacity is adequate at the point of commencement of the new statutory duties. The organisation Justice also says that the number of new probation officers set to be recruited would be inadequate. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tackle that problem of the inadequacy of numbers because, of course, recruitment takes time. Trainees take time to qualify. Technology takes time to embed and to get right. In the meantime, probation officers are working under extraordinary pressure, managing high-risk individuals and with case loads that are already too high.
The argument that this amendment would delay reforms misunderstands its purpose. If it delays reform, it is necessary, because it means that the reforms are not enough. Carrying on with huge changes regardless of capacity does not strengthen probation; it weakens it and increases risks to staff. Parliament is being asked to legislate for significant new demands on the Probation Service without this independent assurance by HMPPS that it has actually happened and that it is going to work and it is going to fit. I would have supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I will, of course, not move mine. I just hope that the Minister feels he has the backing of the House for everything he is trying to do. If we are raising concerns, it is only from a point of view of wanting to make it perfect.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for giving way. I rise to speak to Amendment 70, which my noble friend Lord Jackson, who cannot be here today, led on in Committee, and which I have signed. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on how the Act has affected reoffending rates. I appreciate the Minister’s encouraging introductory remarks.
The amendment would also create a feedback loop into the policy-making process by halting various provisions in the Act if certain metrics are not achieved. On the data, I am aware that reoffending statistics which differentiate between custodial and community or suspended sentences are routinely collected and published every quarter, as the Minister reminded us just now and in Committee. I am also aware of the evidence that those given a community or suspended sentence order reoffend less. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister for responding at very short notice to my request for data.
To rehearse the compelling arguments for the presumption of non-custodial sentences of less than a year, the one-year proven reoffending rate for adults starting a suspended sentence order with requirements in quarter 3 2023 was 25%. Of those released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or fewer, 62% reoffended within a year. Importantly, robust analysis that compares like offenders with like also shows that suspended and community sentences are more effective than short custodial sentences, with a difference of four percentage points. Even where offending has been prolific, they pack a greater punch in reducing reoffending and promoting rehabilitation. All this is to say that I, like many other noble Lords, really want this presumption to bear more of the above fruit, because a large body of research shows that even where short custodial sentences are the only recourse, they often fail to rehabilitate.
We are also aware that we cannot build our way out of our long-standing prison capacity crisis, and that requires keeping people out of prison where a non-custodial sentence is the most effective disposal, despite public demand for punishment to mean deprivation of liberty. Many simply, and understandably, want offenders to be removed from our streets, not least so that victims know where they are and are unlikely to see them at large—hence this amendment is in a group concerned with transparency of the criminal justice system.
We do need to finesse the wording. I agree that referring to
“the impact of this Act on re-offending”
presents a minefield for researchers as reoffending is affected by many factors. However, there needs to be a proper stocktake in the aftermath of introducing a presumption that will make a custodial sentence far less likely.
My main point is that I, and the public, will assume it is more likely than not that this presumption will de-risk crime for offenders. Knowing they will receive a community or suspended sentence order will surely be a less fearful outcome than imprisonment. We are all aware of how prolific shoplifting has become, now that police are not even attending. Hence and crucially, previous data might not be reliable in this new sentencing world. Therefore, the public need to know not only that this experiment will be evaluated and reported on, as the Minister has assured us it will be, but that it will be called off if necessary.
On this amendment, we also need to finesse whether these reforms are given only two years to bed in, and if the 10% reduction in reoffending pass or fail rate is appropriate. However, the fact that these details need ironing out should not preclude amending the Bill so that there is clarity for the public that steps will be taken to roll this presumption back if it proves ineffective or even harmful. I will not be pushing this to a vote.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It was indeed a pleasure to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, after all the work he has done in relation to prisons.
Noble Lords may wonder why this amendment about Wales is in in a group about transparency. I wondered too but I think there is an answer, to which I shall come. I had first thought it was just Wales an afterthought—“We’ll just put it in somewhere where it doesn’t really matter”—but there is a reason why it is there.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for the discussion I had with him in relation to the amendment I tabled in Committee, which was designed to achieve the devolution of just probation and related services. Then, when that amendment was debated, I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, who, in his usual extraordinarily courteous and perceptive manner, pointed out the fallacy of what I was suggesting; namely, that one was devolving part of an entire system of offender management. Probation and prisons have to run together. The Welsh Government had thought they should just take probation. The commission I chaired took the view that actually there were two integrated parts. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and am grateful for him having made transparent the objection to the Welsh Government’s proposal; namely, that you cannot devolve part.
Therefore, I put forward this amendment, which seeks to devolve the whole of probation and prison services. I did so on the basis that at least that gets over one objection of Her Majesty’s Government to the devolution of the justice system to Wales—or part of it. Normally, the objection is, “Well, we know how to do things in Whitehall, they don’t know how to do things in Cardiff, let’s leave it here”. However, it is now quite clear that there was now another very substantial objection. That is, if you devolve offender management, both probation and prisons, you are devolving just part of the criminal justice system, so you cannot do that either. So I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for making transparent that objection.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to which I have added my name. The case for devolving prisons and probation to Wales has already been eloquently made by him, so I will confine my remarks to three points.
First, prison policy in England and Wales continues to be developed largely through an English lens, with insufficient recognition of the realities in Wales. Many of the services on which effective sentencing depends—health, housing and substance misuse support—are devolved. This creates a fragmented system, which is most sharply felt at the point of release. Release from custody is precisely where reserved and devolved responsibilities collide. The number of people released into homelessness from Welsh prisons rose by 34% in 2024-25. Probation staff themselves warn that, without major reform and investment, the ambitions of the Bill cannot be delivered. Can the Minister say how His Majesty’s Government intend to manage this persistent jagged edge between reserved and devolved responsibilities?
Secondly, Wales has no women’s prison, which means that Welsh women are routinely sent to serve short sentences in England, most for under 12 months. At the same time, Wales has one of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe, while a significant proportion of those held in Welsh prisons are from England. Against that backdrop, plans to expand capacity at HMP Parc have been approved, despite serious concerns about safety. So, my additional question is: how do His Majesty’s Government justify expanding prison capacity in Wales without addressing the systematic issue of Welsh women being imprisoned far away from their families and support networks, or aligning responsibility for the devolved services on which it depends?
Thirdly, Welsh-speaking prisoners continue to report neglect of their language rights. Were prisons in Wales accountable to the Senedd, stronger Welsh-language duties would apply. Can the Minister explain how the current arrangements adequately protect the use of the Welsh language within prisons in Wales?
To close, with a Senedd election imminent, as already mentioned, clarity from His Majesty’s Government is essential. So, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the policy of His Majesty’s Government to oppose the full devolution of prisons and probation to Wales in principle, or whether they are willing to establish a structured process with the Welsh Government to consider how the devolution could be achieved?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 58, which introduces an annual report on prison capacity. This is an issue that we pressed in Committee and I am grateful to the Government for having listened and for bringing forward this amendment. The amendment places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of people in custody, the number of available prison places, and projected changes. That is a welcome and important step. If Parliament is being asked to legislate for significant changes to sentencing and release policy, it is only right that we are also given a regular and transparent account of the state of the prison estate that underpins those decisions.
Ideally, we would have liked this report to go further. There is a strong case for including more detailed information on the drivers between sentencing policy, probation capacity and reoffending. However, I recognise that the Government face a balancing act between the need for transparency and the administrative constraints on producing such reports, and I accept that the amendment strikes a reasonable and proportionate compromise.
On Amendment 92 and the issue of the child cruelty register, again I thank the Government for their ongoing communication on this important topic and their assurances that they would like to implement a policy in support of a child cruelty register. This is an issue for which my right honourable friend Helen Grant from the other place has campaigned tirelessly, and I pay tribute to her for the effort she has made in bringing this to the forefront of our legislative proposals. It has been requested that this amendment be reserved for a Home Office Bill rather than legislation from the Ministry of Justice, and in these circumstances, and having regard to that undertaking from the Government, I will withdraw the amendment in my name. However, I add that it will be tabled in subsequent legislation in this parliamentary Session to ensure that we do not delay in ensuring that that action is taken.
On Amendment 97 and the submissions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, I can say only that I hesitate to intrude to the west of Offa’s Dyke.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on Welsh justice will be part of our ongoing discussions on devolution. I look forward to further discussions on that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is sufficiently reassured about this Government’s commitment to transparency and accepts the reasons for our not accepting Amendments 59 to 61.
Baroness Sater
“Sentencing of offenders for crimes committed as childrenWhere a court is sentencing an offender for a crime committed before the age of 18 but at the time of the first court appearance the offender is older than 17 but younger than 21, the offender must be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines that apply in a youth court.”
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 63 stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. I am very grateful to both distinguished colleagues, who have years of experience in criminal justice, for supporting this amendment.
The amendment seeks to address an anomaly in the criminal justice system. As the law currently stands, the justice system treats a defendant according to their age on the date of their first appearance in court, rather than their age at the time of the offence. The result is that a child who commits an offence at, for example, 15, 16 or 17 years of age may be sentenced as an adult if proceedings are delayed until after their 18th birthday. Young people can lose access to the youth-specific disposals, such as referral orders, and to the comprehensive support of the youth offending teams, even though their offending behaviour occurred while they were children.
The youth justice system exists for a reason. Through my experience as a former youth magistrate for over 20 years and as a member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, I saw first-hand how the approach and disposals given in the youth court can turn lives around and make it more likely that these young people will go on to lead crime-free lives. The range of sentences available in the youth court provides a far greater emphasis on the child’s welfare, education and the prevention of reoffending. The court has specifically trained magistrates and judges, who are required to give priority to rehabilitation.
The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process—not to mention mistakes in the treatment of criminal record disclosures—can affect a young person well into their adulthood. This anomaly can also give rise to what can be described only as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes. For example, two young people may commit the exact same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances. One happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday. The other lives in an area where the backlogs are greater and their first appearance in court is delayed. The first is sentenced under the youth justice guidelines, with access to youth-specific disposals and rehabilitation support. The second, despite being no more culpable, is sentenced as an adult. That difference arises not from the seriousness of the offence nor from the maturity of the offender but simply from geography and the resulting administrative delay. That is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle that like cases should be treated alike.
My amendment seeks to correct that situation by providing that where an offence was committed before the age of 18 and the offender is under the age of 21 at the time of their first court appearance, their case must be heard and sentenced in the youth court where appropriate. I consider this not to be a radical proposal but a widely accepted principle that culpability and sentencing should be assessed by reference to the age and maturity at which the offending behaviour occurred, not by administrative delays which are often entirely outside the control of the defendant and no fault of their own.
This anomaly was recognised in the other place in 2021. When introducing a 10-minute rule Bill, the former Member for Aylesbury, Robert Butler, spoke powerfully about this unfairness. The Bill had cross-party support, as well as support from the then Children’s Commissioner, the Magistrates’ Association—of which I declare that I am a life member—and the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers.
Importantly, this amendment would not prevent courts taking the seriousness of an offence into account or require inappropriate placement in youth custodial sentences for older defendants. It would preserve judicial discretion while ensuring that sentencing decisions are taken through the correct lens—one that reflects that the offending behaviour occurred during childhood. The Sentencing Council already recognises that age at the time of offence remains relevant after the defendant turns 18. This amendment would give clear statutory effect to that principle, ensuring consistency in how it is applied.
I would be grateful if the Minister could consider this amendment, as it is about recognising that childhood offending should be addressed as such. Ultimately, this amendment is not just a matter of procedure but a question of fairness, proportionality and effective justice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. We sat together as youth magistrates for many years at the old Hammersmith youth court. She has fully set out what must be an anomaly. I have not heard any explanation in defence of the current situation. She gave the example of two offenders who have committed the same offence at the same time but, because of some geographical issue, were sentenced at different times on either side of their 18th birthday, with different outcomes. They would not have had access to referral orders or youth rehabilitation orders, which are, in our experience, better at rehabilitating young people.
There would also be the problem with the DBS checks. If somebody was subsequently to get or apply for a job, they would get different results in the DBS check depending on whether they were sentenced before or after their 18th birthday. This is an anomaly. I look forward to what my noble friend can say, because this is part of a wider look at how youth DBS records are kept. Nevertheless, this example is a true anomaly. I hope that the Government can be as sympathetic as possible to this amendment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, in the spirit of friendship, I acknowledge the charming but highly persuasive way in which my noble friend advanced her amendment, which I am only too pleased to support, and recognise the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is also my friend. I will embarrass him further by saying that he is my very distant kinsman, which will completely ruin his credibility for anything further in his parliamentary life; it is a cross that he will have to bear.
The noble Lord and my noble friend bring to the Chamber years of experience as sitting and sentencing magistrates. Very often in England and Wales, it is magistrates who deal with youth offenders. We should listen to what they have to say and to their experience. I very much to support all that they have said. I urge the Government to pay close attention to what has been said and come forward with proposals of their own, if they do not accept what my noble friend advanced in her amendment, so that we can get rid of this injustice, which is, as the noble Lord said, a most extraordinary anomaly.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93 and 94. Amendment 93 is concerned with the impact of changes in the law on sentences that are currently being served under the law that was in force preceding the change. In other words, offenders were sentenced under a law that has been altered. The amendment calls for reports to be provided every three years, with a view to such changes in the law leaving defendants suffering from injustice.
Amendment 94 concerns the direct effect of such changes in the law on sentences that are currently being served or that have been imposed. Proposed new subsection (1)(a) in Amendment 94 concerns cases where the offence itself for which the sentence was imposed has been abolished, and proposed new subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 94 concerns a case where the sentence has been materially altered.
The amendment would enable a person serving a sentence for an offence that had been abolished, or where the sentence had been altered, to seek a review of the case of the sentence that is currently being served. On such a review, the sentence originally imposed could be quashed, or there could be a resentencing.
In practice, of course, Amendment 94 would come into play only where either the offence had been abolished or the available sentence had been reduced, because one cannot imagine an offender seeking a change of sentence where the available sentence had been increased.
Underlying both amendments is a concern that changes in the law would have the effect that an offender’s sentence would not have been imposed or would have been less severe had the law at the time of sentencing been the reformed law rather than the law under which the offender was sentenced, and that such changes should take effect to the benefit of the offender who would not be at such risk now.
I would suggest that it is a matter of simple justice that changes in the law which would have resulted in an offender serving a sentence less severe, or not being convicted of any offence, should have the benefit of the change in the law that pertained at the time of sentencing, so that a review would be appropriate.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has addressed what is clearly an anomaly in our sentencing policy that raises a clear issue of fairness, and we do not dissent from the principle that has been advanced with regard to that matter. Indeed, I acknowledge the thoughtful and careful way in which the matter has been addressed by all noble Lords. With regard to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I have nothing to say.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin by addressing Amendment 63. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for raising this and for her work and expertise as a member of the Youth Justice Board and as a magistrate. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby’s long-standing interest and work in this area, including from this Dispatch Box.
Youth sentencing, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken know, is largely out of scope of this Bill. But I should say—and I am very happy to put it on the record, for myself and for my noble friend the Minister—that this amendment raises an issue with which we have a great deal of sympathy.
We recognise that, when a child turns 18, that can have a significant impact on the outcome of criminal justice proceedings, and that is, in a sense, the heart of the argument that the noble Baroness is making. A child who reaches the age of 18 before their first appearance will be tried and sentenced as an adult. However, sentencing guidelines state that, in such cases, the court should take as its starting point the sentence that would have applied at the time the offence was committed. That does not quite deal with some of the points that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby was making; I acknowledge that. They also state that the offender’s maturity, along with other relevant factors, should continue to be considered.
This amendment, however, would significantly alter the youth sentencing framework, and I note the careful way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked for the Government’s response. If we were to accept these recommendations, the Government feel that there would be ramifications across the wider justice system. The youth sentencing framework has been specifically designed for children and there may well be unforeseen consequences, which we should think about carefully, of applying that framework to young adults. I am sure that your Lordships can appreciate that such a change requires thorough consideration beyond the confines of this Bill. So, although I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I hope she will take what I have said as some reassurance.
I now turn to Amendments 93 and 94. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling them. I am afraid I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as I probably did in Committee too, by restating that the Government already believe that existing mechanisms are sufficient to address perceived injustices.
Unduly lenient sentence reviews and criminal appeals are two routes by which cases can be reviewed. From 1 January to 8 December 2025, 933 sentences were considered by the Attorney-General’s Office as valid to be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The Government cannot support an amendment that puts more pressure on the justice system, which I think everyone in your Lordships’ House recognises is under considerable pressure, by requiring the courts to reconsider the sentences of those who apply. We do not believe this would be workable or sustainable, and we do not want to duplicate existing functions at a time when the system is under so much pressure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, knows—we discussed this in Committee—we await the Law Commission’s report on criminal appeals, which is due later this year. Your Lordships’ House has my assurance that we will consider its findings with great care, especially those which relate to the important points made today. Once the report has been published, we will of course discuss it further. For the moment, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his very positive and encouraging words. Although, as he says, it is a substantial challenge, I think it is a challenge worth taking. But this is a probing amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Mandatory purposeful activity requirement for custodial sentences(1) A court sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment may include, as a condition of that sentence, a requirement that the offender participate in one or more of the following—(a) education,(b) skills training, employment or vocational programmes, or(c) other purposeful activity approved by the Governor of the prison.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “purposeful activity” includes—(a) accredited educational courses,(b) workplace or vocational training opportunities, and(c) unpaid work or service contributing to the functioning of the prison.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision ensuring that the requirement in subsection (1) applies to all or some custodial sentences imposed in England and Wales, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The Governor of each prison must, on an annual basis, publish a statement specifying the number and proportion of prisoners actively participating in activities, and the availability of such activities, under subsection (1).(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual consolidated report on the data submitted under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords across the House for drawing attention earlier to education and training in prisons. However, we have some very important amendments we need to get to tonight and, in the circumstances, I will not call a vote or move my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 65, as it is an amendment to Amendment 64.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 67, as it is an amendment to Amendment 66.
Amendment 68
Lord Keen of Elie
“Court transcripts of sentencing remarks(1) Where a request is made for the sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown Court, the court must, subject to subsection (2), make those remarks available within 14 days of the request being received.(2) Sentencing remarks may be published only where a judge of the Crown Court has approved their release, having regard to—(a) the accuracy of the record, and(b) the need to comply with any reporting restrictions or other legal prohibitions.(3) Sentencing remarks made available under this section must be published free of charge and may be made available online.”
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 68 and indeed 69 concern transparency in sentencing. We listened carefully to the Government’s response in Committee and both these amendments have been revised in light of those responses. We believe that they now represent a fair and proportionate compromise between the principle of open justice and the practical constraints that may face the courts.
I will deal first with Amendment 68, with which there is particular concern, and which involves the publication of sentencing remarks within two weeks or 14 days of a request. Many of the arguments made in Committee about transparency in the justice system continue to hold true and I will not seek to repeat them. What was notable, however, was the broad consensus across the House that victims should be able to access the sentencing remarks for crimes committed against them.
In response to the original drafting, which required mandatory publication of all sentencing remarks, the Government argued that this would impose a significant financial and administrative burden. So, Amendment 68 no longer imposes a universal obligation. Instead, it requires that Crown Court sentencing remarks be provided only where a victim specifically requests them. This reflects the reality that the Crown Court handles cases concerning the most serious offences. Statistics indicate that that is about 10% of all cases.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the noble and learned Lord clarify, at an appropriate point, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 68? It says:
“Sentencing remarks may be published only”
in certain circumstances. My first question is: is that meant to restrict the rights of the victim under subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to obtain the remarks, or is it concerned with further publication?
My second question relates to the proposed new subsection (2), which says:
“Sentencing remarks may be published only where a judge … has approved their release, having regard to—”
two factors, which it lists. Is it intended that those are the only factors that the sentencing judge can have regard to—that is
“the accuracy of the record and … the need to comply with any reporting restrictions”—
or is it intended, which I would hope not, that the sentencing judge would have some general discretion here?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is intended that the court should have regard only to the two elements that are referred to therein.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister gets to his feet, can I rather impertinently squeeze in a request that probably has little to do with Amendment 68? I am doing it now, so there we are.
A few years ago, I, along with other people, conducted a review into the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. One of the problems we found is that many prisoners who were dissatisfied with the way their conviction had been arrived at, and the way in which the Court of Appeal had subsequently dealt with it, found it almost impossible to get hold of a transcript of the sentencing remarks. Following the questioning of my noble and learned friend by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it looks as though such a convicted prisoner would not be able to make use of this amendment to get hold of the sentencing remarks my noble and learned friend is partly complaining about. Can the Government please bear in mind—not tonight obviously—that this is a real practical difficulty for people in prison who feel, for good reason, that they have been improperly convicted and wish to have the CCRC consider their case? It is much more difficult for the CCRC, and certainly for the dissatisfied defendant, to advance their cause if they cannot get hold, either because it is difficult or because it is expensive, of the sentencing remarks.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for tabling Amendments 68 and 69. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, makes a good point and I will take it back to the department.
We share the commitment to transparency across the justice system, but we do not agree that these amendments are needed. I will first address Amendment 68 and I reassure the noble and learned Lord that the Government are working to significantly improve the transparency of sentencing remarks. In certain cases of high public interest, sentencing remarks are already published online. Sentencing remarks can be and are filmed by broadcasters, subject to the agreement of the judge.
The Government have recently extended provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims of rape and other sexual offences whose cases are heard in the Crown Court. It remains the case that bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request judges’ sentencing remarks for free.
However, expanding this to everyone who applies would be prohibitively expensive. The amendment would create significant operational and resource pressures on the courts and judiciary. It would also require new systems and staff to process requests and manage publication. The cost and complexity would be detrimental to the work we are doing to create an affordable and sustainable justice system.
We are, however, embracing AI and are actively exploring the opportunities it presents to reduce the cost of producing transcripts in the future and to making them far more widely available to victims. While I recognise the intent behind this amendment to promote transparency, sentencing remarks are already accessible through established transcription services.
I now turn to Amendment 69 and again assure noble Lords that this Government remain committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders. We have already taken action to increase transparency on the data published. As I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, we are developing and publishing more data specific to prisons and probation in Wales. Notably, in July 2025, for the first time, the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by sex and offence group.
We are also working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable earlier identification of foreign national offenders. Currently, this is routinely done after sentence when cases are referred to the Home Office. Being able to verify the nationality of offenders ahead of sentencing would facilitate more timely removals and provide an opportunity for enhanced data collection. However, methods to verify any information provided must be cost effective and prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff. Investment in digital and AI tools can help us to collect, analyse and publish more data, but we are still building this capability.
For that reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary operational and technical infrastructure is in place to deliver it. If noble lords are interested in wider data specifically related to prisons, I can highly recommend the Prison Reform Trust’s Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile publication, which draws on data, including regarding foreign national offenders, from a wide range of sources. It is free and is online.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords about this Government’s commitment to transparency and explained why the Government do not support these amendments. I urge the noble and Learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 68 is modest, targeted and proportionate. It would bring much-needed consistency to our justice system. As the Minister observed, transcripts of sentencing are already provided to victims of rape and certain specified offences. There is no principled reason why victims of other serious or traumatic crimes should be treated differently. Victims of offences such as aggravated assault or aggravated burglary may be unable to attend a sentencing and should not have to pay to understand the court’s reasoning with regard to sentencing. It appears to us that Amendment 68 addresses a clear and, frankly, unfair gap in the law. In these circumstances, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 68.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(4A) In section 244ZA (release on licence of certain violent or sexual offenders), at end insert—“(9) The “requisite custodial period” in subsection (8) does not apply to any person convicted of—(a) rape,(b) assault by penetration,(c) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity,(d) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13,(e) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence,(f) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children,(g) grievous bodily harm,(h) grooming,(i) stalking,(j) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult, or(k) death by dangerous driving.””
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 74 and 75, in my name, concern exemptions to the Government’s so-called earned progression model. We do not oppose in principle the idea that prisoners who demonstrate genuine rehabilitation should be eligible for early release. Where offenders have taken meaningful steps to address their behaviour and reduce their risk, there is a case to be made for earned progression. However, Clause 20 does not deliver that outcome.
Throughout Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister referred to an earned progression model and to examples such as that in the Texas system, yet, as drafted, Clause 20 contains no such mechanism. As the House of Commons Library briefing makes clear, the release point is automatic rather than earned. Prisoners will be released at the one-third point of their sentence unless additional days have been imposed by a court for misconduct. That is not earned progression; it is default release. Barring significant further transgressions, release is determined by the passage of time alone.
The Lord Chancellor has sought to reassure the public by stating that the most serious offences are excluded, yet the Ministry of Justice’s own data confirms that offenders convicted of rape, grievous bodily harm and the creation of indecent images of children will be eligible for this automatic scheme. If those offences do not qualify as serious, it is difficult to understand what offences would.
This is not a technical adjustment to sentencing mechanics; it is a profound change to how the state responds to some of the gravest crimes. As drafted, the Bill would reduce custodial time for over 60% of rapists and more than 80% of child sex offenders. It would permit those convicted of stalking, an offence which we know is strongly associated with escalation into homicide, to be released automatically after serving just one-third of their sentence, without any assessment of ongoing risk.
Amendment 74 would exclude from these provisions those convicted of a range of serious offences, including offences involving the death of a vulnerable person. Amendment 75 would require consultation to ensure that other serious offence categories are appropriately excluded before these measures come into force. In the other place, a similar amendment which included an even broader list of exemptions attracted support from all parties. All 65 Liberal Democrat MPs present for the Division voted in favour of the amendment. Other parties in support of the amendment included the Green Party, the independents, Plaid Cymru, Reform and indeed some members of the Government. It is rare to have such cross-party unanimity, but Members in the other place clearly recognised the dangers that Clause 20 poses to the public.
Noble Lords may notice that Amendment 87, from the Liberal Democrats, includes the same list of offences, as well as two further categories of offences, which should, they suppose, be exempt from automatic release following fixed-term recall. I call on noble Lords to consider consistency here, as much as concern.
Clause 20 applies to a far more serious cohort of offenders than other provisions in the Bill, and clearly there is concern beyond this Chamber. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has described the early release of perpetrators after weeks in custody as “simply unacceptable”. The Victims’ Commissioner has warned that victims will be left “unnerved and bewildered”. These are not political voices but independent authorities concerned about public safety.
Public confidence is often regarded as fragile where the justice system is concerned. When victims see those who have harmed them released automatically after a fraction of their sentence, trust is bound to be eroded. Amendment 74, in particular, would be a proportionate safeguard to ensure that early release is not applied to those whose crimes are too serious and too dangerous to justify it. If the Government are not prepared to give an assurance with regard to Amendment 74, I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 90 in this group, which would insert a proposed new clause on extended determinate sentence prisoners, who I will refer to as EDS prisoners.
Currently, the majority of people serving an EDS first become eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of their custodial term and every two years thereafter, with eventual automatic release at the end of the custodial term on extended licence if they are unsuccessful in gaining parole earlier. This proposed new clause would create a power for the Secretary of State to refer to the Parole Board a prisoner serving an EDS at the earlier halfway point of the sentence, instead of the two-thirds point, if the Secretary of State is of the view that there is a reasonable prospect that the board will direct release. It is therefore in line with recommendation 4.2 of the sentencing review. As that review affirmed, this measure would improve incentives for rehabilitation and enhance the effectiveness of measures to address the overcrowding crisis, without in any way changing the public protection mechanisms that currently apply to EDS prisoners.
The Minister said in Committee, at col. 1842 of Hansard, on 3 December last year, that the Government rejected the independent review’s recommendation 4.2 on the grounds that the EDS was imposed because the offender was considered dangerous. It is quite right that an EDS is a public protection sentence, but, in statute, the parts intended to fulfil its public protection function are the involvement of the Parole Board and the extended licence period. There are no public protection concerns in statute to justify referral to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of the sentence instead of the halfway point, as is proposed for most other determinate sentence prisoners.
Under the provisions of this new clause, and in line with the recommendations of the review, the Parole Board would still engage in exactly the same careful, reasoned and deliberate decision-making process at the 50% point as it currently does at the 66% point. Moreover, the average length of an EDS is nine years, with many serving far longer than that. It is therefore a serious oversight that, for no good reason, measures to address overcrowding are ignoring EDS prisoners, who constitute 10% of people in prison. That is more than 9,000 people, who are serving an average of nearly a decade.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I stand to support Amendment 74 in particular. Its motivations have been well outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.
In a letter relating to IPP prisoners that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, sent to some of us at some point, I noted down that he said—this does relate, by the way—that there must be a clear reason to consider the early release of the prisoner before they have served the sentence imposed on them by the sentencing court. Thousands of open-ended IPP prisoners are incarcerated without a release date, we were told, because they have to convince the Parole Board that they are safe enough to be released, all in the name of public protection. I raise that now because there must be clear reasons to consider whether people are safe before you release them. Yet here we have an early release scheme—an earned release scheme—in which even serious sexual and violent offenders can earn their way out of prison, but you cannot earn your way out of an IPP, which seems rather inconsistent.
We have already heard that earned progression is not going to be earned anyway. If you read what has been written about earned progression, put forward by everyone from the inspector of prisons to concerned prison officers, the unions and so on, then the idea that there is a consistent way to test the earning capacity of prisoners who are inside to check whether they have earned their right to be free is unlikely. It has been agreed that it is going to be automatic.
We have to consider who we are talking about. Earlier on, I spoke about the violence against women and girls strategy and my concern about our being in a situation in which we potentially make an exemption for non-custodial sentences for what some might call minor sexual offences, or stalking or domestic violence. In a way, one was assured that one should not worry and that these were minor events. Whether we like it or not, we are talking here—let us be honest—about the people who are perpetrating, for example, child rape as grooming gang members. We are talking about rapists and people who have been convicted of sexual assault. In total, thousands of offenders who are sent to prison for serious crimes, very often against women and children, will potentially leave prison early. The public, broadly speaking, might find that disconcerting.
I am not opposed to the concept or principle of earning your way out of prison. At least, it is an interesting experimental idea. I do not think it is what will happen in our Prison Service, but I like the notion. I get all that. I am also not arguing in principle against any early releases, although I cannot bear the fact that they have been conducted on the basis that we do not have room for people. I would rather it was based on some kind of principle than saying, “Oh, it’s a bit overcrowded. What can we do?” That seems the wrong approach. I am in no way a mad “lock ’em up and throw away the key” type, but it is perfectly proportionate for this amendment to say that certain categories of crime will simply not be considered for this scheme. That is fair enough, as far as I am concerned.
I genuinely think that the Government should simply accept this. I genuinely hope that Members from other parties, Cross-Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Back-Benchers from wherever will go along with this, because that is what happened down in the other place. I would expect it to happen here, because it is absolutely common sense. It is also very important that we do not undermine trust in the criminal justice system or the prison system by making a mess of this, and therefore not making this exemption work.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we cannot accept that this amendment is either necessary or right. The Bill is posited on the earned progression model, which involves a phased system of early releases. It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to say that she cannot stand the idea that there will be early releases because of overcrowding, but the fact is that we have a very serious issue which the Bill seeks to address. I, for one, accept the Government’s position that the Bill would be seriously damaged by abandoning the earned progression model in the cases with which this amendment is concerned.
No one can say that, as a party, the Liberal Democrats are not completely committed to the Government’s target to end violence against women and girls, or at least to halve it within a decade. No one can say that we do not take that commitment seriously. We accept that sexual offences are serious offences, but there are many other serious offences as well. The point that I suggest should weigh with the House very heavily is the concern for the position of victims. If this Bill fails to solve the prison capacity crisis then victims will be the losers, as people cannot be brought to justice or imprisoned because there will simply be no space for them. That is the harsh reality.
The position on early release is exactly the same as the reasons that I gave in respect of the first group about the presumption. It requires us to be tough and to resist the blandishments of the sort of points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made. I do not accept the accuracy of the position taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, because we would be left with a dangerous problem that we have to solve, so I shall support the Government in opposing the amendment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, this debate is about a central purpose of the Bill: to put the prison system on a sustainable footing. There is no doubt that the offences listed in Amendment 74 and referenced in Amendment 75 are serious crimes. Indeed, they are so serious that many perpetrators of these offences will receive life or extended determinate sentences.
I remind noble Lords that there are 17,000 prisoners serving those sentences, convicted of the most serious crimes. They include many serious sexual offenders. These offenders will be unaffected by the reforms we are bringing forward in this Bill. They will remain in prison as long as they do now.
Amendments 74 and 75 raise a more fundamental issue. Are we willing, as the previous Government clearly were, to leave the prison system on the brink of collapse? This did not happen overnight. It was not inevitable. It was the choice the party opposite made again and again for 14 years. They abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing prisons to reach bursting point. To cover up their failures, they covertly let out more than 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic scheme. If it were not for the decisive action of this Government, the police would have been unable to make arrests and courts unable to hold trials, which would have been a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. We must continue to take decisive action to address the consequences of their mismanagement. If these amendments were to pass, they would undermine the fundamental issue that the Bill is designed to fix —the issue they neglected for 14 years.
I took this job to fix this issue and countless others that we inherited. As someone who has dedicated their working life to improving the criminal justice system, it matters to me personally. I am convinced that this Bill is the only and best way to fix this problem. I refuse to stand in front of victims of serious crimes, look them in the eye and tell them that we have no space in our prisons to lock up dangerous offenders and that their rapist or abuser cannot go to prison at all because there is no space. Let me be very clear: running out of space is the consequence if these amendments pass. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that we cannot, in good conscience, vote for amendments that we know will cause such great harm. Our immediate priority must be stability, and that is what our measures deliver. We are building more prison places than at any time since the Victorian era. By the end of this Parliament there will be more people in prison than ever before. I recall that the previous Government managed only 500 extra places in 14 years.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his constructive engagement on this amendment and for raising important questions about how victims will be protected. I remind noble Lords that, once released, offenders will be subject to a period of intensive supervision supported by a significant expansion of electronic tagging. The highest-risk offenders, as assessed by probation, will continue to be actively supervised until the end of their sentence. They will continue to be subject to any licence conditions needed to manage risk and protect victims, including restriction zones where appropriate. All offenders will remain on licence with the possibility of recall to custody if they breach the terms of their licence. Of course, if an offender behaves badly in custody, they will spend even longer inside, up to the full length of their sentence.
As noble Lords know, the proposals for the progression model, which Clause 20 seeks to implement, are the result of extensive work by the Independent Sentencing Review. The review, led by David Gauke and supported by a panel of eminent experts from all parts of the criminal justice system, arrived at its recommendation after extensive research and consultation. All proposals, including the new framework for release, have been thoroughly considered. We now need to put in place an effective release framework that will support a sustainable prison estate and protect the public by ensuring that space is prioritised for the most dangerous offenders. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord not to press Amendments 74 and 75. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, I encourage all noble Lords to vote against this amendment and help this country end the cycle of crisis in our prisons for good.
Dangerous offenders are also the subject of Amendment 90 tabled by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It proposes that extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward. While I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue, the Government’s position remains that prison is the right place for these dangerous offenders. To receive an extended determinate sentence, a specified violent, sexual or terrorism offence must have been committed. The court will also have decided that the offender is dangerous—I repeat, dangerous—and that there is a significant risk of serious harm to the public from the offender committing a further specified offence. These dangerous offenders must remain in prison for as long as they do now. I ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we do not oppose an earned progression model in principle but, as was recognised by all parties in the other place, Clause 20 does not deliver an earned progression model. Clause 20 contains no mechanism for earning release. That is not, or at least it was not until recently, a party-political point. The House of Commons Library confirmed that release occurs automatically at the one-third or halfway point for offenders. Barring serious further offences in custody, release is guaranteed.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, talked repeatedly about the earned progression model. I do not know which one he was referring to, but it is not the one in Clause 20. That is simply a mystery. What we have is a means by which violent and dangerous individuals will be released after they have served one-third of the sentence imposed by a court. Is that supposed to imbue our justice system with public confidence? Automatic early release for serious offenders is bound to undermine that confidence.
While the Minister may make criticisms of prison capacity and what occurred during the previous 14 years of government, I remind him that two wrongs do not make a right. You do not cure one mistake by committing an even worse mistake, and that is what is being proposed here. Automatic early release is going to endanger the public. It ensures that releases apply to offenders whose crimes are serious and dangerous. It is not proportionate, it is not targeted and it is not possessed of any safeguards. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Venezuela
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the other place following the appalling tragedy in Crans-Montana. I know that the victims of that tragic fire, their friends and their families will be in all our thoughts at this very difficult time.
The Government and the Opposition shared profound concerns about the Maduro regime. Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant responsible for unspeakable criminal abuses against the Venezuelan people. His was an appalling socialist dictatorship that destroyed the prospects of Venezuela and reduced it to penury. The brutality and repression suffered by the Venezuelan people under Maduro’s regime were appalling. When in government we refused to recognise it, and the Government are right to have continued that long-standing policy. In our view, the Government should always put Britain’s interests first, and national security is the first duty of government.
We know that the United States is our closest security partner. It is the Government’s duty to work with the United States constructively in the interests of the British people. We on these Benches understand the United States’ reasons for taking this step. It is acting in its stated national interest against sustained drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. While we understand that there remain questions about the precedent that this sets, that much is clear.
Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with their US counterparts on this point? Increasingly, it seems that the United States acts and Britain finds out later. When major decisions are made, Britain is not in the room. Has the Prime Minister even spoken with President Trump since the US action in Venezuela? Perhaps the Minister could update the House.
In the same vein, can she confirm what conversations the Prime Minister has had with our European partners since the US action? I know that they are meeting and doing good work today on Ukraine, and I cannot believe that this issue has not been discussed, at least in the margins.
The security of the British people can be served only if the UK shows leadership, working proactively and constructively with our international partners. The Government were slow to respond in this case; the PM did not seem even to have an opinion on it for many hours. If we are to protect the interests of the British people, we must be a leader on the world stage. In this case, the Government failed to provide that leadership.
That said, I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear statement on Greenland yesterday. It is good to have at least some clarity from the Government although, again, it could have come sooner. On the question of the US rhetoric towards Greenland, in the other place the Foreign Secretary said that
“Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark … The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 76.]
I agree with her, but if the future of Greenland is solely a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Danes, as she correctly said, then, using the Government’s own logic, the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory is surely a matter for the Chagossians and the British people. Can the Minister please explain how the Government’s approach to Greenland’s sovereignty is consistent with their position on the Chagos Islands?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also associate these Benches with the condolences on the terrible incident in Switzerland.
I start by simply quoting from my right honourable friend Ed Davey, speaking in the House of Commons last evening, when he referred to President Reagan and the United States Administration’s invasion of Grenada. He quoted Margaret Thatcher, who said of that incident that
“we in … the Western democracies … use our force to defend our way of life, we do not use it to walk into other people’s countries … We try to extend our beliefs not by force but by persuasion”.
He went on:
“I am disappointed that we have heard nothing as clear and courageous from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, or from today’s Conservative Party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 79.]
I agree with him. Why can our Ministers not be clear that we see what happened in Venezuela as something contrary to international law, which sets dangerous precedents and might likely perpetuate human rights abuses in that country?
We all know that the Maduro regime was brutal, repressive, dictatorial and corrupt, and that the actions of that regime led nearly 9 million Venezuelans to flee the country. They must be in a state of confusion as to whether the country will be safe for them to return to if it is now being administered, as President Trump has said, by the United States.
Today, the regime in Venezuela continues to abuse powers even more, with paramilitary forces repressing journalists and seeking out democracy activists for persecution. Apparently, this is under the authority of the United States Government themselves, if we believe what President Trump and the Secretary of State said on Sunday.
In response to Ed Davey, the Foreign Secretary said,
“the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy”.
I agree with her, but she went on to say:
“I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that and also about the potential role the UK can play”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 80.]
She did not elucidate further. Can the Minister state in what way the United Kingdom will play a role in a democratic transition in Venezuela, especially in the context that President Trump has undermined the Nobel Prize winner María Machado, a member of our sister party, a liberal in Venezuela, who now is also in a state of confusion as to what the intentions of the US Administration are?
The Prime Minister had said after the news of the attack on Venezuela that he wanted to gain the facts before speaking to President Trump. What other facts do we now need for the Prime Minister to state categorically to President Trump that this action is contrary to international law? Can the Minister restate whether one of the founding principles of the special relationship of the UK and the United States—that we are consulted and informed on US security actions when they are connected with UK interests—still applies? Given our diplomatic location in Caracas, which was bombed, were we informed? Were our diplomats informed that they were operating in an area of risk? Are we informed if UK bases and personnel are being used for monitoring Venezuelan shipping? Is our airspace potentially being used and overflown by US assets for the ongoing operations of the US Administration in that area? Are our close Commonwealth partner assets in the Caribbean being overflown and are we being informed?
Finally, President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, which are causing significant concern, are wholly unacceptable. Can we now say categorically that we condemn the US economic and diplomatic coercion of a key European and NATO ally? The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, indicated that precedents may be set but gave a slight indication that they support them. We do not support these precedents. We support the international rule of law. We support our allies. We support democracy and human rights in Venezuela. We support our sister party and the democratically elected president, not to be a vassal state but a vibrant, democratic state, with human rights at its core.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their support for the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the tragic loss of life that we saw on New Year’s Eve in Switzerland. I am grateful to them for echoing what she said.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about discussions with our US counterparts ahead of the action that was taken in Caracas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We are clear that the UK was not informed. We were not involved in any way. None of our assets were involved in any way at all. It is important that we are very straightforward and clear about that. We would not expect to be informed of an action such as this either.
To respond to the noble Lord’s questions about the communications between the Prime Minister and the US and counterparts in Europe, the Prime Minister talks constantly with his counterparts in Europe and in the US, as do the Foreign Secretary and Ministers throughout the Government. We will continue to do that in connection to this. Vitally, today, Ukraine is at the front of our minds, along with making sure we continue to do what we believe to be right in Ukraine.
One of the things in my mind when listening to the noble Lord opposite was this. Many people said when this Government came to office that we would be unable to work with President Trump and that our relationship with the US would be impossible to manage. I think most people give the Prime Minister credit for being able to manage his relationship with President Trump very well. They have a very good relationship, and I think that has surprised many people, though it did not surprise me; it is something that puts British interests first. Many people will wish to hear the Government say various things or make statements, but, sometimes, the right thing to do is not to use megaphone diplomacy. The right thing to do is to respect our close partners and allies, and give whatever messages we want to give in the right way.
As for parallels with Chagos, that is frankly ridiculous. There is no parallel with Chagos. Chagos happened because there was a state-to-state negotiation between the British Government and the Government of Mauritius. Should Denmark ever wish to enter into such a negotiation, it is free to do so with the consent of the people of Greenland. This is completely different, and the noble Lord should know better. I am sad that he does not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly reminds us, 9 million Venezuelans have left their country. I have met many of them in Mexico, Ecuador, Chile, the UK and Colombia. They are devastated by what has happened to their country over recent years. There will be a range of views on the actions the United States has taken. It is very early days, but some who I have spoken to see hope for their country. They want to see a return to democracy. They want to see an outcome of the elections that were held in 2024 that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is not what we saw at the time.
The noble Lord is right to suggest, and I agree, that we put the people of Venezuela front and centre and find a way for them to get a Government who reflect their wishes and enable them to live in safety and with the prosperity that country should have. There needs, therefore, to be a transition to democracy. As for how that takes place, who leads it and the exact timetable for all that, it is impossible to say from where we are today, but we certainly share his view that there needs to be a transition to democracy.
How can the UK help? We will help in any way that is right at the time. As noble Lords will know, we are the only Five Eyes country to have maintained a presence in Caracas throughout recent years. Our chargé d’affaires there is extremely capable. He has good relationships across the political spectrum in Venezuela and he would be very well placed to advise on how it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to support strengthening democratic institutions, as we do in many countries across the world, although I accept that this is a unique situation.
María Corina Machado is one of the most inspirational, courageous women I have ever had the privilege to speak to. The way that she conducted herself, led her campaign and continued to make the arguments that she does, often from hiding in Venezuela and from overseas, is extraordinary. Others will comment about her fitness to lead Venezuela, but she is an incredibly impressive person. I do not think it would do her any favours to have an endorsement from the President of the United States, but as for what happens there and whether María Corina becomes the leader, let us remember that she was not the candidate in the 2024 election. She was not the leader of the opposition at that point. The role she chooses to play in the future of her country and whether she takes part in any future democratic process and in what capacity is a matter for her.
On Greenland, we could not have been clearer on the position that we have taken, alongside others, about the fact that it is clearly for the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland to decide their future.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, was sworn in as the Attorney-General on 15 July 2024, he gave a speech in which he said that
“from the Prime Minister down, the new government is comprised of individuals who have the rule of law imprinted into their DNA … We will seek to promote international law and the rule of law in the international legal order”.
Does she really think that today’s Statement on the Venezuela episode advances these objectives when it says supinely:
“It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions”?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The words that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said in his speech remain true. Our position on the rule of law has not changed and will not change.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, surely we should stop being mealy-mouthed about this issue. There is no basis in the international framework of law that can justify this action. If Russia had marched into Ukraine a few years ago, kidnapped its President, put him on trial in Moscow and locked him up, we would be shouting blue murder. Our voices should be heard loud and clear condemning this action by the United States.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no moral equivalence whatever between the illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened in Venezuela, the legal arguments for which are for the US to defend. These are not UK actions and our commitment to international law remains.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
If a family member makes what one thinks is a serious mistake, it is often the case that one tries to avoid saying so in public. The Prime Minister is quite right not to attack President Trump in public. What matters now is that the Venezuelans get to decide who runs their country. Surely we can all agree that the country cannot be run from Washington and should not be run by Maduro’s associates, except in the unlikely event that they were to win the free and fair election the country so badly needs. Can the Minister confirm that our chargé in Caracas is still able to maintain the excellent contacts he has with the opposition parties in the country?
As for Greenland, rows within the family are the worst. The Kingdom of Denmark is also one of our closest friends and allies. The Danish Government are clear that they are ready to discuss an increase in the American military presence in Greenland—perhaps back to its previous level in the thousands, not the low hundreds where it is now. Can the Minister confirm that we are suggesting to our American friends that this might be the best solution to their security concerns?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that our chargé in Caracas, Colin, is continuing to do the outstanding job that he has been doing for the last few years. He has excellent relationships that justify the fact that we kept our team there throughout this period.
On Greenland, rather than it being for me from this Dispatch Box, it is for the Kingdom of Denmark and its leadership to have whatever negotiations they feel inclined to have. If they wish us to support them in any way—diplomatically perhaps—then we will of course be interested to talk to them about that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, first, could the Minister tell us how she thinks that democracy can be introduced in Venezuela? Clearly, the agenda of President Trump is not about liberating Venezuela or bringing in democracy, so how do our Government see that happening? Repression and banditry are continuing on the streets of Caracas—how are we going to get from there to democracy? Secondly, the Minister praised the Prime Minister for managing the relationship with President Trump. What will it take for the Prime Minister to switch from managing his relationship with President Trump to challenging President Trump?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Prime Minister has an excellent relationship with President Trump, and sometimes that involves challenge and sometimes it does not; that is how relationships work.
On the transition to democracy, the frustrating thing is that Venezuela has the capacity, mechanisms and structures to hold a ballot in a way that is verifiable. The problem was that it did not count ballots properly or publish the results. This is not a situation where there is no infrastructure on which to hold a democratic process; that does exist. How exactly we support that, the timing of it and who leads it—all those questions— I cannot answer as of today, but they are the right questions and they will need to be answered to move forward to the proper democracy that we all want to see.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, we well understand the difficulties of criticising our close ally, President Trump. However, is there not a real danger that many will now see this as an acquiescence to the rather crude reassertion of the Monroe doctrine of the United States? Is there not a danger also that it will give succour to President Putin when he demands his own sphere of influence in the world? It will certainly be more difficult for all of us to criticise President Putin, given this precedent.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that is right. I do not have any difficulty in criticising President Putin for his illegal act of launching a full invasion of Ukraine, stealing children from Ukraine, bombing civilians, and destroying infrastructure and energy in the depths of winter. I have no issue complaining about that, and I do not see the moral equivalence between the two events. It is a good thing that Nicolás Maduro is no longer running the country.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept the commendation of a quotation from a previous Secretary General of the United Nations in a different context, where he observed that that military operation was not in accordance with the provisions of the UN charter?
I have two questions for the Minister. First, Vice-President Rodríguez, who has now been sworn in as the interim president, was elected on a joint ticket with Nicolás Maduro. We made it clear that the 2024 election, in which the two of them were elected, was corrupt and falsified, and that we did not recognise it. Does that still apply to the interim president now? Secondly—I think the Minister almost answered this question already—can the Minister confirm that the only strategic objective for us and other Europeans, and, I would hope, for the United States in due course, is for Venezuela to hold free and fair elections under international scrutiny, so that we do not have a repeat of 2024?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Certainly, any elections that are to be held must be free and fair and not any kind of repeat of what we saw the year before last. I take what the noble Lord says about the circumstances of the election of the now President Delcy Rodríguez, but I feel that we are very much in a transitional period right now and there needs to be a degree of pragmatism exercised here. This is one route that is being taken at the moment. Nobody wants to see a descent into a country being run even more than it has been by gangs and narco-terrorists; what we need is stability in order to then move forward through to some democratic process. Clearly, I hope that happens sooner rather than later, but it does need to be done safely in a way that means that the outcome is sustainable and that Venezuela can then move forward for the benefit of all its people.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I wish to follow up on the previous question, because it seems to me that it is very good news to know that we are in touch with the opposition parties. There has always been a problem in Venezuela about uniting the opposition parties and that is why they are in the position they are in at this moment. But in terms of having proper democratic elections in Venezuela, will it not be necessary to have contact with the acting President? Can the Minister confirm whether or not our Government have made any attempt to contact the new acting President of Venezuela?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think I am right in saying, from the last time I spoke to our chargé in Caracas, that he has had contact with Delcy Rodríguez previously. I am not aware whether this contact has been re-established since the events of the weekend. It is only Tuesday, so it is quite possible that that has not happened. But should that be something which would be helpful in moving things forward in a stable way, then that is a role that the UK may be prepared to do, if that should be helpful.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, speaking about the international implications of this, I think that Venezuela is not the only nation that is badly governed and managed, and this sends a signal from His Majesty’s Government, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If we soft glove our close ally America and allow it to take action, what implications will there be—I am not just talking about Russia and China but in Africa and in the Middle East—and what standing will we have as a country and a permanent member of the UN Security Council to challenge those nations when they will simply point to our actions right now?
Similarly, I talk about the parallels that some people have drawn between President Trump’s desire to get hold of the oil in Venezuela and George W Bush’s aims—it was WMD, but it ended up being oil. How can we learn those lessons from Iraq, so we do not leave Venezuela in a far worse situation than we have inherited at the moment? When I say “we”, I mean the US, not the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know what the noble Lord is getting at. As far as parallels go, the UK is judged on the UK’s actions, and I do not think that this makes any difference at all to our ability to make the case for international law to partners—he mentioned Africa—and certainly it would not make our ability to make those cases any different.
I have heard people trying to draw some sort of parallel with events in 2003 in Iraq. Clearly, no two situations are precisely the same, but the situation as it exists today in Venezuela is very different to what happened after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the entire infrastructure in Baghdad. I do not know whether lessons have been learned, and hence the change of approach that we are seeing, but it is well understood that, with the Government in Venezuela, the elite that remains and the way that that Government are still being led today, there is such a different situation. There needs to be a transition; we cannot just leave things as they are, but there is the capability, and the stability is sufficient to allow for that transition. That is the hope, and that is what we need to see.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, this is not the first occasion when the United States has invaded another country and taken the leader for trial in the United States of America. Manuel Noriega was a military dictator in Panama in the 1980s and, in 1990, following the United States invasion of Panama, he was arrested and brought to the USA for trial for racketeering, drug smuggling and money laundering. He was convicted before a US federal court and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, of which he served 17 years.
I have been a lawyer for a long time and, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of my areas of practice was international law. But unlike, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I have always had doubt about the veracity of international law on the sovereignty of states. When one country, particularly a neighbouring country—
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am putting it in the form of a question. When one country, particularly a neighbouring country, perpetrates gross human rights errors on its people—for example, as Idi Amin did in Uganda— I put to the Minister: do we not have a duty to interfere? Are we not one human race? This Government are entirely right not to be preaching issues of international law but leaving the United States of America to explain or justify its own conduct.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord started with Panama. I am not really sure what to say to him. I take his point to be in support of the Government’s pragmatic position and thank him for that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the “Bella 1” oil tanker, now labelled the “Marinera”, for which US officials have obtained a seizure warrant for allegedly breaking sanctions, and which they tried to intercept off Venezuela, is now reported to be in the north Atlantic, within striking distance of the US bases in the United Kingdom. The BBC is reporting that if any US military operation were to be launched against this vessel, Washington would be expected to inform us about what they are doing. Can the Minister reassure me that we would not just expect to be informed but that we would be informed? At what stage in the operation would we be informed: in the planning stage, as it was launched or afterwards? Would we have any say on the nature of that operation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords will understand that we talk all the time to our American friends about security issues, but we would not comment on specifics, as the noble Baroness is encouraging me to do.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the idea that this is the end of the world order is fantastical. As we have just heard, previous American Presidents have intervened; for instance, in Grenada and in Panama. The difference is that President Trump does not really mind letting people know that he does not give a monkey’s about world opinion or international law.
The real danger is if this marks a departure from previous policy, in that if Trump sees spheres of influence—which we have heard much talk about—and the reassertion of the Monroe doctrine, would that possibly mean that he would see the Americas as his sphere of influence, eastern Europe as belonging to the Russian sphere of influence, and so on? That is the real danger of what has happened.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not recognise that characterisation of the world, but it is right that we ask ourselves these big strategic questions, because the world is changing. The most significant example of that has been Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and its stated intention to expand Russia. It is legitimate that we concern ourselves with questions of spheres of influence. I do not think it is as simple as the characterisation the noble Lord just put forward, and I do not think that is what he believes either, but it is absolutely right that we continue to ask ourselves these really important geopolitical questions.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the Maduro regime is responsible for permitting corrupt links with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was responsible, obviously, for funding proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah and, in turn, for the attacks on Israel on 7 October. Does the Minister agree with me that the actions taken by the USA may go some way to preventing illicit funding finding its way to Iran and, I hope, clipping its wings?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do think it is a good thing that Maduro is no longer running Venezuela. There is a long way to go, and there will still be money laundering, illicit finance, trade in narcotics and guns, people trafficking and all manners of abuse happening in that country. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot at stake. As the noble Baroness says, and I agree with her, the issues emanating from Venezuela were global, and it is good that there is now the prospect of a different future for Venezuela.
Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 6th January 2026
(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 151-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (5 Jan 2026)
21:55 - Division on Amendment 76 - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 97 - Amendment 76 disagreed.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“Provision for the Parole Board to direct release on licence of an IPP prisoner at a specified future date(1) Section 28 (duty to release certain life prisoners) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5)(b), at the end insert “or, in the case of a prisoner in respect of whom the Parole Board has made an order under subsection (6B), the prisoner has served the period ending on the future specified date,”.(3) In subsection (6)(b), at the end insert “or the Parole Board has made an order under subsection (6B)”.(4) In subsection (6A), at the end insert “but do not apply to a prisoner in respect of whom the Parole Board has made an order under subsection (6B)”.(5) After subsection (6A) insert—“(6B) In the case of a prisoner serving one or more preventive sentences as defined by section 31A(5), and not serving any other life sentence, where the Board does not direct his or her immediate release under subsection (5), the Board must fix a date for the person’s release on licence (“a specified future date”) and may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoner’s release on licence at the specified future date as it considers necessary having regard to its duty to protect the public.(6C) Any date fixed under subsection (6B) must not be later than—(a) the second anniversary of the date on which the decision is taken in the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);(b) the first anniversary of the date on which the decision is taken in the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006).(6D) A prisoner in respect of whom a direction has been made under subsection (6B) may apply for the specified future date to be varied once six months have passed from the determination of the release date.(6E) At any time before the expiration of an order for release on licence or direction made under subsection (6B) or an order for release on licence or direction made under this subsection, the Parole Board shall on the application of the Secretary of State, or as the Parole Board may otherwise determine, reconsider any order for release on licence at a specified future date or direction then in force and may direct that the order for release on licence or direction made be set aside and in its place extend the specified future date or order a new specified future date or make any further directions as to the licence conditions it considers necessary.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Parole Board to release on licence at a fixed future release date post tariff IPPs (who has not been released on licence immediately), after the successful completion of directions designed to ensure the public will be adequately protected upon release, with residual powers for the Secretary of State to apply to the Parole Board to vary its Orders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the last Government and this Government have done a great deal to help those who were sentenced to imprisonment for public protection and released on licence. I welcome the amendments tabled by the Government and other noble Lords in relation to the position of those on licence. But we have done nothing to deal with the problem of those who have never been released. In moving the amendment, I seek to provide a measure of real justice in the Bill for what is otherwise largely a Bill to deal with the prison crisis and to ensure that the prisons can run in an orderly manner. The amendment deals simply with justice.
I need not tell your Lordships the current position; it is well known. There are more than 940 prisoners who have never been released and some 200 more in secure mental accommodation, again who have never been released, even though this sentence was abolished in 2012.
Nor is there any need for me to set out the human stories of what these people who have never been released have been subjected to: short tariffs, yet many, many years beyond their tariffs. No one has really tried to address this. Suggestions have been put forward, including resentencing, but each Government have said no, so the Howard League decided it would set up a small group of experts to try to come up with a solution and bring justice at long last.
The key element of that solution, which is embodied in Amendment 76, is that the Parole Board ought to be asked to modify its position and to determine what steps would be necessary to ensure the release of those who have never been released within a two-year window. At the time this amendment was put forward in Committee, it did not contain what I would call a fail-safe clause, but, with the very great help of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, it now contains a clause that modifies the original proposal and enables the Government—or HMPPS—to go back to the Parole Board and say that this two-year window cannot be met. So there is therefore a complete fail-safe.
The real question is: having left the decision in the hands of the Parole Board, and having tried to ensure that we give these prisoners hope and that we provide for the safety of the public, why will the Government not accept this? It is difficult to find an answer, because accepting it would bring justice as far as the public are concerned, and certainly as far as victims are concerned: many of these crimes were committed at least, by their very nature, more than 13 years ago. Above all, it would ensure justice for the offenders.
I summarised in Committee the reasons why we needed to do something. There was no conceivable justification for keeping people in prison under a sentence that is universally and without exception regarded as a mistake. Most people are flabbergasted when you say we are still imprisoning people 13 years after we concluded that the sentence under which they were imprisoned was wrong in principle. There can be no justification. More seriously, if you had the position where you committed an offence before 2005 or committed an offence after 2012 of exactly the same kind as one committed by those who are subject to the IPP, you would be automatically released at the end of that determinate sentence. There is no conceivable justification for discriminating against those who happened to be sentenced during a period of mistaken penal policy.
Worse still, the effect of the sentence, particularly on those who have never been released, is that it has severely damaged them mentally. To the extent that they may pose, or be thought to pose, a risk of danger, that is something that the state has helped create. Normally when the state makes a mistake, the state is sorry and tries to do something for the victims of its mistakes. Why not here?
Then, as is clear from the other provisions of the Bill, and as the Minister made very clear when dealing with an amendment just before the break, the prison capacity is in such crisis that we have to send, for example, foreign national offenders back to their own country, and we have to release serious offenders under what is described as the earned progression model. Why, therefore, can we not, in the middle of this calamity, see whether we could achieve some balance in prison capacity by addressing this problem?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I express my support for the new clause which has been so ably advocated for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have added our names. The purpose behind the new clause achieved very considerable support at Second Reading and in Committee. I will focus primarily on the provisions of proposed new subsection (6E), which I hope meet the primary concerns that have been expressed by the Minister.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, it is now widely recognised that the IPP regime is a very serious stain on this country’s reputation for justice. We need to address that. It has been addressed prospectively by legislation but not retrospectively. This new clause gives your Lordships’ House—and thus Parliament—the opportunity to do it in a statutory form. Hitherto, this Government, like the previous Government, have relied on administrative measures. That is not sufficient.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has set out the essential facts. They can also be read and studied in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice that was published in 2022 and more recently in the report published in June 2025 by the Howard League for Penal Reform. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, were very distinguished contributors to that report. I will not repeat what has already been said and published. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I will concentrate on the solution.
The proposed new clause reflects the principal recommendation of the Howard League; namely, a two-year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners. The league’s recommendation, which is incorporated in the new clause, is that in IPP cases the Parole Board should be required to set a date within a two-year window when a prisoner should be released, together—this is important—with what has been done by way of conditions to ensure public safety. The Government’s reaction is not one that I am blind to. It has been to oppose the recommendation on the grounds that it runs the risk of releasing individuals who, in the opinion of the Parole Board, may pose a continuing risk to the public. That is indeed a risk which needs to be addressed. I suggest that it is properly and fully addressed by proposed new subsection (6E).
It is never possible wholly to exclude risk. I have some personal experience of this. Nearly 40 years ago, I was a junior Minister in the Home Office. The then Home Secretary was Lord Hurd of Westwell. I served him for seven years in the Home Office and the Foreign Office. He is one of the most distinguished public servants of the post-war era. Subject to his overarching responsibility, I was responsible for determining the release of inmates from special hospitals. I was also responsible for fixing the tariffs in homicide cases. That, happily, is no longer a task for Ministers. In both instances a risk of repetition of the offence could not be excluded, but unless you wish to incarcerate an individual for life, which in general I regard as unconscionable, you have to take a measure of risk. The task before any Government, any Minister, is to address and mitigate the risk. That is what proposed new subsection (6E) seeks to do.
The subsection is designed to meet the concerns that have been expressed by Ministers, most recently and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. It would enable the Parole Board, at any time during the currency of a previously made order, to revisit that order, and if the Parole Board deemed it necessary, rescind or vary the provisions of the order or extend its term.
Moreover, and this is perhaps the most important point, the subsection would oblige the Parole Board to reconsider its previous decision if required by the Home Secretary or his Ministers; in other words, the Home Secretary or his Ministers can require reconsideration of any relevant Parole Board decision in respect of which the Home Secretary has concerns. I suggest to your Lordships that this addresses very precisely the concerns that have been previously expressed by Ministers, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson.
So I suggest that the proposed new clause, containing as it does the important protection afforded by proposed new subsection (6E), addresses what is generally recognised to be a very serious injustice; and it does so in a way that safeguards the public interest. I very much hope that it will command the support of your Lordships’ House and thereafter that of the House of Commons.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. This amendment is the safest, best amendment on IPP prisoners we have seen so far. It would give an IPP prisoner a clear statutory steer as to what they have to do in order to secure release on licence. The prisoner would know that if they fulfil the board’s directions, they will be released on licence. It would give them a clear goal to aim for which does not currently exist.
If, therefore, the prisoner is serious about being released, this would be the best opportunity they have had so far. It would be heavily incumbent on the Prison Service to ensure that the IPP prisoner has access to any purposeful activity or other requirements set out in the Parole Board’s directions. This must be an absolute priority.
Above all, the final decision on whether it is safe to release the prisoner would rest with the Parole Board, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said. Proposed new subsection (6E) in Amendment 76 is the key provision, which is new and leaves the final decision with the Parole Board. That is what the Government, in resisting resentencing options, have said time and again must be the case: the Parole Board must have the final say. Well, here we are with this amendment, so what possible reason can the Government have for not accepting it? It is not good enough to say it will give IPP prisoners false hope. That is tantamount to saying that some IPP prisoners will never be released. This would be completely unacceptable.
This Government have responsibility for every day an IPP prisoner is detained and the despair that this causes. They must urgently consider every reasonable option for ending this disgraceful situation. This is the most reasonable option yet which is now on the table. It must be tried.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we have heard three excellent speeches in support of this amendment, which was again introduced most powerfully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as it was in Committee when he said, if I recall correctly,
“we will have … blood on our hands”.—[Official Report, 3/12/25; cols. 1803-04.]
if we do not do anything about this situation.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which I am glad to say the Government are still committed to, forbids
“torture or … inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
But surely that is what the Government—the state—are subjecting IPP prisoners to. I would like to hear why the Minister considers that there is no breach of Article 3 in this case.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out with great clarity the cogency of his proposed new clause. I entirely support it and, if he wishes to test the opinion of the House, I shall join him.
Many of the amendments in the group we are dealing with are concerned with providing a mechanism through the Parole Board. My amendment proposes another new clause that would not use the Parole Board but rather a panel of existing or former judges. The protection to deal with the risk that people seem to be fearful of is provided through that route rather than through a Parole Board decision.
I will come to explain the detail of my proposed new clause, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, who is not in his place, for their support for this new clause. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said a moment ago, it is uncontroversial that nobody of any humanity or sentience thinks that this IPP regime was a good idea or should be allowed to continue—and continue to cause harm. When the Minister winds up, will he admit or accept, on behalf of the Government, that the IPP regime as currently administered is causing real harm to people in prison and on licence outside prison, who are in danger for reasons wholly unconnected with the original offence that gave them the IPP in the first place? Will he accept that it is doing our reputation as a place of fairness and justice real harm? There is not an angle from which you could come at this problem without feeling dirty and appalled by the way in which it is being continued.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I looked at 60 sets of case papers dealing with IPP offenders who had all been recalled. A large proportion of them had been recalled for relatively trivial reasons. A large proportion had been recalled for reasons that had nothing whatever to do with the index offence for which they had been originally sentenced. They had returned to prison, and some of them had been released again after a period and then re-recalled, thus extending the ludicrous, Kafkaesque nature of this type of sentence. As Lord Brown said all those years ago, it is a stain on our justice system. It is uncontroversial that where we are now is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it ought to be dealt with.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, cited in general terms some of the information provided to us by UNGRIPP, of which I am a patron. It is an interest group of families of IPP prisoners seeking to reform this regime. As the noble and learned Lord said, 946 people have never been released from their IPP sentence. Of that 946, 940 are in prison over their tariff limit, and 689 are incarcerated between 10 and 20 years beyond their tariff. These are numbers, but they describe real people and real families who are affected by this disgraceful state of affairs.
Just to underline the point about real harm, I note that 1,476 people are currently back in prison on IPP recall. Some 70% of those were recalled for an administrative reason—they failed to turn up for an appointment or they were drunk—but that had nothing whatever to do with the original offence, as I have said any number of times, nor had they committed an additional offence. One thing I learned from the study I did with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was that, if you are going to recall somebody by virtue of another form of misconduct and it amounts to a criminal offence, they should be prosecuted. They should not just be pulled off the street administratively; they should be charged, tried and sentenced or acquitted on the evidence. There should not be this sneaky little business of just pulling them off the street in an East German or Soviet way.
But that is enough of the figures; let me go back to my new clause. Where I differ from the method advanced by the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Hailsham is that our new clause would require a panel established by the Secretary of State
“to reconsider the cases of every person subject to a sentence of imprisonment for public protection … and in custody within six months of the date”
on which the Bill is enacted. The panel would consist of 12 judges or former judges under the age of retirement who have sat in the Crown Court, and they would be nominated to serve on the panel by the Lord Chancellor. But while I think that proposed new subsection (6E) is the magic subsection in the noble and learned Lord’s new clause, my proposed subsection (3) is the one that I invite your Lordships to concentrate on, because it introduces a degree of thinking about what is proportionate into the question that has to be discovered.
Subsection (3) reads:
“As soon as practicable after the establishment of the panel, a member of that panel—
so, it will be one judge at a time, not all 12 sitting in a group—
“must reconsider each case and determine whether, having regard to … (a) the nature of the person’s offending”.
Let me say in parenthesis that there will be some people serving an IPP sentence who may have been held to be dangerous because they have committed, for example, a double rape or a vicious, violent assault. But there are some people on IPPs who have done no more—I say “no more” in inverted commas—than commit a street robbery and stolen, with violence or with the threat of violence, somebody’s mobile telephone. They may have done it several times. Yes, that is very bad behaviour, but some of these people, having been given a 12-month or 18-month tariff, are still languishing in prison 20 years later. Is that what we call justice in this country?
Let us bring some sense of proportionality back to the assessment of the offender. Look at the period spent in custody; look at the risk to the public. Of course, we all worry about what risk is and how to assess it, but we have to make an attempt to assess the best, or the least worst, way of mitigating that risk. We either do it through the Parole Board, or we do it, it seems to me, through this judicial panel, but it has to be done. We cannot just sit on our hands and say, “It’s all too difficult”. If it is 10 years too late, if it is five years too late, if it is five weeks too late, if it is five days too late, if it is five minutes too late, it is too late, and we must do something right now.
The judge on the panel would have regard to
“the arrangements that can be made for supervision, rehabilitation and support in the community”.
Many of these people have become catastrophically institutionalised as a consequence of being imprisoned all this time. Just imagine that you have been bunged inside for robbing a person of their telephone—a relatively minor offence in the great canon of criminal affairs—and there you are, 20 years later, possibly having been recalled because you failed to turn up to an appointment at a parole or a probation office, asking yourself, “What on earth is the point? I will either take my own life or I will live in this place till the day I die of natural causes”. Let the panel, let the judge, look at what can be done with regard to supervision, rehabilitation and support outside prison.
If noble Lords are worried about that, the panel judge does not have the final decision, because his or her decision is susceptible to judicial review, and if the Secretary of State does not like it, he can refuse to accept the recommendation. And the Secretary of State’s decision is susceptible to judicial review.
There are different ways of dealing with risk, but whatever way you go at it, you have got to do it. Really, one must stop dallying around and saying, “It’s all too difficult and the Daily Wotsit won’t like it if somebody gets out”. We are bigger and better than that, and we should do something about it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
It is time for this side. Forgive me, but I think it is time that we heard—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Forgive me.
I want to be brief, because the speeches have been eloquent and passionate. All the bases have been covered, but in the absence of, for example, my noble friend Lord Blunkett, whose amendments I signed, it is important that someone from the Labour Benches conveys the concern that persists in the Labour Party. That includes people who are incredibly loyal to the Government and incredibly proud of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson. The anxiety and concern at this profound injustice is very live and real.
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other aspirations and amendments in this group. I agree that administrative mechanisms have not been enough. They do not show the signs of being enough to prevent more suicides and self-harm from what the noble and learned Lord put very well as having been a collective miscarriage of justice. When miscarriages of justice are perpetrated by the judiciary, there are appeal mechanisms and even executive pardon mechanisms to deal with them, but this was perpetrated by the political class: by the Executive and the legislature.
To the credit of the coalition Government, the IPP sentence was ended, but the response in relation to those already incarcerated was inadequate. These people, frankly, rot in prison. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put it very well: some of these people have now been incarcerated—some even without any release—for offences that would never have justified life imprisonment. They are decades beyond tariff. This is unconscionable, and something must be done.
I know very well from regular meetings and from all the engagement and work that my noble friend Lord Timpson is doing that he is committed to getting these people out, if at all possible, but administrative mechanisms do not seem to be enough. I hope he will forgive me for saying that, in these meetings and in that engagement, some of us have observed even institutional intransigence in some parts of the institution about dealing with this. Frankly, this was a legislative disaster and it will require a legislative solution. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make this 11th-hour concession. That may prove difficult— I do not know—but, at the very least, I would hope that he might consider a free-standing Bill that the Government could bring forward, with cross-party support, to provide a mechanism to deal with the remaining relatively small number of people suffering this profound injustice.
Administrative mechanisms and “wait and see” are plainly not going to work, not least because of the point about zero risk that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, earlier this evening and has come up in a number of speeches. There cannot be zero risk. There is not zero risk with people in the mainstream population who have never been convicted of an offence so, of course, there is not zero risk in relation to this cohort. Any risk that they pose has probably been exacerbated, as was put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, by this appalling state-sponsored miscarriage of justice of collective proportions.
It is time for all of us to play our part on a cross-party basis, which is why I shall be listening as anxiously to the reply from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, opposite. This is a political problem and an institutional problem, and it will take good will from all sides to deal with it. We spoke earlier about the purposes of imprisonment. The legitimate purpose of imprisonment was never supposed to be political point-scoring, yet that political point-scoring has created all sorts of problems that have escalated in the past three decades, so I hope that there can be some olive branch offered from that side of the House as well.
I know that the Minister is committed to justice and has proved in his extraparliamentary life what can be done with genuine courage and a commitment to turning people’s lives around. This, I know, is on his mind. I am asking him to consider a legislative response, rather than just leaving it to administration, because that has not been sufficient. I support the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but there is a lot in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said too. It is perhaps a shame that we did not have a single offering, but I firmly believe that there will have to be a legislative offering, ideally from the Government. Otherwise, this stain—the word of my dear friend and former mentor, the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—will carry on, perhaps beyond our own lifetimes, and I for one would be seriously ashamed of that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He has asked me to say that he is mortified that he cannot be here today and that he sends his apologies to the House that he is not able to be here to move them.
I have my own amendment in this group, Amendment 78, which is carried forward from Committee. It is a very modest amendment making an administrative change that relates only to prisoners who are out on licence, to make it easier for some of them to discharge their licence. I am delighted to say that it had a reasonably good welcome in Committee from the Minister and that he has brought forward his own amendment, the government amendment in this group, which effectively does what I was proposing in my Amendment 78, so of course I have no intention of moving that and I encourage noble Lords to support the government amendment in this group.
Turning to the main question, we have the essential problem. I am not here to beat up the Government. I say straight away that there are difficult issues here for Ministers, and not just Labour Ministers. I have seen very good people as Conservative Ministers struggle with the same issues in the past, and that would be true if they were Ministers from other parties. The issues are genuinely difficult because of the question of public protection. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, complete protection of the public is not possible. The way in which we try to maximise protection for the public in these cases is through having decisions about release made by independent bodies, in particular by the Parole Board. Ministers of both parties have been very clear that nothing is going to happen, and nobody is going to be released, unless it is with the say-so of the Parole Board.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has crafted his amendment very much with that in mind. The Parole Board follows certain procedures, and those procedures are not fixed in stone, it seems to me. The procedures, of course, are up for argument. The fact that it is the Parole Board that must decide is not up for argument, but how the Parole Board works can legitimately be up for argument.
What the noble and learned Lord has done is try to change those procedures, to change the emphasis so that the prisoner is given an incentive to engage with the Parole Board: an incentive that, if certain things are complied with within a certain period, the Parole Board will say yes, rather than the current system, where the prisoner goes through hoops and then finds out afterwards whether the Parole Board is going to say yes or no.
That is a shift in balance; it is a change merely in the way that the Parole Board works. However, just to make 100% certain that the danger to the public is not increased, the noble and learned Lord has, of course, included the measure that he mentions, whereby the Parole Board can rescind any such conditional offer if it finds that it is not working out.
It seems to me that the Ministers should be able to have an open mind about a proposal such as that, because it does not touch the red lines that they are so concerned about. It is merely a change in the way the Parole Board approaches its task, but one that has a better prospect of success.
Similar remarks could be made about the proposal from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. Again, the independent body in this case would be a panel of judges, or a judge operating from a panel, and again, the Secretary of State would have a final say—the Secretary of State could override it at the end—so there would be a fail-safe built in.
I think it is fair to say that either of these mechanisms would have a dramatic effect in altering the balance. While there would still be some prisoners, I frankly admit, who probably would never meet those criteria, or at least not without a great deal of work, it would start to address that residue that is finding it very difficult to move, and it would do so in a way that does not cross the Government’s red lines.
I have every sympathy with the Minister who, as other noble Lords have said, has worked extremely hard on this. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for him to be able to embrace some sort of change, while protecting public safety. I hope that he can step forward and say something positive that we could carry forward for the future. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, chooses to divide on this amendment, I would feel obliged to follow him into the Lobbies, but I would much rather hear it said by the Minister that he will be able to find that compromise that would allow all of us to work together in this direction.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the case has been made clearly and persuasively, with no significant objection, but it is a difficult issue of public policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, there is a risk—there is this downside risk of a case that will make headlines in the newspapers—but that has to be set against the certainty of the harm that this policy is causing to many people at the moment.
We know that. It is well attested, and my noble friend the Minister knows that full well. So we have to accept the risk and embrace the opportunity to greatly help people who are suffering in our prisons from this policy. I will listen with care to my noble friend’s response to the debate. I very much hope that he will be able to give us some hope, but I will find it difficult to join my colleagues in the government Lobby.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, clearly it is wonderful to hear from the Labour Benches, because I know from private conversations that there is a lot of concern about this. It is a morally indefensible position to say that we are not going to do it because of public opinion, or because a newspaper might pick it up and run a bad story about the Government. There are enough bad stories about the Government; I am sure it would get lost in the confusion.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I was schooled in this subject, if I was schooled at all, by the late noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Judge. They both took me through this and were absolutely certain in what they were saying: noble Lords will have heard Lord Brown’s verdict that this is possibly the greatest stain on our judicial system. As the Minister knows, I feel very strongly about this, and indeed joint enterprise.
But the thing that I would like to talk about very briefly is proportionality. I am very attracted both to the solution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and to that from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Earlier, we heard the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, arguing very eloquently and successfully on Amendment 74. Equally, we heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, putting a very strong case from his point of view. But the fact is that some of the people in prison for this are not in prison for things anywhere near as serious as the things that noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned and that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said would be okay, because they would be carefully scrutinised.
There are people serving endless sentences who were originally sentenced only to 18 months in prison. They are still there. Their families are still concerned. We have to look at proportionality. What were they originally sentenced for? How long were they sentenced for? How does that colour the views of the Parole Board or judges? I think that is an essential point which leads us to feel shame: people are in prison for very minor offences compared with rape and murder, and are there on an original sentence that was relatively minor compared with those for murder and rape. So we really do have to look at this.
I will not go on any longer. I just implore the Minister to use the mercy and clemency he has shown so clearly in dealing with the prison system in this case. There is a unanimous feeling around the House: nobody yet has gone against the point we are all making that something has to be done.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, to start with, I would just like to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is undoubtedly personally committed to resolving this issue. Nobody, I think, is making any party-political points and nobody is personally having a go at the Minister. But that is not sufficient for us to go home with tonight. We still have to say that, regardless of how honourable and wonderful the Minister might be, IPP has dragged on. So I will be voting for the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, but since he spoke so brilliantly to start this debate, all the speeches have been as though I have never heard the subject before. I feel like crying, I feel like screaming. In other words, this is an incredibly important scandal that gets to you every time, and gets to members of the public every time when you share it with them. They are equally appalled; they cannot believe it.
One of the points that I noted from the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is that it will make the indeterminate determinate; there will be an end in sight. Apart from anything else, never mind the sentences, I feel as though this debate is indeterminate and going on for ever, because I seem to have repeated it endlessly. When I heard UNGRIPP making the point that for the current decrease in the IPP prison population it will take a minimum of 11 years to release everyone currently on an IPP sentence—that is, 31 years since its introduction and 24 years since its official abolition—you do think, “It’s got to end”. Nobody is doing this as a joke or a game to just make the same kinds of speeches.
Amendment 96, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, particularly appeals to me. I am not always a fan of judges, it has to be said, but one of the things I like about it is that every single prisoner would be looked at, and each and every circumstance would be considered. That is very important, because there have been times when it has been made to sound like one size fits all—you know what I mean, release them all or what have you. This has the advantage of taking into consideration every single circumstance and what particular prisoners would need. I think that is very important.
Something that I do not think has had enough mention tonight is that in some instances the resolution is that a prisoner will need to be transferred to a hospital, and it might not be straightforward to release them from hospital. They might be very seriously ill at that point. But the main thing would be, because the end would be in sight, if they were ever well enough to be released from hospital, they would not then go back to prison on the IPP sentence that very often has made them ill in the first instance. I want to quote a psychiatrist who said, “How do you motivate somebody to take part in treatment at a hospital if the outcome of that is effectively to facilitate their return to prison?” That is a terrible tragedy.
I will just finish with an anecdote, because it makes the point. Rob Russell, who is on an IPP sentence and in prison at the moment, was sentenced in 2009 for making threats to kill his former partner. I hope I have illustrated today, when I have spoken, that I am not a fan of being soft on perpetrators of domestic abuse. This is somebody who threatened to kill his former partner. He was sentenced in 2009 and has never been released. He is now in hospital. I want him to get well, but I do not want him to go back to the IPP sentence. Can you imagine if he gets well and goes back to prison? He could be on the same landing as somebody who has been convicted for domestic violence, not threats but actually committing violence against their partner: but as that person is on a standard determinate sentence, they could be offered early release—“Earn your way to release”—but Rob will not be, whereas he actually just threatened. I honest to God think that is grotesque.
The Minister today, who I am a great admirer of, justified the risks of freeing people early who have been violent on the basis of freeing up space in prisons, because we have to protect victims and give them space. IPPers might well present a risk when they are freed into the community, but, as has now been explained, so will all those people on early release that we have just discussed all day. There is no doubt that something will happen with some of them. I do not wish it; I just know it. The fact that those serving an IPP sentence have to prove every time that they will never do anything again is ludicrous. If I was Rob, who has been mentally ill, and I had to compare myself with this person who is getting out early, the sense of frustration and hopelessness would honestly make my mental health deteriorate again.
So I simply think that it has to end and we have to do whatever is required. The Minister would be helped if it was legislative. Whichever amendment works, works for me; I will vote for it. This cannot carry on. I know that is too melodramatic. I just mean that, genuinely, this needs to end. It is grotesque in the context of this Sentencing Bill, releasing people for a wide range of reasons when we cannot release people who are in prison decades after their tariff for minor things, and we will not even look at assessing each of them to see whether they might be safe beyond the IPP Parole Board. It is just ridiculous.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I co-signed Amendment 76, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and shall support it. The amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, would achieve the same outcome. Either amendment would right this injustice. The present position is simply cruelty.
I have very little to add to the speeches, all of which have been principled and humane. Across the House, noble Lords have gone to great lengths to acknowledge and address the risk of further offending while seeking to end the appalling injustice of the continued indefinite incarceration of IPP prisoners. My noble friend Lady Ludford referred the House to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and challenged the Government to come forward with a response to the human rights case. There is none.
I simply do not understand the reasoning behind the proposition that we cannot or will not release IPP prisoners when prisoners serving determinate sentences are entitled to be released, and are released, at the end of their terms. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, pointed out, resistance to ending this injustice fails to balance the actual harm of the present regime to IPP prisoners against the possible risk of further offences by a released IPP prisoner. The Government have a duty to balance risks and harms. On this issue, the balance is between the actual harm to IPP prisoners and the theoretical but possible harm that is risked by releasing them.
As we have heard, subsection (6E) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 76 would leave the Parole Board in charge. It is more than reasonable. Justice and humanity demand that we end this.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments address the most complex and sensitive of legacies in our sentencing framework. Few issues illustrate more clearly the challenge of balancing public protection, fairness to victims, management of risk and the injustice to individuals who have already served far beyond their original tariff. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, correctly pointed out that there is an issue here of proportionality; we seem to sometimes lose sight of that.
Amendment 76 does not provide for automatic or immediate release. Instead, it would require the Parole Board, where it does not direct release, to fix a future release date, subject to conditions intended to ensure public protection but also to instil some element of hope. The amendment would preserve a central role for the Parole Board, including, of course, powers to issue directions, vary release dates and reconsider decisions where public safety requires it. The inclusion of time limits seeks to balance progression with caution, though views may differ as to whether these limits are set at the right level.
These are complex judgments, and reasonable views can differ on how best to reconcile rehabilitation and public protection. These proposals represent a thoughtful attempt to impose coherence and fairness on an area of law that has become impossibly difficult, while attempting to keep public protection firmly in view. I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with the principles underlying these amendments and explain how the Government intend to address the long-term sustainability of the IPP regime. The status quo is untenable.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on IPP sentences and for their impassioned speeches this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, kindly said, I share their commitment to addressing this issue with compassion, evidence and tenacity. I thank the many noble Lords who have participated in debates, meetings and discussions on this issue. I am grateful for their challenge and support, both in your Lordships’ House and at our Peers meetings, which I plan to continue in the future.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in which the views, save that of the Minister, have been unanimous across the House. The unanimous view is that something needs to be done in the interests of justice.
It is justice that lies at the heart of this debate. One of the cardinal principles of justice is treating everyone equally before the law. If you stole a mobile phone from someone in 2005 or 2014, you ought to be treated in exactly the same way if you committed that offence during the period of this misconceived sentence. Failing to do that is to condemn people to injustice and to perpetuate it. It is no excuse to say, “Well, they were under a sentence passed by the courts”, when everyone has agreed that that sentence was wholly misconceived; nor is it an excuse to say there is a risk that they are more dangerous, because the psychiatric evidence is unanimous in the view that the form of sentence has made that danger greater.
On the amendment and what it tries to deal with, I am very sorry that those who provided the briefing to the Minister did not understand the change that had been made to the proposals I and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put forward, because neither required a two-year release. There was a safeguard put in. What we proposed would have protected the public to the extent that they are and must be protected.
I would hope that we could give people hope. I do not believe, from what I have seen—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has said, from the files he reviewed—that this can be solved administratively; it needs legislation.
I, therefore, with deep regret, feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House. In doing so, it is important to bear in mind what Lord Lloyd of Berwick reminded the House of in 2014: Winston Churchill said many years earlier that
“one infallible test of any civilised country is the way it treats its prisoners”.—[Official Report, 20/10/14; col. 456.]
I hope we will not fail that test. We need to do justice to those in prison. I therefore would like to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 76.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is connected to Lord Marks’ amendment to after Clause 29, and his amendments to page 55, line 26 and page 55, line 30. Together they ensure that there is flexibility in the number of days a prisoner may be recalled for in relation to less serious offences, while also ensuring that those who had committed certain serious offences are not eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 79 to 81 would make the 56-day fixed period of recall a maximum period and not a fixed period, while my Amendment 87 would make automatic release after a recall subject to an exclusion in those cases where it applied, particularly for serious offenders.
Recalls can and often do follow relatively trivial breaches of licence conditions, and that is one of the criticisms that is frequently made of recalls from licence. The 56-day fixed period of recall addresses the question of how long a recall should be and prevents it being indefinite, but we suggest that 56 days may be in some circumstances too long, so we would prefer a flexible period. The 56-day fixed period under the Bill would apply irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, and it may often therefore be unjust. Eight weeks is a long time, and it may be far too long. As we know, it may follow, for example, a prisoner simply missing a probation appointment.
As I pointed out in Committee, recall is likely to cost an offender who had found employment following a release on licence—we have heard how important finding a job is for offenders. Where such an offender has found work, the recall may jeopardise that. It might risk a newly released offender’s housing—again, we know how difficult it is to find housing—or participation in educational, skills or vocational programmes or other rehabilitative programmes. Indeed, more seriously, it might affect an offender’s mental health treatment or treatment for addiction or substance abuse or gambling addiction.
A shorter recall might also carry those risks, but the likelihood is far less, and in a case where a shorter recall would be appropriate, those consequences should be avoided. Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of licence conditions would not reduce the prison capacity shortage; indeed, it would make it worse. A shorter recall might mitigate that.
However, there are cases where a 56-day recall may be too short. Our Amendment 87 seeks for the automatic release provision to take effect subject to a provision excluding that automatic release for those who had committed more serious offences. The list of offences, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, pointed out, is a list that his party have adopted for other purposes, but in this case we accept it as a list of serious offences. However, the point about this part is that it only applies to exclude automatic recall, so that recall would be discretionary. That would apply for serious sexual offenders and for stalkers who had been recalled for harassing or stalking their victims on a repeat occasion. They would not be entitled to automatic release.
This short suite of amendments introduces an element of flexibility into the recall system. It seeks for the 56 days to be a maximum period and where it was too long it would not be applied. In the case of a serious offender whose recall ought to be much longer, it would not lead to automatic release. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 82, 83 and 86 in my name. This is a continuation of a discussion that we had in Committee, which is particularly focused on concern about the unintended consequences of domestic abuse perpetrators being released when they still present a potential grave danger to the women that they were abusing and the women’s families and children.
We and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner welcome the measures in this Bill to improve the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators and the commitment from government to resource HM Prison and Probation Service to increase its capacity to do better. There is also much to be welcomed in the VAWG strategy—so much that you wonder whether it will be possible to do it all. The ambition is laudable; the proof will be in the implementation. We want to highlight that achieving this laudable commitment requires improvements across the criminal justice system that are embedded to ensure that victims and survivors are kept safer than they have been to date.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the time that he spent with me and with some of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s officials. We had a very interesting meeting with Kim Thornden-Edwards, the new Chief Probation Officer for England and Wales, whom I found to be very formidable indeed. Speaking as a former headhunter, I would say that whoever chose her did an excellent job. She will up the game of the Probation Service and turbocharge it, which it needs.
We also welcome the assurances given around investment in the system and the improvements to the processes, which are very necessary. However, the key concern is that this cannot be achieved rapidly and certainly not overnight. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner remains highly concerned that mistakes may be made and that some mistakes may have very unfortunate consequences. Her concern is to mitigate that to the extent that it is possible.
In Committee, the Minister proposed amendments that would ensure that any offender recalled on the basis of contact with their victim would not be automatically released after 56 days but would be risk assessed and held in custody until their risk to the victim has reduced and can be safely managed in the community. Although we are reassured by the investment into prisons and probation and the commitments to improve the risk-assessment process, it is absolutely critical that safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible to prevent the release of the wrong people by mistake.
I anticipate that the response of the Minister to the amendments that have been laid, and which I am talking to, will be, essentially, that there is a programme in place across the system to improve a whole range of areas, including the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators and the level of risk they present, and that to try to carve out a particular area for specific oversight separately to the rest is unhelpful to the programme as it is conceived. I can understand and accept that.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 82, 83 and 86, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I start, if I may, with a point that I made earlier in the debate on Amendment 25. The Government have a strategy on violence against women and girls. They have a clear commitment to reduce violence against women and girls. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government should be looking to make sure that they in no way inadvertently increase the risk of violence against women and girls. This aspect of the Bill—the fact that a perpetrator who has been released, breached their licence by making contact with the victim and is then recalled, could then be automatically released after 56 days—is such a potential loophole, because that individual is highly likely in those circumstances to go back to the victim and potentially further abuse them.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are time-limited. It is recognised that the Government are increasing the capacity of the system to make risk assessments of individuals, but those programmes are not entirely in place at the moment. There is the potential for the Government, by accepting these amendments, to close that loophole and further enhance the ability to prevent violence against women and girls.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about his conversations with the Minister and his expectation, or concern, that perhaps he might not immediately leap to his feet and accept these amendments. I want to pick up one of the points about working with those in the field who are experts on these issues. It is only because of the Domestic Abuse Act that we have a single definition of domestic abuse that is now used across the whole of government. It is a comprehensive definition of domestic abuse, because domestic abuse comes in many different forms. Sadly, many of those in the criminal justice system do not yet fully understand all forms of domestic abuse. It is one of the issues that I know the Government will still have to deal with in making sure that the police, prosecutors, judges and probation officers all understand the panoply of issues that constitute domestic abuse.
It is important that, if the Government are not willing to close this loophole by accepting these amendments, they work with experts in the field to make sure that those who are being trained to risk-assess perpetrators are able to do so in the full knowledge and understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady May, on her words and her fantastic editorship of the “Today” programme on New Year’s Day, where she highlighted the problems of domestic abuse.
This amendment would make a significant difference to the safety of victims. We are making progress in seeing victims coming forward and, when they do, protecting them. Victims live with the fear that their perpetrator will contact them at any time. The Probation Service is doing an excellent job, most of the time, but change and training take time, especially to embed themselves, and, as has been witnessed, without proper training, devastating consequences can occur.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier stated that it is all about risk and how to assess it. This amendment is easy to incorporate, is easy to carry out and could put a significant safety valve in the system while the necessary training is put in place. I ask the Minister to try to see in his mind that this would be a good thing to do. When I was sitting on that Bench, every now and again an amendment to a Bill would come forward and I would think, “This really could work”, but I was always being put off, either by the Bill team or by the department. Occasionally, I took it into my own head and did something off my own bat. I was then told, when I left the Chamber, “You’re making government policy. That’s not what you’re meant to do”. But I did not get the sack, so it was worth doing.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the inclusion of the additional condition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in Amendments 83 and 86, to ensure that, for a transitional period, an offender who has breached a licence condition or court order in relation to their victim is not automatically released. It is an important amendment for protecting victims and maintaining confidence in the justice system. We are also supportive of Amendment 87, which excludes certain serious offenders from automatic release. This aligns with our Amendment 25 and ensures that those who pose the greatest risk to the public cannot benefit from automatic release.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords for tabling these amendments. Although we are still convinced that the approach in the Bill is right, it is only right that it receives thorough scrutiny. In drafting these measures, we have sought to strike a balance between ensuring that offenders can be safely managed in the community and the need to achieve a sustainable prison system. Nothing would be worse for victims than running out of prison cells.
The new system has been carefully designed to achieve this and to ensure consistent and proportionate responses to risk and non-compliance across all offence types. The offence-based exemptions proposed by Amendments 79 and 87 would undermine that consistency and may not reflect an individual’s actual risk level. The Bill already contains significant safeguards so that offenders who pose a greater risk are excluded from 56-day fixed-term recall. This includes those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence and those subject to multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3. This applies to many sexual, violent and domestic abuse offenders.
Before any recalled offender is re-released, professionally qualified probation officers will undertake a thorough review of the release plans and licence conditions. They will ensure that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. Furthermore, a prisoner given a fixed-term recall can be transferred to a standard recall if certain conditions are met, including if their risk escalates and they are then managed at multi-agency supervision levels 2 and 3. Offenders will leave prison to probation supervision and can be recalled again if considered a risk.
Amendments 80 and 81 seek to allow release from fixed-term recall at an earlier point than 56 days. The Independent Sentencing Review found that the current short duration of fixed-term recalls—14 or 28 days—does not provide enough time for offenders to address their risky behaviours in custody or for further risk reduction measures to be implemented. The Government agree with this assessment. This has been carefully considered with operational colleagues, and 56 days is enough time to undertake and put in place risk-management plans. Our proposed framework already provides sufficient flexibility without any further legislative change needed.
The Bill already allows the Secretary of State to keep an offender in custody past 56 days by overriding automatic re-release and converting a fixed-term recall to a standard recall. Where this happens, release is subject to Parole Board approval or, under the existing risk-assessed recall review process, allowing offenders to be released at any point before the 56 days where it is assessed safe to do so. For example, an offender could be recalled because of an increased risk linked to substance misuse. Having received structured support in custody that can be continued in the community, probation staff assess they can now be safely managed in the community. In this situation, they can be re-released before 56 days.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in light of that answer, I do not propose to press this to a vote, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“(ba) after subsection (5), insert—“(5A) The Secretary of State must not exercise the power to remove a prisoner under this section where the prisoner—(a) is a fixed-term prisoner sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three years, or(b) is detained in accordance with subsection (4)(b) after returning to the United Kingdom following a previous removal.(5B) The Secretary of State must not exercise the power to remove a prisoner under this section unless he or she is satisfied that the interests of justice are not defeated by the removal, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact of the offender’s criminal conduct on those affected by it.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to add certain limits to early removals to ensure that the interests of justice and those of victims are taken into account.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who unfortunately cannot be present. I wish to express first his appreciation of the time the Minister has taken to speak to him about the issue raised by this amendment. I can explain it very briefly. In the independent review conducted by Mr David Gauke, he considered whether foreign national offenders should be removed to reduce pressure on capacity and ensure that punishment was served for crimes committed in the United Kingdom. Under the then existing law, foreign national offenders had to serve 50% of their sentence but could then be removed and returned to their own state, where they would get no further punishment. The review recommended that the 50% rule be reduced to 30%—this was accepted and brought in by a statutory instrument—and that those who were sentenced to three years or less could be removed without serving any part of their sentence here. Clause 32 proposes the removal of the three-year time limit, so that any offender, however serious the offence is, can be removed without serving any part of their sentence whatever.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to restore the position recommended by Mr David Gauke: to ensure that people who receive sentences of more than three years could not be removed without serving part of their sentence. Secondly, it would make it clear that it is inapplicable to a person who has been deported and returns. That is to stop the revolving door of committing a crime, being deported, coming back, committing a crime and going round and round. Thirdly, it would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied, in the case of serious crimes,
“that the interests of justice are not defeated by the removal, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact … on those affected by it”.
There is a change from the amendment put forward in Committee in one respect, in that it drops the requirement that the offender serve his term overseas.
The most important of the three points raised by this amendment is the first: restoring the recommendation of the Gauke review. As I understand it, there are about 3,000 such offenders and it costs about £61,000 a year to keep each of them in prison here. I can see no objection to sending them back if they are to serve the remainder of the term in their own country, but it is evident from the figures that only a tiny proportion would serve such a term. The Bill as it stands, therefore, will send back at our own cost a very significant number of people who have committed crimes that deserve at least three years’ imprisonment.
It seems that the Government have said that they are not prepared to accept the amendment partly because they cannot agree to anything that will effect a reduction in prison capacity. Secondly, they are determined to make sure that the public Exchequer is relieved of the burden of paying for the imprisonment of foreign national offenders.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to reverse what can only be described as the interests of short-term expediency over the principles of sentencing, because the amendment infringes three of those principles First, if a person commits a wrong that merits three years’ or more imprisonment, that person merits equivalent punishment. Being sent back to his own country at taxpayers’ expense is not a punishment. Secondly, the purpose of sentencing is to deter crime. What deterrence is there in making it clear that, if a person comes to this country to commit a crime, he will be sent home free, without punishment? Thirdly, and most importantly, proper punishment retains public confidence in the system. If, for example, someone commits a series of shoplifting offences to go to the lower end of the three-year limit or, more seriously, comes here deliberately to commit a crime, paid for, what deterrence is there if that person knows he can go back? We hope that the Government will think again on this point.
However, on the second and third points—that is to say, dealing with the revolving door problem in the first place, while requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the interests of justice are not defeated by removal, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact on those affected by it—why can the Government not accept them? I hope the Minister will be able to say, “Well, we’ve got to have a framework to deal with those kinds of issues” and will make it clear that, among the issues to be contained in the policy framework that governs the way in which foreign national offenders are dealt with, those two points, namely the revolving door and maintaining and examining each case to ensure that the gravity of the offence and the effect of the offender will not be that which casts doubt on the integrity of the criminal justice system, will be looked at and properly included within it. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for the carefully framed amendment and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the very careful way in which he presented the amendment. We agree with all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, without qualification.
When the previous Secretary of State for Justice first intimated this policy last year, I referred to it in this Chamber as being “completely mad”. I have not deviated from that opinion, I have to confess. The idea that someone coming from a safe country in Europe will commit a series of robberies and then, when caught, will be returned to their country of origin at public expense in order to pick up a different set of identity papers or a different passport and then return yet again strikes me as quite absurd. That is the revolving door point that has been touched upon, but the other points are equally important.
Of course, they may not have come from a safe country, in which case we cannot deport them, but no accommodation has been made for that either. It is going to be optional, essentially. You may seek to argue that you have not come from a safe country and therefore you cannot be deported, so you prefer to stay in prison. It is a quite extraordinary proposal that somehow punishment lies in the fact that you have been returned to your country of origin after committing a serious offence in this country. We have a foreign national who rapes a child and flees back to his country of origin, and presumably we no longer make any efforts to extradite him because as far as this policy is concerned, he has been punished. He has gone home. What is that going to do for public confidence in the justice system? It will damage it, but I cannot see any upside. It is an impossible proposal.
David Gauke proposed, very sensibly, that there should be a minimum term of punishment, and that is necessary because it is not just punishment; it is also deterrence. Without that, we end up in the strange situation in which people commit a crime, leave for their home country at public expense and return as and when they wish to do so. We have had instances of that already. I will not go into the detailed cases at this stage in the evening, but it is not uncommon for those who have been arrested and convicted of offences to return to their country of origin and then return to these islands in due course. There have recent instances of that. We strongly support the idea that there has to be a minimum term of imprisonment in these cases, while understanding the pressure on our prisons. Does the Minister truly believe that public confidence in the justice system will be improved or even maintained as and when the full implications of this proposed policy become public?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for meeting with my noble friend Lord Timpson to discuss the amendment proposed by him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, relating to the early removal scheme and for the spirit in which this has been debated. Considering the lateness of the hour, I shall try to be brief. A number of the points I want to make, I will make very quickly, but there are one or two points that I do not think have been adequately addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I will perhaps just dwell on those.
To be clear, the Government’s priority is protecting victims in the UK and ensuring that foreign national offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, they will be barred from ever returning to the UK, protecting victims and the wider public. Limiting the early removal scheme to only those in receipt of a sentence of less than three years would effectively put the brakes on sustaining the removal of foreign national offenders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his strong support for this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his response.
It is a pity that the discretionary nature of this scheme is not more clearly set out. I am sure that a number of the issues that have been dealt with by the noble Lord could be more clearly dealt with if we were able to see in writing what the parameters are for the exercise of the discretion. It is not enough just to leave it to individual governors. In particular, when dealing with the revolving door and with crimes which are of gravity where there is an effect on the victim, these are the kind of things that need to be built into such a scheme. I understand from the noble Lord that there is going to be developed such a scheme. On that understanding, I will not press this amendment further.
Lord Lemos
“Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where—(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter (whether or not the prisoner has subsequently been recalled to prison under section 32),(b) the qualifying period has expired,(c) the prisoner’s licence has remained in force for a continuous period of one year beginning not before the qualifying period expired, and(d) the prisoner requests that the Secretary of State refer their case to the Parole Board,the Secretary of State must refer the prisoner’s case to the Board under this subsection.(3B) Only one request may be made under subsection (3A)(d) in any continuous period during which the prisoner’s licence remains in force.”;(b) in subsection (4), after “(3)” insert “or (3A)”; (c) in subsection (4D), for the words from “The reference under” to “that subsection” substitute “A reference under subsection (3) or (3A) must not be made, and a reference under either of those subsections”;(d) in subsection (4E)(a), after “(3)” insert “or (3A)”;(e) in subsection (5), in the definition of “the qualifying period”, for the words from “means—” to the end of the definition substitute “means the period of two years beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release.”;(f) in subsection (6)—(i) omit “paragraph (a) or (b) of”;(ii) after “the definition of “the qualifying period”” insert “in relation to—(a) a prisoner who was not at any time, in the period specified in the regulations beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release, serving any preventive sentence in respect of an offence for which the prisoner was convicted when aged 18 or over;(b) any other prisoner.”(3) In section 32 (recall of life prisoners while on licence), in subsection (5C), after “for the purposes of” insert “paragraph (c) of section 31A(3A) (referral to Parole Board) or”.(4) In section 32ZZA (imprisonment or detention for public protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners), in subsection (4), after “for the purposes of” insert “paragraph (c) of section 31A(3A) (referral to Parole Board) or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a further referral to the Parole Board of the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection who has been released on licence and shortens the existing period that certain persons must spend on licence before a referral is made or a licence terminated.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Gambling addiction and disorders: assessment in pre-sentencing and of offendersThe Secretary of State must—(a) ensure that where any assessment used in the preparation of a pre-sentence report requires or allows an assessment of the individual’s mental health, alcohol or drug addiction, an assessment must also be made as to whether the individual has a gambling addiction or disorder;(b) ensure that where any system or method used for the assessment of the needs of offenders requires or allows an assessment of an offender’s mental health, alcohol addiction, or drug addiction, an assessment must also be made as to whether the offender has a gambling addiction or disorder;(c) ensure that, for the purposes of paragraph (b), if an assessment finds that the offender has had a gambling addiction or disorder, or is likely to develop such an addiction or disorder, appropriate steps shall be taken to minimise the possible occurrence or recurrence of such an addiction or disorder.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure assessments of gambling addiction or disorder are included in pre-sentencing reports and reports on offenders after sentencing.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and chairman of Action on Gambling. Amendments 95 and 99 are based on concerns that I have previously expressed during earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill. At present, gambling disorder, unlike drugs and alcohol addiction, is not adequately addressed within the criminal justice system. Gambling disorder simply does not have parity of esteem with drug and alcohol addiction, and I believe that it should. The internationally agreed classification of mental disorders believes that it should and puts drugs, alcohol and gambling in a special subgroup of substance-related and addictive disorders. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners believes that there should be parity. Our own NICE guidelines say the same and state that screening about gambling should occur at each point of contact with the criminal justice system.
However, at present, there is no parity of esteem and, as a result, we are failing to tackle one of the key issues that lead people to offend and reoffend. We know from independent research that, for example, a far higher percentage—over 25%—of the prison population suffer gambling harm than in the general population, and gambling is rife within our prisons. Yet current assessment of offenders rarely identifies gambling disorder because it is not adequately referenced in current and planned future assessment procedures. Support and treatment for gambling disorder are rarely available either in prisons or to those under the supervision of the Probation Service.
As a result, many individuals enter court or prison or start a non-custodial sentence without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Courts rarely then have access to gambling-specific reports, leaving judges without evidence to make an informed sentencing decision. There is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences. Within prisons, or for those under the supervision of the Probation Service, treatment and peer-support options are largely absent. On release, continuity of care is, frankly, inconsistent, leaving individuals vulnerable to relapse and reoffending.
Amendments 95 and 99 seek to overcome these problems in terms of assessment and support for gambling disorders among offenders. They seek to give parity of esteem for drug and alcohol addiction and gambling disorders. I beg to move Amendment 95.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I know it is late, but it is important that I cover a number of very important points. I must begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Foster. He has shown extraordinary tenacity and leadership in tackling gambling addiction and harms in the criminal justice system. I have certainly learned a lot from my conversations with the noble Lord on the subject and it is no exaggeration to say that, without his interventions, I would not have fully appreciated the importance and significance of gambling addiction in driving offending. I also reflect back on leading a business where, if I had been more aware of problems with gambling addiction, I could have supported colleagues in a better way.
I can assure the noble Lord that this is now a personal priority of mine. I accept that there is more to do to ensure that there is parity of esteem between gambling addiction and more commonly recognised addictions such as to drugs and alcohol. This work must be done urgently and I have tasked my officials to get on with ensuring that this is taken forward. I am firmly committed to identifying offenders’ problems, whether they be drug, alcohol or gambling addictions, to ensure that they can access the support they need to help turn their lives around and reduce reoffending. But, although we agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of Amendment 95, we do not believe that legislation is needed. There are already multiple opportunities for an offender’s needs to be identified, including via pre-sentence reports. Staff are also encouraged to consider gambling-related risks in risk assessments and rehabilitation planning.
To ensure a consistent approach throughout the criminal justice system, probation and prison staff use a single tool: the offender assessment system, OASys for short. I recognise that OASys provides minimal overt prompts to encourage them to take gambling harms and addiction into account, compared with drugs and alcohol addiction. However, a new tool known as ARNS is replacing this. An early version is now operating in four probation regions. To ensure we focus more closely on gambling, ARNS is already testing updated questions including: is the person affected by gambling? This is in the finance section. If the answer is yes, the tool automatically prompts for further details. Additionally, the new ARNS sentence plan, due to be rolled out nationally from March this year, already includes gambling-related rehabilitative goals for relevant individuals. However, I accept that such a question is probably not best placed in the finance section and we will review this, based on advice from experts in the field.
The Government are committed to working with experts in the gambling sector as we develop, test and refine our approach this year. We have therefore invited a world-renowned expert on gambling addiction, Dr Matt Gaskell, to advise the ARNS project as a member of its academic expert group, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing us to him. We will collaborate with Dr Gaskell and the practitioners testing the tool to establish how to make it work, based on the evidence they present. We will take a proportionate and evidence-led approach in determining how and when assessments are completed. To confirm, I am committed to giving gambling addiction parity of esteem. Our approach will continue to evolve, guided by evidence and informed by expert advice to improve outcomes. I am excited to convene a gambling round table in the coming months, bringing together leading voices to share valuable insights. I am looking forward also to touring the country to speak to probation officers this spring and will share the importance of gambling addiction with them then.
I also thank the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 99. As with Amendment 95, I agree entirely with the principle of supporting offenders to reduce reoffending. Many rehabilitative interventions are already available for individuals with a gambling addiction or disorder. These include support with thinking and behaviour, debt advice, relationships, homelessness and unemployment. Mutual aid groups such as Gamblers Anonymous also have a very important role to play.
I recognise that there is more to do to improve access to mutual aid across the estate, not just for gambling but also for drugs and alcohol. It is a personal aim of mine to ensure that all prisons have weekly access to Gamblers Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and I want to work closely with these fellowships to achieve this. I am pleased that Gambling Anonymous is already operating in 11 prisons and I am sure that many prisoners benefit from its support. HMPPS has established a forum for mutual aid fellowships to help identify and tackle barriers to access. With the support of forum members, HMPPS has developed guidance for prisoners on facilitating access to mutual aid and is co-developing promotional materials. The forum includes Gamblers Anonymous and I am grateful for its ongoing support and collaboration.
Recognising that there is more we need to do, we are working with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for people in the criminal justice system. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, debt advice, relationships, homelessness and unemployment. We are working with health partners in the scoping and development of future work undertaken through the treatment strand of the gambling levy programme, which will be allocated 50% of funding from the levy. Funding from the statutory gambling levy will further bolster the support available, and the Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of the levy.
Pilots are already in place to strengthen treatment provision in criminal justice settings across both NHS and third-sector providers. NHS England is committed to building on these pilots to ensure treatment interventions are robust, effective and evidence led. It is working hand in hand with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which lead the prevention strand of the levy, to deepen our understanding of prevalence and inform future approaches to screening.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what have been very constructive conversations on these issues, both with him and his officials. In light of what he said, I hope he will be willing to sign up as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform. I also thank him for the incredibly generous compliments he gave me at the start of his speech. It was the former Prime Minister Lord Palmerston who said, “Flattery is the foot soldier of diplomacy”. However, feeling as strongly as I do about these issues, I have to admit that flattery alone would not have persuaded me to give up my campaign to see gambling harm given a far greater priority in the criminal justice system. But beyond flattery, the Minister has given a very personal and powerful commitment to seek to achieve that which I have been trying to seek as well—indeed, he has perhaps gone even further. I am enormously grateful for that, and, in the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Timpson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause to be inserted after clause 10 to come into force at the end of two months beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed.
Lord Timpson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the commencement clause in the Bill and is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause before clause 40.