Sentencing Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Report

Scottish legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 37th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:40

Clause 1: Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert “before any credit is given for a guilty plea”
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.

15:45

[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.

15:53

Division 1

Amendment 1 disagreed.

Ayes: 182

Noes: 209

16:04

Amendments 2 to 24 not moved.

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

25: Clause 1, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(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.

16:15

However, more prison is not the answer. It is not the purpose of the Government to outlaw sentences of immediate imprisonment. That is an important point, and I say it in answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Fox of Buckley. This provision applies only to sentences of 12 months or less. Immediate custodial sentences remain available for offences deserving more time in prison.

After considerable reflection, and discussion with the Government and our colleagues in the Commons, we believe that, if a court is of the view that a sentence of imprisonment of less than a year should be passed, it should be suspended. Of course, sexual offences include some of the most serious offences there are, and they will remain to be dealt with appropriately, but they also include less serious offences for which immediate custody is not the answer.

I will make a couple of general points on the presumption in favour of the suspension of sentences of less than 12 months. The Bill has two very important objectives. The first is to address the prison capacity crisis, and the second is to introduce the presumption. I have said many times in this House that we imprison far more people in this country, and for far longer, than any comparable country. That fact has resulted in no appreciable decline in crime.

The prison capacity crisis is the last Government’s fault above all others. They failed to provide sufficient prison places and legislated consistently for more and longer time served in prison. This was led not by evidence that it would lead to a reduction in crime, but by a populist demand from the press and their supporters to be so-called “tougher on crime”. When the capacity crisis hit them, they introduced cack-handed, emergency early-release provisions to attempt a short-term, stopgap solution that was far less well thought out and researched than the measures proposed in the Bill. Those measures owe much to the work of David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, who brought to the Independent Sentencing Review an independence of mind and evidence-led approach that does him and his team credit, and for which we are very grateful.

We on these Benches have long argued for a presumption against short sentences of immediate imprisonment. I say in response to noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we have always argued that 12 months should be the cut-off point. We know that that is appropriate, because all the evidence is that short sentences of imprisonment do not work; they do not lead to rehabilitation, and they are much less effective than community sentences in reforming offenders. These are the outcomes that the Bill proposes. The amendments that were originally to have been moved in group 1 would have worsened the prison capacity crisis and led to a breakdown of our penal system.

The arguments are against short sentences. The Government have recognised our concerns about the seriousness of the prison capacity crisis. They have also recognised the seriousness of the problem of staffing and resources in respect of the Probation Service, which will have to handle extra work and more cases as a result of the move from imprisonment to probation—the inevitable result of the proposals in the Bill.

We agree with the earned release concept that the Bill incorporates. The Government have moved towards our position on rewarding good behaviour in prison, introducing what I call carrot as well as stick. These are important reforms, and, for these principled reasons, we will be opposing this amendment.

[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.

16:25

Division 2

Amendment 25 disagreed.

Ayes: 180

Noes: 219

16:36

Amendments 26 to 51 not moved.

Amendment 52

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

52: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

16:45

I am therefore extremely grateful to our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for taking the time to discuss the issues with me, and for explaining the complexities and what he is trying to achieve in this area. We both come from a retail background, my experience being at Tesco and his at Timpson, both of which have a good record of training and employing ex-offenders. The critical factor is leadership. The best stores are run by the best store managers and the best prisons by the best governors. Programmes to improve top management and to create a waiting list of officers with talent for future roles, which are part of his approach to change, are very important.

We talked about the use of data. I was directed to the prison education and accredited programme statistics. These statistics are useful, but they focus on subjects such as maths, IT and English, particularly for non-English-speaking foreign nationals, most of whom are supposed to be sent home after release, so their education is less important when money is short. The statistics also focus on accreditation for reducing substance abuse and for sex offender treatment. I am not convinced of the effectiveness of this, and I want to see much more focus on practical vocational skills, as in my amendment, such as bricklaying, plastering, motor mechanics and gardening. We should encourage more employers to work in prisons training staff for the future, as Timpson does.

Moreover, such training needs to come through much more promptly in our statistics; what you count is what you do. Also, given the variability of performance, the Prison Service should publish education and training data prison by prison, which I hope the Minister will reply to. My experience of retail is that there is a powerful incentive effect, with managers trying to outdo each other. Interestingly, private prisons have a better education and training record because they work to contract and lose out financially if they fail to deliver education.

I have softened the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It would no longer be mandatory for every custodial sentence, as originally envisaged. It would allow the court that is sentencing an offender to require participation in education, skills, training, work or other purposeful activity, but it would also allow the Government to make regulations on how far this should apply. It also provides for annual reporting on prisoner participation and, crucially, on the availability of such activities—an addition at the suggestion of the Prison Reform Trust. Only with that feedback loop will we have the driver for change that we all want.

My second amendment, which the House may prefer, would establish a review of all these arrangements and complexities, with a report to Parliament within six months after the establishment of a committee for the purpose and annually thereafter. Again, that would be a driver for change. I prefer that to an independent advisory panel, as proposed in Amendment 71, which would not get things done in the same way. Given the degree of concern expressed on this subject in Committee and the new contribution from the independent monitoring boards, I hope that the Minister will agree to come forward with a government amendment on these lines or to make appropriate undertakings to get something done. Otherwise, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 64.

[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.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[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.

17:00

But if it is serious to incarcerate someone post conviction, it is arguably just as or even more serious to incarcerate them when they are a presumed innocent person awaiting trial, potentially, at the moment, for a long time. So my Amendment 98—supported last time by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and this time by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to whom I am grateful—concerns the bizarre anachronism in the Bail Act whereby people can be detained, pending trial, for their own protection, even where the offence for which they will stand trial is not an imprisonable offence. In my view, that is simply unconscionable.

Some noble Lords may have been sent some back and forth correspondence between me and my noble friend the Minister—effectively, the department—which has been collated by the NGO Justice. I declare an interest as a council member of that organisation, which I know many noble Lords support. What that correspondence seems to boil down to is that the department’s view is that, in a very small number of cases—there is no data on exactly how many cases—this is needed, because there would not otherwise be provision for this vulnerable person: no safe housing and so on. If that is true for a defendant, it would be true for a witness or another vulnerable person, so I do not see that that provides an adequate justification. It would be the equivalent of bringing back debtors’ prisons because of inadequacies in our social housing or our welfare state, and I do not think any of us would want to see that in 2026, as it now is.

As far as I am concerned, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a breath of fresh air in politics around these issues and in the department. I have been so glad of his engagement on this and other issues. The Government say that they are not currently able to repeal this anachronistic and slightly barbaric provision in the Bail Act, but if he could at least indicate some ambition for a direction of travel whereby we could get some more data and end up with adequate provision for protecting vulnerable people—whether they are witnesses or defendants—I would be incredibly grateful to hear that in his reply.

[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”.

17:15

There will undoubtedly be many people outside this House who will say, “Who cares if these people have no right to legal aid advice?”—in effect, that they deserve it. I am arguing, and I hope that the House will be with me on this, that anyone who comes under the umbrella of English law, however evil or unpopular they might be, is entitled to legal advice when the situation they are in demands it. It seems to me to be an important part of the rule of law. Does not a foreign national offender being immediately deported after sentence sound like someone who is in such a situation? How is a prisoner going to be able to appeal his sentence of deportation if they are removed at once or within a very short period? In the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, this situation arose in the context of asylum seekers, whether in prison or in IRCs. All parties in this House agreed that advice should be available. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Opposition Front Bench, said,

“we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1150.]

The key issue is whether people will even be in prison for long enough to access the telephone legal advice scheme before they are removed or deported under this Bill’s provisions. This amendment probes the point around how, where and when people in scope will access legal aid services if there is no time for them to do so.

[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.

17:30

[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.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

53: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

17:45

[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.

Amendment 53 agreed.

Clause 18: Sentencing Council business plan

Amendment 54

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

54: Clause 18, page 36, line 18, at end insert—
“(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.

18:00

The safeguards now in the clauses are certainly sufficient to dissuade us from attempting to remove the clauses altogether at this stage. But I will say just that, if it were to turn out that the independence and functioning of the Sentencing Council were to be seriously compromised by the fetters now put on its power, that would be extremely worrying. I repeat what I have said before: the Sentencing Council does extremely important work. It performs its functions with creditable independence and is a very significant body indeed. I hope nothing will happen as a result of these clauses to curb that independence or the effectiveness of the Sentencing Council.

[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.

Amendment 54 agreed.

Amendment 55

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

55: Clause 18, page 36, line 21, at end insert—
“(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.

Amendment 55 agreed.

Clause 19: Sentencing guidelines

Amendments 56 and 57

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

56: Clause 19, page 36, line 33, at end insert—
“(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.

57: Clause 19, page 37, line 5, at end insert—
“(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.

Amendments 56 and 57 agreed.

Amendment 58

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

58: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

18:15

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughts and engagement, particularly on the importance of probation capacity. Noble Lords know that I believe that the work of our hard-working probation practitioners has been underappreciated for too long. I am committed to rebuilding the Probation Service, and Our Future Probation Service programme aims to deliver measures to rebalance demand and capacity by April 2027. In addition to the assurance embedded within the programme, I am personally overseeing progress through regular meetings with senior officials to monitor progress and will update noble Lords on that progress. I beg to move.

[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.

18:30

It is a bit like trying to extract teeth to find out why the Labour Government in London oppose what the Labour Government in Cardiff want. Transparency is of particular importance as, in about four months’ time, Wales goes to the polls, and one ought to know where the Government stand on such an important issue as criminal justice. Hence, the decision to put this debate into transparency was completely the right place to put it, because what has never been made transparent before is now transparent: what the objections of Her Majesty’s Government in London, as opposed to the Government in Cardiff, are to dealing with the criminal justice system.

Why, therefore, do you need to devolve the criminal justice system, particularly the bits relating to offender management? That is set out in the report of the commission I have the honour to chair, in four short paragraphs, paragraphs 4.280 to 4.283: there is an approach in a small nation that is vastly better than the approach being adopted here in England. It is to ensure that you have a system which radically rethinks, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described earlier today, the way in which our sentencing process works.

If you look at what happens in other small nations, as the commission did, you see that a small nation may be able to have a system where you spend less on sending people to prison for a long time, which is what we do in England—we are not quite as bad as some other nations, but we are pretty bad at it—and look again at an integrated system where you think, “Can we use shorter prison sentences? Can we use the resources for keeping people out of prison, and particularly to stop them ever embarking on a criminal career by bringing together youth services, educational services, health services and the like?” That is why, in looking at offender management, which was the purpose of this amendment, it was thought that we could at least devolve that, because one can at least try to move some of the resources that are spent on prisons into a much more productive area. But at least I now know that that is not an option because, for reasons I completely agree with, you need to devolve everything.

I therefore move this amendment and put this issue before the House, which is of vital importance to Wales because of the decision which may be very impactful on what happens to the Government of the United Kingdom. It is important that there is transparency, because the report of the commission I chaired has never had a response from the Government in England to its proposals—but at least now we have yet one more reason why they are opposed, and why that opposition is wrong.

[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.

Amendments 59 and 60 (to Amendment 58) not moved.

Amendment 58 agreed.

Amendments 61 and 62 not moved.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Baroness Sater]

63: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

18:45

[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.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Amendment 64

Tabled by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

64: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

Amendment 64 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I cannot call Amendment 65, as it is an amendment to Amendment 64.

Amendment 66 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I cannot call Amendment 67, as it is an amendment to Amendment 66.

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

68: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

19:00

The amendment extends the compliance period to 14 days, which is reasonable and proportionate, particularly having regard to the time limit of 28 days for a victim to seek an unduly lenient sentence review. If victims are to navigate that legal process within a window of 28 days, it is not unreasonable to expect the courts to address the issue of sentencing remarks within 14 days.

This appears to be a principle with which all parties are in support. The Liberal Democrats recently tabled a far broader and more ambitious version of the same amendment in the Victims and Courts Bill in the other place. I hope we will see a degree of consistency with regard to this matter.

Amendment 69 concerns the collection and publication of sentencing data by the Crown Court. If we are to expand the use of suspended sentences and community supervision, Parliament should be able to evaluate what is happening in practice. Without robust data on who is being sentenced, for what offences, and with what outcomes, the Bill becomes something of a blind experiment. As I observed in Committee, you cannot manage what you do not measure. This amendment, like Amendment 68, is a challenge for accountability. Transparency and robust evidence are fundamental if we are to retain confidence in a justice system.

With regard to Amendment 68, if the Government are not with us, I will be moved to test the opinion of the House. But I emphasise that that is in respect of Amendment 68.

[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.

19:10

Division 3

Amendment 68 agreed.

Ayes: 204

Noes: 136

19:21

Amendments 69 to 73 not moved.

Clause 20: Release

Amendment 74

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

74: Clause 20, page 38, line 7, at end insert—
“(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.

19:30

Furthermore, all the signs point to the contribution of EDS to prison overcrowding only getting worse. There are almost five times as many people in prison serving an EDS as there were a decade ago, when the number was just under 2,000; now, it is well on track to reach 10,000. This trend is likely to continue and increase further as a result of changes in this Bill. This new clause would in no way reduce public protection, but it would enhance the opportunities for incentivising rehabilitation and safely tackling overcrowding in our prisons.

[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.

19:47

Division 4

Amendment 74 disagreed.

Ayes: 134

Noes: 185

19:57

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.37 pm.