Lords Chamber

Wednesday 26th November 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first of My Lords, first of all, My Lords, first of all, question Baroness Donaghy beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, local authorities in England have a statutory duty to ensure support in safe accommodation for victims of safe accommodation for victims of child abuse, of victims of domestic abuse and their children, and they work in partnership with charities work in partnership with charities and specialist providers to do so.

In 2025 to 2026, the Ministry of In 2025 to 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided £160 million, a Government provided £160 million, a £30 million uplift for councils to commission this support for victims. This funding supports the This funding supports the government's wider mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. over the next decade. As my noble friend the Minister knows, yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and Girls.

A woman is killed Women and Girls. A woman is killed between every three and five days by a current or former partner. by a current or former partner. Although government policy is great, specialist services including specialist services including emergency refuge accommodation, needs a further 62 million to meet needs a further 62 million to meet existing demand. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that to reassure the House that everything is being done to increase the momentum to deal with this epidemic.

this epidemic. My Lords, I have spent much of my professional life in the fight against violence, against women and girls, and I am proud to be part of a government that has this as a key priority. I pay tribute to the work done by refuges up and down the country. This year we have increased funding for domestic abuse, safe accommodation services abuse, safe accommodation services such as refuges by £30 million. And last week we announced that we would maintain funding at at least would maintain funding at at least that level for the next three years.

So that is a commitment of at least So that is a commitment of at least £480 million over three years.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. And in fact, on Monday I addressed a reception held in this. In one of the rooms in this palace hosted by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse, and listening to what was said there, it reminded me, I hope I didn't need reminding, but it really made it starkly clear that for the survivors, economic abuse is every bit as pernicious and damaging as actual violence or controlling or coercive behaviour.

We are acutely aware of this and doing everything we can to ensure that that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognised and dealt with. Its abuses are increasingly turning everyday objects like phone chargers, extension leads and even pens into hidden cameras and pens into hidden cameras and listening devices, making women feel deeply unsafe in their own home. Can the noble Baroness de home. Can the noble Baroness de Minister share with us what measures are being taken to protect women against this worrying new women against this worrying new trend, particularly in emergency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accommodation settings? Yes. Hear, hear. What the noble Lady describes is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What the noble Lady describes is part of a trend of observation and control that is part of the control that is part of the controlling and coercive behaviour that is now recognised as being an that is now recognised as being an integral part of domestic abuse, and every bit as violating as and every bit as violating as actual physical violence. I don't know what is being done about the
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord will be aware that we doubled the employment allowance to 10,500, so more than half of businesses, including charities with NICs liabilities, would either gain or see no change at the at the the the previous budget. Employees will also continue to benefit from NICs release, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 were eligible. I think it's it is the case that we provided charitable tax reliefs and exemptions worth £6 billion in the year 2324.

The biggest individual reliefs provided to Gift Aid at 1.6 reliefs provided to Gift Aid at 1.6 billion, and business rates relief at nearly 2.4 billion. And with the at nearly 2.4 billion. And with the civil society covenant being a key priority of this government, we are clear that we are supporting country. country. Our Lord's. The definition of charitable status.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is Cross-bencher. Thank you very much. My my Lords, I declare as ever that I'm a teacher. declare as ever that I'm a teacher. Wrong department, I know, but would the noble Lady, the Minister, agree with me that a lot of this can be combated in schools, but we need the time to teach it one day. A the time to teach it one day. A term when parents who hold some of these abhorrent views can actually these abhorrent views can actually take their child out for the day is not enough.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll feed the noble Lords, point back to my noble friend Baroness back to my noble friend Baroness Smith of Malvern. And we'll be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith of Malvern. And we'll be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss that further. Third oral question Baroness
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
None Portrait Oral questions: Alleged inaccuracies in a West Midlands police force report on the alleged activities of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans ahead of the recent match against Aston Villa Lord Cryer (Labour)
-

that was to turn Britain's second biggest city into a no go area for Jewish people. And they actually succeeded in that. I'm glad to hear about the the review. I wonder if
15:41
15:41
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:52
None Portrait Business of the House Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-

House to sit on an additional eight additional Fridays in the new Year. Additional three Fridays already announced. The Fridays will be announced. The Fridays will be listed in today's forthcoming business, as noble Lords are keen to be made aware of these dates. I can tell the House those Fridays when the bill will be considered will be the 9th of January, the 16th of January, alongside some other business, the 23rd of January, the 30th of January, the 6th of February, the 27th of February, the 13th of March, the 20th of March, 27th of March, and the 24th of April.

The House will also sit on the 6th of March for the debate on International Women's Day. I notice with the full list of sitting Friday will be made available in the printed Paper office and the Royal Gallery. I'll also email all dates to all noble Lords to the parliamentary email addresses. My Lords as my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister reiterated last week the government is neutral, and how we proceed with this bill is ultimately in the hands of this House.

The government is not seeking to prescribe how this will progress, but I am sure my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will be discussing with other noble Lords how to make good use of this time. I'm conscious that colleagues may also be thinking about the time available on each sitting Friday. For the past two Fridays, I've come to the house at the start of proceedings to set out how I hope the House will conduct itself, and made clear that, in line with the companion, I will seek to bring proceedings to a close at a convenient point around 3 p.m.

It is my intention, intention to continue with this approach, but ultimately is a decision for the House as a whole and not me as Government Chief Whip. I hope this is helpful and my door remains open

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to all noble Lords on this or any other matter. My Lords, may I, as the sponsor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I, as the sponsor of the Bill, express my profound gratitude to the usual channels for making what is ten additional days available for the bill, which means available for the bill, which means that there will, up to the 24th of April, be 16 days for consideration April, be 16 days for consideration of this bill through all its stages. May I also specifically agree with May I also specifically agree with the Chief Whip that the right course now, for all of us who are course now, for all of us who are interested in this bill, opponents or supporters to get together and agree the best way that we can use the remaining 12 days that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

got on the bill. Question and answer to the question asked in the House of question asked in the House of Commons on Monday 24th of November on the ministerial code.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the ministerial code. My Lords, in the late. In the foreword to the latest version of the ministerial code, the Prime
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
said on this, because much of what the Labour manifesto promised in terms of public appointments, a stronger role for Parliament stronger role for Parliament modernisation simply has not been pushed through yet. And on public appointments it does seem quite appointments it does seem quite clear, particularly after the current BBC arguments that current BBC arguments that Parliament should be given a fuller role in checking public appointments. Select committees, appointments. Select committees, for example, which has been strongly supported to to vet public strongly supported to to vet public appointments as they are made.

Does the government not intend to push through some of the commitments it through some of the commitments it made in its manifesto, such as proper modernisation of the Commons proper modernisation of the Commons and thorough reform of the Lords?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report. I look forward to seeing it. He will not be surprised that on Budget day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will, my Lord. We are 18 months into a Labour government, a Labour government that has delivered on strengthening the ministerial code, setting out new financial penalties, terms of new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers interests, establishing as was in our manifesto, a new Ethics and Integrity Commission.

We have also, and I know, my Lords, because I've sat through every moment of the debate, been in your Lordships' House for over 50 hours discussing the future of your Lordships' House, as well as other areas of modernisation. My Lords, we are acting. This is a hugely ambitious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government with a great deal to do and we will continue to move forward. My Lords. Minister.
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:07
None Portrait Legislation: Sentencing Bill – committee stage (day 1) - part one
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have made. The underlying principle behind their approach. Quite clear.
16:07
16:08
None Portrait Amendment:1 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

the debate that will ensure that we scrutinise this Bill with care. My Lords, this Bill received just one day of committee in the other place, and it is therefore imperative that we carry out our duty to provide the Bill with the scrutiny that it actually requires. My Lords, these amendments do not directly relate to the specific offender types who we believe should spend their sentences in custody. Rather, this group of amendments seeks to clarify important practical and operational points of the bill, which either the government did not account for or appear to be in favour of.

I have tabled these amendments to highlight the harmful effects that this Bill will have on communities and to individuals if it becomes law in its present form. My Lords, amendments one and 12th May seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of this Bill, but without their inclusion, a significant number of dangerous criminals will be free to roam the streets. There are many crimes for which a 12 month sentence is imposed, and these amendments seek to ensure that such offenders are past the cut off point for suspended sentences to apply.

My Lords, just last month, a sex offender had to was released from prison by accident. The Foreign Secretary said repeatedly that he was, and I quote, livid that such a man had been let loose and free to roam the streets. Father, the Home Secretary called the same man a vile sex offender. Countless government Ministers expressed their thoughts and sympathies for the victim and her family, and we on these benches could not agree more with that assessment of Mr. Cabatu.

My Lords, Mr. Cabatu was serving a 12 month sentence. He was convicted for trying to sexually assault a 14 year old girl, a 41 year old man convicted of a child sexual offence was allowed to roam the streets, and the government purported outrage. Yet under the provisions of their own sentencing bill, offenders such as Mr. Cabatu would not be at large simply for a handful of days, but for the entirety of their sentence. When questions are questioned about this, the noble Lord, the Minister, simply explained that there are separate provisions for foreign national offenders.

But, my Lords, this misses the point. It does not detract from the fact that there are thousands of offenders convicted of charges similar to those of Mr. Cabatu, all of whom would be let out onto the streets after their conviction for child sexual assault. So will the Minister finally accept this as being the government's stance with respect to these proposals? My Lords, in an ideal world, I would rather see all such offenders behind bars for the entire duration of their sentence, and I have tabled further amendments to that effect.

But amendments one and 12 seek at least to close this obvious gap in justice to some degree, by ensuring that only offences with sentences of less than 12 months are eligible for suspension, then the one year sentences imposed on men like Mr. Cabatu and other sexual offenders will be served in custody and not on our streets. Amendments two and 13 similarly seek to plug apparent drafting oversights in the bill. At present, it is not yet clear whether the presumption of a suspended sentence would apply to that sentence before or after a guilty plea is submitted.

Given that in all published materials of the government, they have indicated that only short term sentences of up to one year should be suspended. I can only guess that the intended for clause one to take effect before guilty pleas was submitted. My Lords, I therefore tabled amendments two and 13 to ensure that the presumption of suspended sentences should apply before any credit is given for a guilty plea. If this is an amendment which the government wishes to oppose, then I suggest they must make clear to all noble Lords and indeed to the public, that they in fact wish to suspend sentences for all crimes up to 18 months rather than 12 months.

And that's because any offender charged with a crime of 18 months has the ability to reduce it by a third, by submission of an early guilty plea, and which will subsequently make them eligible, apparently for an automatic suspended sentence. And I suggest this will simply open a Pandora's box for a whole new subset of crimes that will fall into the eligibility criteria of clause one. My Lords, the exclusion of an express clause negating credit for a guilty plea in this context will also have unintended and dangerous implications for our justice system.

It risks fundamentally undermining public confidence in justice if offenders come to recognise that by pleading guilty, they can simply avoid prison altogether and serve their sentence in the community. That distorts incentives in a manner that no responsible government should actually welcome. It may even encourage individuals charged with serious crimes, regardless of whether or not they committed them to plead guilty purely to escape a custodial sentence. And my Lords Act cannot be a principle on which our system of justice is based.

So I do hope that the government Minister will take this point seriously, and I look forward to hearing his response. My Lords Amendments three and 14 address a further operational incoherence in clause one, the length of time for which a suspended sentence would be imposed under the bill. As drafted, there is no clarity as to whether suspended sentences imposed automatically under this presumption would be suspended for the maximum period. In many cases, an offender could therefore benefit from a dramatically reduced suspension period, serving little to no meaningful time under supervision, and my amendments seek to ensure in statute that this is simply not the case.

The Lords, if the intention is truly to uphold the integrity of sentencing, then any suspended sentence imposed as a substitute for immediate custody must be suspended for the maximum allowable period. Anything less would undermine the very concept of accountability that the public rightly expect from our justice system. Turning to amendments four, 16, five and 17 in my name. All of these concern exemptions and clause one relating to risk of harm as currently drafted, the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence may only be disapplied where failing to impose immediate custody would put a particular individual at significant risk of harm.

My Lords, this sets far too narrow and dangerous a threshold. First, the provision does not allow the court to consider the risk to the wider public. It is entirely possible for an offender to present a clear danger to communities generally, even if no single victim can be identified. Convicted sex offenders are a clear example of this. Judges must be able to take that broader threat into account, and these amendments ensure that risk to the public is recognised as a valid basis for imposing custody rather than suspension.

Secondly, my Lords, the requirement that the risk must be significant before the presumption can be disapplied imposes an unreasonably high bar for the exemption to take effect. We should not wait until harm escalates to a severe level before the court is permitted to act. Any harm committed by someone who should otherwise be in prison is a level of harm that we on these benches find unacceptable. We owe to the British public more protection than that. And amendments five and 17 therefore remove this threshold so that any credible risk of harm may justify an immediate custodial sentence.

And my Lords, I sincerely hope the government will engage meaningfully with these amendments and recognise the vital issues of public protection and judicial integrity that they seek to address. The consequences of getting this wrong are not theoretical. They will be felt by victims and they will be felt by communities. So while it is no secret that we may oppose much of this bill, these amendments are constructive and are tabled in the spirit of helping the government ensure that the Bill achieves its stated purpose rather than undermining it.

And I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response. Amendment proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line 14 leave out not more and insert less.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more and insert less. What's my noble friend? Lord Marks of Henley on Thames is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is. Unavoidably unable to be here. I apologise for taking his.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for taking his. Place from the second bench. I'm sure Noble. Lords will understand that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need propping up. The conservative amendments, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The conservative amendments, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining them in such clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for explaining them in such clear detail. Read to me. I have. To say. As if.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As if. He and his his. Party are going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He and his his. Party are going reluctance. That really. They'd like. To oppose it completely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To oppose it completely. And have proposed so many amendments as just to come short.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments as just to come short. Of wrecking it. I know he'll say that he's giving shape to the presumption, giving shape to the presumption, and I accept that some of the amendments. Will help to clarify the position. He calls them
16:19
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
practical and operational. I don't necessarily read them that way, but necessarily read them that way, but I do think it's a pity that quoting a very few cases, few cases make a very few cases, few cases make bad law, and using language like bad law, and using language like roaming our streets does not help for a sensible and calm debate on a for a sensible and calm debate on a bill which is thoughtful, addressing not only the matter of prison capacity, but what will be prison capacity, but what will be best for particular offenders to assist.

I, as I read it, to assist assist. I, as I read it, to assist them not to re-offend. That is them not to re-offend. That is something that from these benches something that from these benches we wholeheartedly support on the amendment. And I have to say to amendment. And I have to say to that if we were to accept these amendments, we would be in danger of constraining magistrates so much that they would read what they're given as prescription instead of leaving the.

Scope to produce the best. Sentence, the best disposal in the particular circumstances of the particular offender. On the amendments in this group, on the first, the Minister may be able to tell us how often the sentence of just short of 12 months is usual. I hear 12 months as being quite a usual order, so that if one changed the terminology, one would be nullifying, or at any rate reducing the effect of the central part of this bill.

And on amendment four. A danger not just to an individual but to the public. When I read that, I thought, if there is a real danger to the general public, then we probably wouldn't be looking at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a sentence of less than 12 months. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. There's a curious. Diffidence of. On so. Important part of the bill as clause one. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Shall not say much about it except the amendments. Although worth studying to see if they do worth studying to see if they do improve the way in which clause one can operate seem to stem from general hostility to the bill, general hostility to the bill, disguised as a sort of benevolence. A strange position of conservative A strange position of conservative frontbenchers taken. It would be in a happier situation if we were discussing this bill, because we had worked out a coherent had worked out a coherent alternative criminal justice policy, and the sole reason for carrying it forward would be that it would be forward would be that it would be better at protecting the public, recognising as it should, that many people who are in prison are not being improved in their propensity not to reoffend by being in prison.

And some of the people in the community are not getting the support and structure they need to make their lives ones which are responsible and reduce the danger responsible and reduce the danger to the public in general. But we're actually considering this bill because our prisons are full and
16:22
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
are going to remain full and get fuller unless we do something about it. That doesn't preclude having a sensible criminal justice policy in support of provisions like clause one, but it does necessitate it. And the good thing about this bill is that significant parts of it are addressed to better provision in prison and better provision out of prison, and better provision in the transition from prison to prison, a matter which the Minister has plenty of specialised knowledge from his own experience.

It may be that we can tidy up clause one and clause two a little, but I think we should be quite clear in our minds that they are necessary clauses to ensure that we deal with a crisis, but that we rely on other parts of the bill to ensure that we're dealing with that. From a point of view of criminal justice reform, not merely trying to empty prisons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the government during Committee the government during Committee stage of the sentencing Bill. As noble Lords know, I've devoted much of my life and my career to of my life and my career to criminal justice reform. In particular, the question of how to reduce re-offending. Because of reduce re-offending. Because of this, I'm particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments on short sentences tabled by the noble and learned tabled by the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst.

And whilst I'm grateful to the noble Lords for their to the noble Lords for their constructive and thoughtful input on this bill inside and outside the chamber, I remain convinced that chamber, I remain convinced that the position on the bill is the right one, and I appreciate the words from the noble Baroness Hamwee and noble Lord Beith as well. Along those lines, let me be clear Along those lines, let me be clear at the outset we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will still short sentences.

Judges will still have discretion to send offenders to prison, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, where they have breached a court order or in
16:24
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
breached a court order or in exceptional circumstances. But the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentences re-offend less than similar offenders. Given a short prison sentence that is a key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences, and why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. And we're also following the lead of the previous conservative government, who originally introduced this measure during the last Parliament.

Without the additional amendments we are debating today, given the clear evidence on short sentences, the government does not agree with introducing further exemptions. To do so could increase reoffending and so create more victims. I came into this job to build a criminal justice system that leads to fewer victims, not more. I will now turn to the specific points that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst have both raised important points on early guilty pleas.

Through amendments two and 13, I can assure the noble Lords that I have reflected on these amendments, and considered them at length and with great care, 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. Moreover, it can save victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence.

This is particularly important in traumatic cases. Furthermore, the amendments proposed would also create inconsistencies. The presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea mitigation brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, whereas it could still apply where the court applied any other mitigation which had the same effect. For these reasons, the government does not support these amendments through amendments three and 14. Noble Lords have also proposed requiring courts to impose suspended sentence orders, with the maximum operational period of two years.

This would not be appropriate for every suspended sentence order, without consideration of the particular facts of the case, and would place additional burden on the probation service. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence re-offend less than similar offenders. Given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. It is absolutely clear that the last government left our probation service under immense pressure. 14 years of austerity came alongside a botched privatisation.

The scars are still there and we are fixing it. Sentencing must always be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision. This amendment would remove that discretion. I'd like to thank the noble Lords again for their amendments and the opportunity to debate them. I hope I have sufficiently explained why our approach of following the evidence is the right one to take.

With that in mind, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this Lords who have contributed to this part of the Committee debate, and I thank. The noble Lord, the Minister, for explaining the position of the for explaining the position of the government with regard to these proposed amendments with regard to proposed amendments with regard to the matter of early guilty pleas, it respectfully appears to me that it respectfully appears to me that if the government are going to maintain the position that has been set out, then they should be explicit on the face of the bill that they're not dealing with that they're not dealing with suspension in respect to sentences of 12 months.

They're dealing with of 12 months. They're dealing with suspension in respect to sentences of, up to and including 18 months. of, up to and including 18 months. And that is far from clear on the face of the bill and whether or not the government accepts our the government accepts our amendment, it is a point that has to be made clear so that public to be made clear so that public confidence can be maintained in the nature of the sentencing system that is going to be introduced here.

that is going to be introduced here. With regard to the matter of suspension and the maximum period of two years suspension, we would maintain that at the end of the day, if these moves are going to be taken, then it's only appropriate that the suspension should be for a period long enough to enable some form of rehabilitation to take place, because otherwise it is simply pointless. So again, I ask the government to reconsider its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position, but at this stage I will withdraw these amendments. Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment
16:29
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment two Lord Keen not moved. Amendment three not moved. Amendment four and five not moved. We now come to the second group, amendment six, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause one. Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, these amendments touch upon a similar issues to those that upon a similar issues to those that we've already addressed. They highlight what we say is a highlight what we say is a fundamental flaw in clause one of the Bill. The blanket presumption of suspended short custodial of suspended short custodial sentences, even for offenders who pose a serious and ongoing risk to pose a serious and ongoing risk to the public. And under the bill as it's framed, there is the real possibility that individuals possibility that individuals convicted of crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, burglary, offences involving knives or other bladed weapons could serve the entirety of weapons could serve the entirety of their sentences in the community.

And as we've just noticed, that may be far less than a suspension of be far less than a suspension of two years. If the government proceeds as it intends, from the proceeds as it intends, from the point of view of public safety and public confidence in the justice system, that appears to be unacceptable. My Lords, many of our concerns with this part of the Bill arise from the conflation of two arise from the conflation of two separate issues the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and the need to ensure proportionate and fair sentencing.

We recognise, indeed, it's undeniable that our prisons are under immense strain and the government are clear that one purpose of this bill is to alleviate that pressure. But the correct response to overcrowding is not to release serious offenders into the community without meaningful consequences for their actions. We're not talking about petty criminals committing minor thefts. These are individuals whose crimes can leave lasting physical and psychological scars on their victims. These are criminals who've committed serious offences and very often repeated those serious offences.

Now, we're not attempting to express some idealistic notion about the purpose or proportionality of sentencing, and we don't pretend that it's possible to approach these issues in a total vacuum, ignoring the very real issues that our prisons face. But equally, we cannot turn a blind eye to the hard truth that will fast become reality if the bill does pass in its unamended form in this debate should not focus on the abstract flaws of short term custodial sentences.

What we must do is confront the tangible and real world consequences of passing clause one. With only the narrow exceptions it currently contains, amendments six and 18 are designed to ensure that the presumption of a suspended sentence does not apply where it would be wholly inappropriate. They focus on repeat offenders and those who commit offences of serious violence, and therefore should not avoid meaningful custodial sentences. Without such safeguards. The deterrent effect inherent in sentencing disappears and the public is left exposed.

I'm also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendments number seven and eight through to 11, which complement this approach, and his amendment sensibly removed the presumption of suspended sentences for those convicted of assaulting emergency workers or public service providers. Burglary offences involving knives or other bladed weapons, terrorism and indeed also of the failure to surrender to custody. And these are all, I suggest, important issues to raise and concern offenders whom the public would wish, and indeed expect to serve their sentences in custody.

So I trust the government will give these amendments serious consideration, as they do provide practical, targeted safeguards for public protection. My Lords, my group of amendments also addresses offenders with a history of non-compliance. And while noble Lords may be happy to hear that, I will not list every single exemption in amendment 19 to 29, I will highlight a few particular categories that I believe demand consideration, and these include offenders who previously received suspended or custodial sentences for the same offence, offenders who breached previous suspension orders multiple times, and offenders who have a history of committing crimes were under licence or under supervision, and each of these scenarios represents a clear risk to public safety, and these are obvious candidates for custodial sentences.

And yet, under the bill, all such offenders would benefit from the presumption of suspension. And I respectfully suggest that that is not appropriate. My Lords, this bill does not reflect a shift away from short custodial sentences, but rather a large step towards the complete abolition. Suspended sentences are now presumed for offences of up to 12 months, and their eligibility is extended to offences of up to three years. Under the provisions of this bill, around 43,000 offenders, some of whom are violent criminals, will avoid prison entirely.

Police estimates suggest that the provisions of this bill will produce an immediate 6% rise in crime. That amounts to nearly 400,000 additional offences per year. My Lords, that is the immediate rise. And clearly that is going to have an effect upon the public and the community at large. So I do hope that this series of amendments will help illustrate how this bill could properly operate in practice, so that a repeat offender with a history of failing to comply with court orders could commit an assault or drug related offence, and not simply assume that he will, under these provisions, receive a suspended sentence, but rather a custodial sentence.

If such an offender was to be given a suspended sentence, then he's going to have to be managed by an already overstretched probation service. Having remained in the community, they may even be eligible for early release of the probation officer exercises. His apparently newfound powers of early termination, and that is not a justice system that is going to engage the public support. It is a systemic failure. And therefore these amendments are designed to prevent just such an eventuality.

As I indicated a moment ago, my Lords, many of the provisions of the bill will simply shift the burdens facing prison staff onto probation service, which is already under severe strain. It will be the probation service that will be required to manage a much expanded cohort of offenders in the community, and the impact assessment itself conservatively anticipates that 580 additional probation staff would be needed each year at a cost of over £30 million, and clause 11 of the bill compounds that problem by removing the requirement for courts to specify the maximum number of rehabilitation activity days, transferring yet more duties onto the probation officers.

Overworked, understaffed, faced with unmanageable caseloads, probation officers will inevitably struggle to enforce any meaningful rehabilitation. Under these conditions, offenders could undertake little or no substantive activity before returning to society. My Lord, some may disagree and argue that the dangerous and repeat offenders I've highlighted in these amendments should serve their sentences safely in the community. I raised this point to show that even for noble Lords holding such views, this reasoning fails on two separate counts. If the justification for their suspended sentence is that prisons are overcrowded and therefore offenders should remain in the community, that does not stand to scrutiny, as probation services are already so overstretched that they cannot manage the new influx safely outside of prison.

If the justification for their suspended sentence is rehabilitation. That argument also fails because meaningful rehabilitation simply cannot take place under these strain conditions, and all that would be achieved is the public's exposure to unrehabilitated criminals from whom there are no bars to re-offending. Whatever one's reasoning for suspended sentences may be, it will inevitably collapse when faced with the twin issues of dangerous repeat offenders and a struggling probation service, the Lords Amendment six, 18 and 19 to 29 are not there purely on punitive grounds, but as common sense safeguards to ensure that offenders who pose a genuine risk cannot bypass custody simply because of the pressures on our prison system.

They guarantee that sentences remain proportionate and enforceable, and therefore pay respect to the victims of crime. The public must have confidence that serious crimes are met with serious consequences. Because that was the only mention this government made to sentencing in their manifesto, and we on these benches would agree with it. And yet, clause one of this Bill would seem to severely jeopardise that simple principle. These amendments are therefore vital as a message not only to the public but to potential offenders.

They make it clear that those sentences for serious offences, repeat offending or breaches of court orders must serve time in custody. They preserve the integrity of our justice system, respect the rights of victims and protect the wider public. And I hope that the government will take these amendments seriously and will give serious consideration and careful consideration not only to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments, but those tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. Amendment proposed in clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause one, page three, line ten at end. Insert the words as printed in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. My Lords. I. Rise to move. Amendment 7. To. 11 tabled in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 tabled in. My name, and support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Keen and Lord friends Lord Keen and Lord Sandhurst, particularly, obviously, amendment six and 18 to 29. My Lords, I fully understand the need Lords, I fully understand the need to address the issue of prison capacity and overcrowding. We are now at a position where we have 97.3% capacity and 86,800 prisoners as at the 3rd of November this year, as at the 3rd of November this year, and I think we're all committed to tackling recidivism, to improving prisoner education and rehabilitation.

And I, of course, know that the Minister himself, the know that the Minister himself, the noble Lord, the Minister, has a personal commitment, an enviable record in that respect, and I record in that respect, and I support the wider aim of delivering 14,000 additional places, prison
16:41
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
14,000 additional places, prison places by 2031. Given that at present we will be 9500 places short by 2028, and I'm one of the few people that actually has read the Independent Sentencing Review of my erstwhile friend and former colleague, David Gauke, which is an excellent piece of work. I do notice that the government is no longer propagating the disingenuous statistic, and cannot that the previous government, which struggled with Covid and Ukraine and other contingent financial problems, created only 500 places.

The actually created for the record 8500 places and opened three new prisons at HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosseway and HMP Millside. Unfortunately, due to the decrepit physical condition of the prison estate presided over by both parties and cheered on by Her Majesty's Opposition, His Majesty's Opposition at the time and prisoner advocacy charities, the previous government was, of course, compelled to take many prison places out of use. 4151 cells have been closed due to dilapidation since 2010, according to the PAC report on prison capacity published in March this year.

I have two major concerns regarding the proposals in clause one, which give rise to my amendments, which in practice de facto abolish prison terms under 12 months. Firstly, it sends out a very regrettable message to criminals and the wider public that because of government incompetence and failure to plan and failure of imagination, that committing crime is cost free. Shoplifters, burglars, thieves, fences, thugs and drug dealers will be spared jail and instead will receive a community sentence. So even someone giving an 18 month sentence for a serious crime, with a credit of a guilty plea taken into account and the reduction to 12 months, will receive no custodial jail time at all.

I'd like to focus my Lords on Amendment seven under these rather wrongheaded proposals. My Lords, the Emergency Workers Offences Act 2018 was introduced by a Labour MP and supported by the Labour front bench and the GMB union, whose national officer said at the time that, quote, it's welcome to see arrest taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults. The bill was supported by many senior Labour MPs, including, for instance, Louise Hague, a frontbencher who said on the 20th of October 2017.

Volume 6 to 9 of Hansard column 1150 the attitude sadly exists across the criminal justice system that being punched and kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted. We will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job, and we will also do everything in our power to protect them. My Lords, we have a situation under these proposals where around 3000 thugs who assaulted police officers, NHS workers, firefighters and ambulance staff amongst others will receive a golden ticket, a free pass.

And what message does that send to the public and to those public servants who do these very tough jobs? The criminal justice system is distrusted by many already by taxpayers. Will this improve as a result of this legislation? My Lords eight focuses on burglary. Currently, 76% of burglaries in England and Wales were left unsolved in the year to June 2023 for residential burglaries in the year. March 25th, the charge rate was 4.7%, less than 1 in 20 home burglaries resulted in someone being charged.

It's no wonder burglary is a persistent scourge committed by repeat offenders. Are we now going to reduce the deterrent effect by abolishing custodial sentences and a somewhat punitive approach to a nasty offence, which traumatises victims who see the desperation of their homes and the violation, and which causes great distress and anxiety? I know the Minister would the noble Lord would not want that to be the case. These proposals put career criminals out on the street to assault, thieve and other criminal activities, including burglary, for the sake of of as a sanction, unpaid work and a stiff talking with the probation officer.

Amendments nine, ten and 11 are self-explanatory. This, my Lords, is about keeping habitual criminals off the streets and keeping the public safe. And I'm afraid Labour in government have got previous for this. The answer always seems to be release prisoners early or don't imprison them at all. The noble Lord, the Minister, will know that between June 2007 and April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released up to 18 days early, some of them serving up to four years in prison.

Conveniently, at that time, in time for the 2010 general election. Now Ministers pre made the Texas earned release progression model, and I know the Minister himself has spoken about it before. But as my hon. Friend Robert Jenrick said in the other place, Texas has a bigger incarceration rate three times the size of the UK. It's the largest state prison system in the United States, with 130,000 people in prison, with 70,000 in local county jails. It has a incarcerate and incarceration rate of 751 for every 100,000 people, significantly above the United Kingdom, according to the centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

And actually, numbers are increasing in Texas. Recidivism rates in the state are still very high, and it could be argued that to get better recidivism results and rehabilitation results, we should perhaps look elsewhere at Norway and other Scandinavian countries, and even in the United States. In Connecticut and Pennsylvania, for example. I know the Minister will know about these examples. Texas, in any event, will be over its capacity by 7000 places within the next year, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice recent report.

My my point is that the government should not aim for perfection in, say, dealing with women prisoners, compassionate release, rehabilitation, education, drug treatment programs. But whether it has considered the balance of risk. On the second issue that I come to, which is capacity issues and the pressures on the probation service, that my noble friend Lord keen has alluded to earlier, the service is now 104% capacity and struggles with huge caseloads and staff shortages up to 10,000 as at August 2025.

The bill's impact assessment estimates that this policy will give rise to a requirement of at least another 630 new full time equivalent probation officers every year. Yet currently to deal with the 241,540 individuals being supervised in England and Wales. We have a survey service which has a full time equivalent probation officer. Shortfall of 2300, despite 1153 new officers being appointed in the past year. I will leave the committee with the words of my colleague, the much missed and respected the late Baroness Newlove, who as victim's commissioner, raised concerns about these legislative changes in May this year.

And she said the pace of change feels urgent, as if we are racing against the clock. I appreciate the reasons for urgency, but this speed exacerbates my reservations. The reforms set out in the review place great emphasis on community and licensed supervision, as more offenders are diverted from custodial sentence. My overriding concern is whether the already stretched probation service can withstand the additional pressure. The review recommends. Early release for prisoners who behave in prison, but compliance with prison regimes is important, but other important factors must also be taken into account, such as remorse and the evidence of a reduction in risk.

My Lords, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I beg to move these amendments seven, eight, nine, ten and 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I made some remarks on the previous group about being the previous group about being concerned that magistrates in concerned that magistrates in particular would be constrained by having I appearing to be prescribed having I appearing to be prescribed as to the detail of what they they as to the detail of what they they can do, and listing. Offences, or the offence or the offender. If the offence or the offender. If they're not within the list, then they're not within the list, then is that conclusive? I not sure that the this is as helpful as the opposition would suggest.

I wonder, opposition would suggest. I wonder, too, how many of these amendments are really appropriate for primary are really appropriate for primary legislation. And how much would or
16:51
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
could go into sentencing guidelines. And there are noble Lords here who know far more about the workings of of both the courts and of the guidelines than I do or could. I'm a bit confused, too, about the suggestion that 12 month sentences are being abolished. I don't read them as being abolished. And also what some of what's listed attract sentences of 12 months or less. Or, to put it the other way, less than 12 months.

I wonder what's meant by the phrase associated offences which crops up in a number of these amendments, and what offences with a connection with terrorism. If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he really looking at less than is he really looking at less than at 12 months or less? Many of the people who are listed in amendment six and its companion amendment strike me as being people who would really benefit from not being in custody, from having support and rehabilitative services.

I don't, of course, take issue with the comments that are made about the capacity of the probation service. We're all concerned about that, and we would all be with Baroness Newlove in that comment. But the and we were also told that there's no bar to re-offending. Isn't the very fact of suspension of a sentence itself a bar to re-offending? Because if one if the suspension is lifted, in other words, the the custody applies. That strikes me as something of a bar I'm going to repeat.

I'll try not to say it again during today's debate, but the language that we used, I commented about offenders being free to roam the streets,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

career criminals seems to me to be similarly unhelpful phrase. My Lord. I might.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make. A very brief comment. I have a lot of. Sympathy with not the local Baroness Cass just said I share Baroness Cass just said I share many of the reservations expressed by. The noble and early Lord, Lord King, but I wonder whether trying to identify a whole range of to identify a whole range of offences that fall outside the suspended sentence regime is helpful because it does raise the helpful because it does raise the question of what has not been included.

And my own feeling is if included. And my own feeling is if we could get some generic language which encapsulates the thinking expressed by my noble and learned friend, we've been doing well rather than to have a list of rather than to have a list of offences running the risk of omitting others, and perhaps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including some that we shouldn't. I arise to. First of all. I. Understand why the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understand why the. Government's got. We've all got a problem because of the size of the prison population, and I would
16:55
16:55
16:56
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
are positive developments. But at the moment I'm told there are about 30% of the people who are leaving prison who should be tagged are not getting tagged because of administrative issues. Well, that's quite a significant number of those quite a significant number of those who are leaving prison who should be having some form of restraint or monitoring. And if that's not happening, that needs to be sorted happening, that needs to be sorted before we start allowing people out at a quicker rate. The second opportunity, I don't think we're opportunity, I don't think we're taking with Tiger, I know I've talked about this as Minister has been kind enough to find some time.

Is how we might proactively use this better in the future. The data that comes from the tags goes to the commercial operators of the the commercial operators of the tagging system. I'm not quite sure what that meant. It was G4's, but it's a commercial operator. I have no problem with that. But the problem is that the data goes into their control room and the police do not see it, and yet it tells you where the offenders are and you might be able to check.

For example, is there rapist nearby to a rape? Is there a burglar nearby to a burglary? Real time data sharing. At the moment that's not happening, but it is an opportunity. It could be taken with this new experiment, and I don't think it would take an awful lot of investment, nor an awful lot of time to get these things running. My second point is that I think, as 1 or 2 people have said already, short sentences, probably on the whole we could have less of, but I'm not sure there should be removed as it appears.

The assumption is here from the army of the judge. The particular group that I would consider are those repeat offenders who commit low level offending. But if you live next door to them, it's not very good. And unless the judiciary are able to take some action on these, what are perceived as minor cases, but they often impact on their neighbours, they don't impact on the other people who live 20 miles away. They live on in that community where they live. And I think the opportunity for a judge to intervene in those cases ought to remain.

And I do worry that with the assumption, based on the government's proposal, that that group, for example, would not get caught. I agree with Lord Hailsham that probably whether it's a the list that's been offered by the opposition is entirely the right one, but I think it does force the government to address, well what should be on that list, or if not, at least what should be on the principle, but guide such action by a judge. And I do worry that at the moment the judges may feel constrained not to give short sentences whether the only method is no good, giving a fine to somebody who's repeatedly been given fines and doesn't pay them as an example.

So I do think we need to retain that in the armoury. And my final point is that often, oh, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isn't the corollary of his argument that as it stands, if the government were to reject these government were to reject these amendments, then for cases that are where you have a very serious where you have a very serious egregious crime, the the judge may be fully cognisant of the fact that they can't give a custodial sentence to someone who is deserving of one, and therefore they will give a higher sentence other than 12 months, and therefore you will actually make the prison overcrowding system situation worse.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

overcrowding system situation worse. That is a risk if these amendments are not supported. I think Lord Jackson is quite right. And in fact, it's one thing right. And in fact, it's one thing I'd mentioned to the Minister about the risk, because judges will try to do what is best. They're not to do what is best. They're not trying to be subvert the law, but they will try and do what's best in the case before them. My final the case before them. My final point is only that a lot has been said, quite properly about the probation service and what have they got the right resources now to cope with the surge of people as they leave? But one, of course, I would be interested in, in the would be interested in, in the police service and one of the things the government generally said in response to some of the burdens that have been placed on burdens that have been placed on them, is that there are 13,000 extra officers coming along into the neighbourhoods.

And I do think the neighbourhoods. And I do think it's time to shoot that Fox. It's 13,000 people, of which some will be special constables, of which some will be police. Community support officers all have their value, but they're not cops who can be deployed in the way that officers can to enforce the law. There's no even guarantee that there will be a growth in the number of officers. The police officer numbers may increase in neighbourhoods by moving them out of murder teams or organised crime teams, or all the other things they do.

So I think if the government were to rely on the fact that the 13,000 extra officers in neighbourhoods were going to help in this particular effort, I'm not convinced. I think it is time for the government to be clear about how many more officers are going to have, and if the answer is none, then it doesn't help in things like this. But this is just one of the things that we're asking the police to do is particularly important at the moment, because the surge that will come from this release programme, which we may or may not agree is a good thing, will lead to extra work because many of them, I'm afraid, do reoffend quickly on release.

Often their lives are upside down. They start drinking again, they quickly get back into it and I'm afraid burglars carry on bundling and drug dealers carry on drink dealing drugs. It's what they know. So unless we have somebody to intervene at that significant point in their career, then more people and more victims will accumulate. And that worries me. So those are the three areas that I would like some reassurance from the government on, given their plans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the novel. Lord sits down. You're very cold. Watch. Lord You're very cold. Watch. Lord Hailsham talked about having a list of crimes to which this thing will apply, but the moment you do that, apply, but the moment you do that, you've actually fettered the discretion of a judge. It must be discretion of a judge. It must be left open for the judge to determine. Because if you don't, you've actually said these are the you've actually said these are the crimes to which this applies.

He or she listens to the evidence and is absolutely clear that they must be absolutely clear that they must be sent to prison. But you fettered his authority and his power in that his authority and his power in that way. So for me, I won't go for a list. I won't go for list. Certainly, I want to support your tagging questions. And the other last question raised, but I'm not so sure that if they can say to the judge, you've got discretion by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judge, you've got discretion by the way, over this, you don't. And it probably is for the Minister, but I, I only say that I Minister, but I, I only say that I do fundamentally agree with you. But of course, discretion for judges has been limited in some ways. For example, there are minimum sentences. There's a minimum sentence. If you carry a firearm for five years, there's a firearm for five years, there's a minimum sentence if you carry a knife on second conviction after the age of 18, you will go to the age of 18, you will go to prison for 18 months, sorry, six months.

So I think there are occasions when discretion is fettered. And of course, the Sentencing Guidelines Council does that anyway with a list of a type. But I think with Lord Hailsham, I think the government offer one broad principle. I don't think it's sufficient to deal with some of the concerns I have. It may be improved. It may be that there should be less. I wouldn't argue that, but I'm personally, I'm not reassured by the approach the government has given to this.

What I take to be a broad assumption that people will not go to prison for a 12 month sentence. I think that there could be some horrible cases and somebody might get hurt. And that's that's what we're. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise very briefly. To just. As it. Were. Challenge some.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Challenge some. Of the things that have been. Said. Lord Hogan-Howe rather. Implied that it was his belief that the Bill intends to remove all short sentences and from the Minister's opening remarks and others. That is clearly not the case. There is, however, a very case. There is, however, a very good reason for reducing the number. The noble Lord, the Minister, The noble Lord, the Minister, pointed out that there is a significant reduction in the level of reoffending, and in fact he of reoffending, and in fact he hasn't given the figures.

So can I share them with the House? As a result of the work of your result of the work of your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee in a report actually done now I chair it, but actually done now I chair it, but it was actually done during the chairmanship of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, and it showed the Baroness Hamwee, and it showed the figures then, and they've been replicated by more recent research
17:04
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
replicated by more recent research that 60% of offenders who are put in prison for short sentences and are released, 60% re-offend, whereas the average re-offending for those on custodial sentences is only 24%. And as that report said, and as we'll discuss in future amendments, there are very good ways in which we can actually improve custodial, non-custodial sentences to reduce the rate of re-offending even more. But my Lords are going to disagree. During the course of our deliberations over the three sessions that we've got, maybe more with a lot of what the Noble and Leonard Lord Keen says.

But I do want to entirely agree with him. And it's been reflected by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and my noble friend, that all these measures that we're talking about are not going to succeed unless we have the resources to do the job. But again, I would say to the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and others, there are amendments coming later when we can address the issue of the need for more probation officers, the need for more people in our prisons. There isn't currently, as far as I'm aware, one an amendment in relation to police numbers, but there would be time to get one down.

The only other thing I want to say, my Lords, is how much I agree with the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham in his remarks about getting rid of the list argument, which is also been picked up as well. And I think his proposal, which I hope the government will listen to, is finding a language that can be used about those people we know we would not want to put on short sentences, but not necessarily have the sentence inflation. That sadly caused a problem for us, and one of the reasons why we have so many prison prisoners in our prisons today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would it be helpful for me just to? Firstly, I agree with so much of what the noble Lord Lord Foster of what the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath said say that I think that the bill already deals with the the bill already deals with the problem identified by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, which is this is a presumption against. I think it's very important to actually look at the text of the bill. This is a presumption against short is a presumption against short sentences.

It is not a bar to short sentences. Now, there is a philosophy, of course, behind the philosophy, of course, behind the presumption. And the philosophy is, you know, the the authors of the bill and the government have taken bill and the government have taken the view, which is not a revolutionary view in relation to the evidence that has been the evidence that has been collected over many years, that, generally speaking, short sentences generally speaking, short sentences are not a great idea, that they don't lead to.

They don't lead to rehabilitation, they don't help
17:07
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
rehabilitation, they don't help with re-offending. They're not. Now, if you disagree with that and think that a short, sharp shock is a jolly good thing, well, obviously you're going to disagree with with this bill and with these provisions and having lists of various offences is a good wheeze, but it's not it's not consistent with the, with the, with the philosophy of this bill, which is that in general, short sentences don't work. They don't keep the public safe because they don't rehabilitate anyone.

And in fact, some people go to the University of Crime for a short course of less than 12 months and come out with drug problems and relationship breakdown and other issues that they didn't have before. But this is not this is only a presumption. It is not a bar. And, you know, and to respond to the noble Viscount Hailsham with whom I so often agree, I don't think that anything else is required as an alternative to the list approach of exceptions, because there is this discretion, this residual discretion provided in the Bill for exceptional circumstances.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is not a case for the Sentencing Council to express some guidance on these matters, rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance on these matters, rather than go down the list system in a statutory form. There again, I find myself back in the comfortable spot where I agree with the noble Viscount Hailsham because of course that and that's something that we will come that's something that we will come to later, no doubt, when we discuss the independence and the constitutional role of the of the constitutional role of the of the Sentencing Council, because if noble Lords are worried that I'm being too glib because exceptional circumstances seems too vague, an circumstances seems too vague, an alternative to prescriptive list of offences which are exceptional.

The offences which are exceptional. The answer is, on the one hand, trust the judges. This is about their discretion, and they know jolly discretion, and they know jolly well about the rare, the awful case that the noble Lord Hogan-howe that the noble Lord Hogan-howe mentioned, or this this situation where people are repeatedly, repeatedly not paying their fines repeatedly not paying their fines or or breaching community orders. And, you know, it should be an exception to the 12 month presumption. That's the first part of the argument.

Trust the judges. And the second part of the argument And the second part of the argument is the judicial limb of our Constitution has, in the form of its sentencing council. And I use that language deliberately because I'm for the independence of the sentencing Council has a council to help guide judges so that there can be an element of consistency in courts around the country as to the approach of what is exceptional, and therefore, what is the type of case that justifies the exception

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the presumption and the philosophy of this measure, that short sentences are a bad idea? My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I hesitate. To intervene on this matter, but I wonder. What thought. Has been given.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been given. By the Ministry. Of Justice to simplification. We,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Justice to simplification. We, the Sentencing Code now is a very lengthy document. Yes. And the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the. If I may say so, I think. The way. In. Which the title to this. Section has been put is actually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Section has been put is actually. Very sensible. It says. There's a. Presumption against. A. There's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a. Presumption for a suspended. Sentence, but then one. Goes on to read the entirety of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Goes on to read the entirety of this text with the word the court must, unless one, two and three. And then there are a whole series And then there are a whole series of exceptions to that order. Why do we have to have a complexity? And we have to have a complexity? And there are two strong reasons against it. One, there won't be
17:10
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
against it. One, there won't be parliamentary time to alter this if we get it wrong. And secondly, it is much better to leave this to the guidance of the Sentencing Council. If you just said the if you could say the Sentencing Council would provide guidelines to the to bring about that, there should be a presumption against short sentences. Wouldn't that achieve what we want without language? And I think that I do criticise heavily parliamentary draughtsman for this unnecessary complexity.

DSIT can't we do things? Can't we go back to the Victorian age and do things simply? I know these are words that are likely to fall on deaf ears, but it would be so much better if we had simple sentencing legislation left it to the Sentencing Council, who can adjust it as we see if it works. Because one thing experience shows is that you try one type of sentence and a few years later, you want to tinker with it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as a judge who didn't sit very often in crime. But had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sit very often in crime. But had. To do it from time to time, I've been listening with increasing dismay to what has been discussed dismay to what has been discussed in this increasingly elaborate proposals, and I just. Hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, would listen to Lord Thomas, because this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to Lord Thomas, because this is the first. Bit of. Absolute good sense, and whether or not we need to call it Victorian or not we need to call it Victorian or just remind us how the Victorians do a lot of things Victorians do a lot of things extremely well. At the end of the day, at the end of this discussion and throughout this bill, couldn't and throughout this bill, couldn't we do three things simplify, trust the judges and trust the Sentencing Council to do a lot of what is going at the moment to be in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going at the moment to be in primary legislation? My Lords, I just wanted to raise your Lords, foster, that I was not
17:13
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
your Lords, foster, that I was not a co-author of this bill. That's entirely the responsibility of the government. I was merely saying that I got a similar view, that prison, prison numbers could come down and we could be safer. So that and that was the discussion I had with Lord Timpson after the bill was announced, rather than anything else. Because if you'd been my bill, there would have been something in it about a 10 or 20% reduction in sentencing guideline. Council targets for maximum or minimum sentences, because there have been two causes, in my view, of prison numbers going up, one has been the lack of the ability to get paroled, and that's now been addressed by the bill.

And the alternative, the other, which has had nothing done to it, is the grade inflation in terms of sentences, because no political party has gone into any election promising lower sentences unless someone would like to correct me. Anybody ever said that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just without wishing to delay our deliberations, I just point out to the noble Lord that if he feels passionately about it, there is passionately about it, there is still time for him to draft and put down amendment on the issues he's raising, and he may well find support from these benches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we passed a bill through here about the Sentencing Council, when about the Sentencing Council, when there was a disagreement between the Minister of Justice and the Sentence Council. And you know how Sentence Council. And you know how resolved that. So you can't put too much faith without that particular piece of legislation which went piece of legislation which went

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through here not long ago. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lords Lord Sandhurst and Lord Jackson for the further amendments Jackson for the further amendments they've tabled to clause one, which has allowed for another engaging debate on the presumption to debate on the presumption to suspend short sentences. I want to begin by reiterating that we are following the evidence to reduce following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities, and we are implementing implementing the Gauke
17:15
17:15
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
community order or suspended sentences re-offend less than similar offenders. Given a short similar offenders. Given a short prison sentence. That is the key driver behind the presumption to suspend short sentences, and why it suspend short sentences, and why it must continue to apply to sentences of 12 months or less. I agree with of 12 months or less. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee that given the clear evidence on short sentences, the government does not agree with introducing further agree with introducing further exemptions.

To do so would increase reoffending and create more victims. reoffending and create more victims. I don't think any member of your Lordships' House would wish to see this, and I thank the noble Lord this, and I thank the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath for reminding noble Lords of the evidence that underpins this measure through underpins this measure through amendment 6 to 10, 18 and 19. The noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have proposed that the Lords have proposed that the presumption does not apply to convictions for a wide variety of offences.

The government, of course, offences. The government, of course, fully recognises the seriousness of such offences, but I must stress that clause one, as drafted, already provides robust exceptions and I hope this reassures the noble Lord. Viscount Hailsham public protection is our main priority, and we will make sure that the most dangerous offenders are put where they belong behind bars. As I set out earlier, the bill clearly states the circumstances where the presumption does not apply, and moreover, many of the offences addressed in these amendments carry substantial custodial sentences, in some cases up to life imprisonment, which puts them well outside the scope of the presumption.

This includes terrorism offences, and it is very rare for these offenders to receive a sentence of 12 months or less, and the same applies to many knife crime offences. While some could be within scope of the presumption, the evidence shows that many serious knife offences attract sentences longer than 12 months. The average term for threatening with a knife or offensive weapon in 2024 was nearly 15 months, in which case the presumption would not apply. As a noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord foster and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti rightly pointed out, I want to reassure noble Lords that we are not abolishing short sentences.

We are not trying to empty our prisons. We will have more people in prison than ever before. But this is one part of the story. The other is a focus on reducing reoffending and public protection. Noble Lords have also tabled amendments to exempt repeat offenders convicted of multiple offences from the presumption, including where an offender is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise out of the same incident, or when there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind, especially when committed against the same person.

The key point is that the courts should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Noble Lords know that this government takes prolific offending extremely seriously. Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public and we must drive it down. That's why we're ramping up intensive supervision courts targeting the prolific offenders, whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction and other needs. The international evidence is clear these courts cut crime with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrests compared to offenders who received standard sentences.

And I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-howe, for raising important points about tagging. Despite Serco's performance levels falling below expected through my direct ministerial intervention. With their senior leadership and robust management of the contract, delivery is now improving and the offer is still there to visit the team up in Warrington. And finally, I'll address the amendment regarding breach of court order here. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the government agrees with the thrust of the argument. The Bill already provides for exemptions where an offender has breached a court order, so that the presumption does not apply, and judges retain discretion to impose a short prison sentence through Committee stage amendments.

In the other place, we further clarified that this also includes breaching a supervision order, such as a suspended sentence order, so repeat offenders who breach the terms of their suspended sentence or commit a further offence while serving a suspended sentence, could go to prison, and we have also ensured that offenders who commit an offence in circumstances that are closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in itself a criminal offence, could be sent to prison. For example, if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order, which is a civil breach rather than a criminal offence and assaults their partner, the presumption will not apply.

Judges would retain full discretion to impose impose a short prison sentence and the point raised by the noble and learned Lords Thomas and noble Baroness Butler-Sloss around, keeping it simple and trusting people. Well, I'm sure they won't be surprised that that's how I ran my business for many years, quite successfully, and I hope the influence that I have in my many meetings with Ministry of Justice colleagues rubs off on them as well, and I hope that I've addressed noble Lords concerns and clearly explained why the current position in the Bill is the right one.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is on the way. He ran his business. One of the important business. One of the important points of a legislature is to get it technically right. There's no disagreement, as I can see on the disagreement, as I can see on the view that the policy is right. But can't we do things more simply? And can't we do things more simply? And the simple thing I ask the Minister throughout this bill is, can we throughout this bill is, can we have a look at producing a piece of workable, simple legislation that workable, simple legislation that can be adapted if what is set out is not right? I really do believe is not right? I really do believe that this is something a legislature ought to address, where legislature ought to address, where policy is not an issue, can I hear?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The principle the noble Lord and Lord raises is the right principle, and one that I don't think we can and one that I don't think we can change things in this bill now, but I think the the message that I can relay will be very helpful. And relay will be very helpful. And also I think the, the there was another point around complexity, which is how this is then which is how this is then communicated to the hard working staff on the front line who need to do the who actually need to do the who actually need to interpret and put into action what we are proposing here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Answer the Minister one. It is always our duty to put legislation always our duty to put legislation right. Otherwise we must all go home. But secondly, the Sentencing Council is there to give practical guidance. It's not our job as a legislature to tinker with the detail, and I would urge the Minister to see, to go back and see if we can produce, instead of the complexities inherent in this clause, something that just expresses the presumption and leaves the Sentencing Council to do its job because it will do it far its job because it will do it far more competently, I am sure, than the Ministry of Justice.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Ministry of Justice. Yeah. We'll be coming back to that later in the committee when we talk about the Sentencing Council. But I'd just like to just to reassure my noble friend that the the point my noble friend that the the point of clarity and simplicity is something that I will take back to colleagues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues. Sits down simple legislation. I don't think it'll ever catch on because it will put a lot of because it will put a lot of lawyers out of business. My Lords, if I can say rather irreverently, if I can say rather irreverently, will the Minister address he didn't address in his remarks. My amendment seven specifically. It was a piece of legislation, the Emergency Workers Offences Act, which was put forward by his right hon. Friend, Sir Chris Bryant. It did have significant support across the house, in the other place and here, and I just wonder whether the impact of of these proposals he would revisit again, the specific ramifications for emergency service workers, because there is significant concern about that.

I take the point that you shouldn't specify in too much detail on the face of primary legislation, but that was a bill that did receive significant support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for raising the point about emergency workers. I mean, they are people workers. I mean, they are people who deserve all of our attention, and we are very proud of what they and we are very proud of what they do and often very difficult circumstances. And I will take away his his challenge on that. But I his his challenge on that. But I would also say that there are a number of, especially women I meet in prison who are there for assaulting an emergency worker.

assaulting an emergency worker. It's not something that should happen at all, but often they are there because they are in a very traumatic trauma situation and where the emergency services come where the emergency services come to their aid, they often react in the wrong way to that. So that's the wrong way to that. So that's something I think we need to bear in mind as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in mind as well. My Lord, I'm obliged for all of the contributions across the House the contributions across the House and for the response from the noble Lord, the Minister. Everybody appreciates that clause one is not appreciates that clause one is not prohibiting, is not prohibiting anything. But nevertheless, a anything. But nevertheless, a number of noble Lords and also the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti talked eloquently and correctly about the discretion of our judges and the trust that we should place in our judges.

But that is not what clause one is doing. Clause one is saying they must apply a presumption. They're not being trusted with it. They're being told they have to apply it. And that is one of the issues that we need to address. Now. A number of specific exceptions were tabled in the amendments, but I take on board the point made by the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham about it being far more straightforward to produce
17:26
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
some generic description in this regard, and indeed. Lord Thomas regard, and indeed. Lord Thomas pointed out that Lord Thomas of Quincy pointed out it may even be Quincy pointed out it may even be something that should be left to the sentencing council at the end of the day. But that is another issue. Just this quotation. Even when criminals are found guilty, when criminals are found guilty, the sentences they receive often do not make sense, either to victims not make sense, either to victims or the wider public.

Now that was the Labour manifesto, and my fear the Labour manifesto, and my fear is that clause one is simply going to reinforce that perception. And that is one of the concerns that we that is one of the concerns that we have with it. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord foster about the potential for a suspended about the potential for a suspended sentence to lead to support and rehabilitation. The problem is that rehabilitation.

The problem is that those facilities are simply not available at the present time. And in any event, we don't know what in any event, we don't know what period of suspension might or might not be imposed by the courts. It not be imposed by the courts. It may well be one of two years, but as the bill is framed, it may be much less and leave no sensible opportunity for either support or rehabilitation. There's also the matter of statistics. The noble Lord foster alluded to some well known statistics about the fact that those who are in custody for short sentences are greatly more likely to repeat offences when they come out of prison than those who have been given a suspended sentence.

But I think one has to bear in mind that those who have been given a suspended sentence have generally committed a far less serious offence than those who had been given a custodial sentence, and that those who are given custodial sentences for relatively minor offences are given those custodial sentences because they are repeat offenders, one has to bear in mind Disraeli's observation that there are lies, there are lies and there are statistics, and therefore we have to approach them with a degree of care.

Although I understand and appreciate that there is more generic evidence to suggest that suspended sentences, when properly applied, controlled and maintained, can have beneficial effects. And nobody doubts that for a moment. But there is a very real need here to address, amongst other things, the whole scourge of repeat offenders. And it arises particularly in the context of my noble friend Lord Jackson's Amendment eight. He talks about burglary as a particular offence. It's an intensely intrusive crime that leaves victims traumatised, and it is one that is inclined to attract repeat offenders.

Its social damage is considerable and therefore there are particular crimes of that nature, given their impact on society as a whole, that should attract something more than a suspended sentence, and the fear that somebody will simply repeat them. And similar observations can be made in respect of knife crime as well. I fully understand that there is a need to revisit clause one and its implications. We have sought to do so by identifying particular or specific exceptions to it.

There is, as I indicated, an. As outlined by the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham. Potentially a better route to that conclusion, and indeed, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Quincy, there is hopefully a simpler route to that conclusion. But for present purposes I withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments. Your lordships pleasure that amendment six be withdrawn. amendment six be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Lord Jackson of Peterborough amendment 7 Jackson of Peterborough amendment 7 to 11 En bloc not moved. Not moved. Takes us on to. Amendments 12 to 14 Takes us on to. Amendments 12 to 14 En bloc Lord Keen of Elie not moved. Not moved. That brings us to the next substantive amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next substantive amendment. Amendment 15 Baroness Hamwee. I beg to move amendment 15. Before I get on to the detail of this, can I say how much I agree with the comments that have been made about the increasing complexity of the Sentencing Code, complexity of the Sentencing Code, the guidelines, and so on. I started to look at them in started to look at them in connection with another amendment connection with another amendment connection with another amendment and found I was quickly very bogged clauses 18 and Lord Hall otherwise clauses 18 and Lord Hall otherwise we could find ourselves in worse trouble.

I'm grateful to the Prison trouble. I'm grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for raising a reminder of community sentences and their place, and my amendment provides specifically for community sentences. It shouldn't, of course, be necessary, but it seems that it
17:31
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
might be important to remind, particularly magistrates of it. The noble Lady, Baroness Jones, has another amendment directed to the same end, and probably more same end, and probably more straightforwardly drafted, if I may say so. Although I didn't draft this one, I'll come to that. The briefing that I've received from the Prison Reform Trust is very the Prison Reform Trust is very much based on the risk of increasing the imprisonment of increasing the imprisonment of women, though the point may apply not only to women, but the position not only to women, but the position of women has just been trailed by of women has just been trailed by the the Minister.

We welcome the presumption that we've just been presumption that we've just been talking about against custodial sentences of 12 months or less, but sentences of 12 months or less, but there are implications of a custodial sentence which is custodial sentence which is suspended, which do not apply to community orders. I tripped over community orders. I tripped over the issue when I was looking online for the views of women's organisations on the bill, and I found an article by Vera Baird on for the centre for Women's Justice.

And as she wrote, there is abundant evidence that women are disproportionately given short custodial sentences, mainly for non-violent, low level offences such as shoplifting. I'm sorry to use that term in the presence of, and I'm quoting. And breaches of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

court orders. Nearly 70% of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse. That I think is an MoJ. Figure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Figure. And perhaps here I should declare an interest. I was chair of the charity refuge for a number of years. Many have complex needs and years. Many have complex needs and whilst for male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor, families rarely stay factor, families rarely stay together. If the mother goes to prison. I mentioned complex needs. The point was also made in the The point was also made in the article. I'll quote further that women with multiple needs may women with multiple needs may breach suspended sentences due to the complexity of their lives, the challenges they face in complying challenges they face in complying with court ordered requirements, mental health disorders, caretaking responsibilities, unstable housing and lower employment prospects.

and lower employment prospects. Conflicts with conflicts with conditions, missed appointments or failure to meet financial obligations linked to their sentences can result in technical violations, which will breach the violations, which will breach the suspended sentence and lead to women being returned to court for imprisonment. Women may also breach community orders, but the consequences are not likely to be as severe. Women on suspended sentences live under the threat of prison from day one of the sentence, long before the benefits of treatment and support, which may be offered alongside a suspended sentence order or have any chance of working.

And in case anyone thinks that I'm advocating letting women off, community sentences are punishment. Yes, Vera Baird wrote that this amendment. I think it's this one I've since seen. A longer alternative was drafted by members of the Women's Justice Board. I mentioned that because I know that this is something very much supported by the the Minister. And I have an amendment later about the Women's Justice Board, but the those who are backing it, I think are significant. She said that it was tabled in the Commons.

It took me a while to track it down, but as far as I can see, there wasn't a comment from the Minister in the Commons in response to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page four, line 12. At the end,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page four, line 12. At the end, insert the words as they appear on the marshalled list. My Lords. Rise to speak to my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to speak to my amendment. 29 a now, it's not often. That I feel daunted in speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I feel daunted in speaking out on legislation in your Lordships' House. But I do feel a. Slight nervousness when. A lot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A lot. Of senior police officers, former judges and cases actually former judges and cases actually start. Oh yeah, luckily most of them have gone. I know, so I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them have gone. I know, so I don't really need to be nervous at all. And and. Often in putting my views or the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Often in putting my views or the Green Party's views, which. Obviously overlap.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quite a lot, I do feel that I'm speaking, as it. Were, from. The street, and that I talk to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The street, and that I talk to a lot of people who probably don't know much about this sort of thing, so they probably agree with me on
17:36
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
so they probably agree with me on on some of it. However, this amendment. Oh, and on the issue of simpler legislation, I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a fact that. The Met Police would like simpler legislation on all around protest. They are absolutely sick of the confusion and it's time that we should revisit it. However, we should revisit it. However, that's not for today. So 29 A makes that's not for today. So 29 A makes a simple but important change, and that is that it requires courts to consider the use of a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. This strengthens the government's own intention to the government's own intention to reduce the overuse of short prison sentences, and an aim that I and many across this House, I'm sure many across this House, I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, warmly welcome.

But unless we make it clear that community orders must be properly considered first, we be properly considered first, we risk creating what justice organisations call a net widening effect. In other words, people who effect. In other words, people who should have received a community order may instead receive a suspended sentence order simply suspended sentence order simply because it appears to be a tougher alternative to custody. A suspended alternative to custody. A suspended sentence order is still a custodial sentence. It carries the weight and the lifelong consequences of a the lifelong consequences of a criminal record, and it places people at far greater risk of imprisonment if they breach its imprisonment if they breach its terms.

By contrast, a community order is a genuinely non-custodial disposal. It's designed, when properly resourced, to address the underlying causes of offending, whether these are mental health needs, alcohol or drug dependency, or others. Community orders enable people to keep their jobs, maintain their homes, stay connected to their families and communities, and continue caring responsibilities all factors that are well established as reducing the risk of re-offending. If the aim of this bill is to reduce the crisis in prison capacity, then we must avoid funnelling people into suspended sentences where a community order would be more effective, and safely promote rehabilitation.

Otherwise, we simply increase the pipeline into custody through breach, defeating the very purpose of the government's reforms. We also risk the danger that this disproportionately affects women as it currently stands, which we have heard from noble Lady back Baroness Hamwee. Now, this amendment is supported by justice and is aligned with the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, which suggested introducing crime reduction as an overarching principle to guide sentencing. Community sentences can play a crucial role in achieving that. They provide a real opportunity for rehabilitation and practical programmes that help people rebuild their lives without the barrier of a custodial sentence on their record.

And, crucially, community orders can command public confidence when victims are properly informed about what they involve and that victims understand how these sentences can reduce future harm. So amendment 29 A simply ensures that the most proportionate, most effective and least harmful sentence is considered. First, it strengthens the bill's stated ambition of reducing pressure on prisons while supporting better outcomes for individuals and communities. I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, sees this as a constructive amendment and one that aligns with the government's own agenda, and I urge the House to give it serious consideration.

Do I beg to move as well or I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bother. That's fine thanks. Please go ahead,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please go ahead, I speak in support of what is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in support of what is behind both Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb amendments. There are two reasons. amendments. There are two reasons. One we send still send far too many women to prison and we need to women to prison and we need to reduce it. And secondly, it is probably right that a community probably right that a community sentence should be in priority to a suspended sentence. But it's not suspended sentence. But it's not that simple.

And the purpose of these amendments, and I will not come back to this point again. It shows precisely why this should be left to the Sentencing Council, who left to the Sentencing Council, who can weigh up the detail of the terms and conditions that it's appropriate to attach to a appropriate to attach to a suspended sentence, because you can make them almost as tough as a community order, and also to leave
17:41
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
community order, and also to leave to them the judgement of how the public perceive, respectively, suspended sentences and community orders, because the public perception, unless we satisfy that we are punishing people, will result in what has been suggested. Namely, the judges will think, okay, we've got to go above 12 months. And that, particularly in the case of women, would be a disaster. So the amendments I support support the idea. I think it's excellent, but it's a very, very strong argument.

And this promise I won't say any more about the sentencing Council today for actually changing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill and making it sensible. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I shall speak. Briefly to these amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 15. The amendment of Lady Hamwee. The intention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The intention. Is to insert. An explicit. Reference to section 77 of the Sentencing Act. 2020.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2020. To make. It plain. That courts may mitigate a sentence to a community order where sentence to a community order where appropriate. My Lords, we do not believe this amendment is necessary. believe this amendment is necessary. This bill does. Not alter the court's ability to take into account the full range of mitigating factors, nor does it disturb their discretion to impose a community sentence where that is the just and proportionate outcome. What it is doing is to impose an What it is doing is to impose an obligation to suspend a prison sentence, where otherwise a prison sentence, where otherwise a prison sentence might be imposed.

Those powers remain firmly in place to powers remain firmly in place to single out section 77 of the Sentencing Act for restatement on the face of the bill might be thought to imply that the legislation would otherwise curtail
17:42
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
judicial discretion, that is, judicial discretion, to impose a community sentence. That is not the community sentence. That is not the case. For this reason, we do not consider the amendment to be either needed or helpful. Turning to needed or helpful. Turning to amendment 29, A in the name of Baroness Jones. This would place a statutory duty on courts to consider a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. imposing a suspended sentence order. While we understand and appreciate the intention behind the proposal, we do not support it.

The courts we do not support it. The courts are already required to work upwards through a full hierarchy of sentencing options, including, and. I stress that including community sentences before custody is reached. That is the well-established principle both in law and practice. principle both in law and practice. In sentencing, judges are highly experienced in applying those principles. To introduce a further principles. To introduce a further procedural step will not add, but will rather to to some something of substance, but will rather create additional bureaucracy in an additional bureaucracy in an already very complex framework.

It risks increasing administrative burdens on the probation services burdens on the probation services and court staff, and generating uncertainty about what additional assessments or reports might be required to satisfy the new duty. We should not legislate for processes that the system is not resourced nor structured to deliver. Above all, a suspended sentence of imprisonment is by definition only imposed when the custody threshold has already been crossed to require courts to revisit considerations that already inherent in the sentencing exercise risks weakening clarity and undermining judicial confidence in the tools at their disposal.

My Lords, for all these reasons, while we respect the intentions behind both amendments, we do not believe that they would strengthen the sentencing framework and we cannot support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for tabling these amendments, and I was pleased to hear about two organisations, one which I used to chair, Prison Reform Trust and one which I now chair, Women's Justice Board being mentioned. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to grateful for the opportunity to clarify the government's position on this issue. In doing so, I hope I'll address the noble Baroness I'll address the noble Baroness questions and also the reflections raised by other noble Lords at Second Reading.

And I agree with Second Reading. And I agree with the noble and learned Lord Thomas that there are too many women in prison. And that is why we set up prison. And that is why we set up the Women's Justice Board to come up with a plan to fix that. Amendment 15 proposes that Amendment 15 proposes that presumption to suspend short sentences should not apply where the court considers that a community sentence is more community sentence is more appropriate, and amendment 29 A seeks to ensure that the courts consider whether the purposes of
17:45
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
consider whether the purposes of sentencing can be met by imposing a community order before they decide to impose a suspended sentence order. The government agrees that community sentences must remain available, but our view is that these amendments are not needed. Courts will still be able to impose community sentences when that is appropriate, and nothing in this bill changes that. When the courts decide what sentence to impose, they are required to consider whether a community sentence or custodial sentence is more appropriate.

When the custodial threshold has been met, courts would usually impose a suspended sentence order or a sentence of immediate custody. However, nothing in this bill prevents the court from imposing a community sentence where it considers it to be the most appropriate sentence. The sentencing code and the relevant sentencing guidelines are clear, even when the custodial threshold has been met. The custodial sentence should not be imposed. If, in the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to impose a community order, both the community order and suspended sentence order may have the requirements.

May have requirements requirements attached. These can include a curfew, unpaid work, drug treatment and electronic monitoring. These requirements have the intention of punishing the offender, providing reparation and addressing any criminogenic or rehabilitative needs which may otherwise increase the likelihood of reoffending. Again, nothing in this bill changes that, and I agree with the noble Lord Sandhurst view that these amendments are not necessary. Judges and magistrates will continue to have the flexibility to choose between a suspended sentence order or a community order, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Again, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue and I hope I have provided the necessary reassurance on this point. With that in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I agree that my amendment is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree that my amendment is not necessary, but perhaps that's not necessary. In a technical sense. necessary. In a technical sense. It's the practical situation that the Prison Reform Trust, particularly and the Women's particularly and the Women's Justice Board were pointing to. And of course, I'm going to withdraw of course, I'm going to withdraw the amendment. But before I do so, I just throw back into the arena. I hope that there can be some way of reminding magistrates that community sentences are still available and should be used.

To my mind, they're the first thing that should be considered. I hesitate to should be considered. I hesitate to mention sentencing guidelines, particularly as the noble and learned Lord has imposed a
17:48
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
learned Lord has imposed a self-denying ordinance on mentioning them again. I wouldn't suggest what the mechanism should be, but I think there should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some mechanism. With that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure that amendment 15 be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 16 to 18. En bloc Lord Amendment 16 to 18. En bloc Lord Keen. Not moved. Moved. The question is at clause one stand part of the Bill, as the opinion part of the Bill, as the opinion will say. Content, not content. The contents have it. That brings us to after clause one, which we after clause one, which we previously debated.

Amendments 19 to 29. En bloc Lord Keen. Not moved. to 29. En bloc Lord Keen. Not moved. Not moved. Okay. That then brings Not moved. Okay. That then brings us to amendment 29. A Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. Not moved. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule of the bill, as that opinion will say, content, not content. Contents say, content, not content. Contents have it getting quieter and quieter here. That therefore brings us on to clause two, amendment 30 Lord Keen of Elie.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keen of Elie. My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name which raise amendments in my name which raise important points concerning clause two, and our concerns here stem two, and our concerns here stem from the same concerns that gave effect to our proposed amendments in respect of clause one. Of course, we have sympathy for the current pressures on our prison system, but we must also recognise that essentially a non-discriminating provision to let offenders remain in the community without custodial punishment is by no means the solution.

And indeed, in many ways, the present provisions create greater challenges than clause one in respect of the ability for the suspension of sentences for offenders who've been sentenced for
17:50
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
up to three years imprisonment. The up to three years imprisonment. The Lords these are not petty criminals. This provision would apply to those going to prison for crimes such as going to prison for crimes such as robbery, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, organised drug dealing and indeed possession of an offensive weapon. Amendments 1332 offensive weapon. Amendments 1332 provide a list of offences where we believe it would be unacceptable to allow such offenders to serve allow such offenders to serve suspended sentences, and I accept that, as the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham observed when we debated clause one, that there may be scope clause one, that there may be scope for a generic provision here rather than a long list of specific than a long list of specific offences, and certainly we will give consideration to that.

But we do not consider that someone convicted of, for example, sexual offences related to a child or offences related to a child or grooming should avoid custody entirely without any effective form entirely without any effective form of custodial sentence. We risk two important consequences. Firstly, important consequences. Firstly, that the deterrent effect that our our deterrent effects that are inherent to custodial sentences cease to operate. And that of course, secondly, serious offenders will have the opportunity to re-offend, having received no effective rehabilitation and will have continued access to their victims.

My Lords, Amendments 30 and 32 similarly make provisions for offences of assault and wounding with intent involving weapons such as knives, and we believe it is important that offenders convicted of these serious crimes serve their sentences in custody rather than at large in the community. Those convicted of such violent offences should have to spend some time in custody, and this is not only to ensure the continued safety of the wider public, but also to ensure that the public's perception is that serious crime of this nature is punished.

Once again, I repeat that although we recognise the prisons are under considerable strain, we cannot allow that to be the chief or principal consideration when it comes to the imposition of sentences. Finally, amendments 30 and 32 seek to exclude offenders who have been engaged in stalking or harassment, and also those who have been guilty of domestic abuse, where the victim is a current or former partner or family member. And I suggest it's self-evident why such offenders should serve their sentences in prison and not have access to their victims.

I would note that even in clause one, there is an exception in respect of, and I quote, significant risk of harm to a particular individual where the presumption will not apply. But why is there no similar provision in respect of clause two, when we're dealing with far more serious offences than those addressed by virtue of a sentence of 12 months? Miller's amendments 31 and 33 also seek to highlight further operational issues with respect to the bill and in respect of clause three.

Specifically, the clause has, as drafted, leaves essentially the door open to a multitude of issues which would never arise if a custodial sentence is going to be present. It's entirely possible that someone convicted of assault on several occasions could be handed down a sentence of less than three years. Under the current sentencing guidelines, and this provision would operate to provide that person with the possibility of serving a suspended sentence, but without meaningful accountability. Lawbreaking will continue to proliferate.

Crime will continue to proliferate. I would also draw particular attention to amendment 31 at subparagraph G, which provides that suspended sentence. Or should not be imposed on those who have a history of poor compliance with court orders. And I would respectfully suggest that this is an obvious point to make. Those who clearly have a history of not following community orders should not be placed immediately back into society after committing a crime, and yet, that is a very real possibility.

Under the provisions of clause three, but Lord, can I turn briefly to amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and it would appear that the noble Lords Amendment is perhaps underpinned by the same concerns that are rooted in our own amendments, namely, the very real possibility of dangerous offenders on the streets, thereby putting the public at risk. And the noble Lords Amendment seeks to exempt specified offences of terrorism of violence and sexual offences from suspended sentences, and we would support the intention behind that amendment.

And we certainly hope that the government will take it seriously. So what I sought to do is simply illustrate a few of those instances where it should not be appropriate for a suspended sentence to be available. That is not only so that the crime is met with a proportionate punishment, but is also required in order to ensure that the public can maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. So I do hope that the government will take these amendments seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's Response.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause two, page six, line 39. At the end, insert the words as they appear on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled list. As the noble Lord Lord Keen indicated, the motivation behind indicated, the motivation behind amendment 34 is broadly similar to what he's just described in his own what he's just described in his own amendments. And indeed later on in this bill, at some point next week, there are a series of amendments there are a series of amendments which I have laid working with the Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, quite specifically to try and make sure that when we are try and make sure that when we are looking at early release provisions that a particular, particularly hard and clear focus is placed on domestic abuse perpetrators who have very, very high levels of recidivism and can be particularly recidivism and can be particularly dangerous.

So the motivation behind this particular amendment came partly from an interaction with with an organisation in Northern Ireland called the Marie Collins Foundation, and the Marie Collins Foundation is particularly concerned about, I'm afraid, my Lords, yet another acronym which Lords, yet another acronym which I've learned, which is called taxa, taxa sounds like a sort of an injury to your ankle. It actually means that technically assisted child sexual abuse, and this is a an activity which I'm afraid is prevalent and is growing extremely quickly assisted by technology.

There was a particularly egregious example of a father of several daughters resident in one of our larger cities outside London, who was found to have drilled a series of holes around his home, particularly into the bathrooms and lavatories, in order to be able to watch his daughters as they were going about what one does in
17:58
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
bathrooms or in lavatories. And I'm afraid this is, believe it or not, afraid this is, believe it or not, not that unusual. So I completely follow the logic that has been put follow the logic that has been put forward by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord by my side, which is we. We Lord by my side, which is we. We shouldn't be and mustn't be too specific in this bill. But I do think some very, very clear guidance, whether it comes from the Sentencing Council or some other Sentencing Council or some other bodies, is required because, my Lords, I'm not a professional politician, but professional politician, but professional politicians in office know all too well the opprobrium and the publicity which comes their way has publicity which comes their way has and when, not if, somebody is and when, not if, somebody is released, somebody is released from prison who shouldn't have been released and does something released and does something dreadful yet again, or somebody who should go to prison, but for reasons to do with trying to alleviate the pressure on the prison population, it is decided that they do not.

But they then do something really awful and everybody will say, why didn't we pick that up at the time? I do pick that up at the time? I do think we just need to think about this very, very careful. I understand fully the reasons behind why we're trying to alleviate the pressure on prisons. And I do think Her Majesty's occasionally loyal opposition do have quite a lot to answer for, for the state that we are currently in. But I do think we need to be very, very careful about this.

And that is really all I have to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I don't want to say more about lists other than to note that there are a lot of lists that there are a lot of lists contained in these amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will not think this is in any way an aggressive question, but I think I picked up that he would I think I picked up that he would expect to see some fleshing out of expect to see some fleshing out of the term serious, as well as detail of specified offences through a of specified offences through a mechanism that follows today's mechanism that follows today's debate.

So. If he's looking for
18:01
18:02
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
risk to any person, or, if appropriate, punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody, and if the offender breaches the order by failing to comply with any of the requirements or committing a new offence, they can be returned to court. If the breach is proven. The courts are required to activate the custodial sentence unless it would be unjust to do so. And, of course, criminals serving suspended sentences face the prospect of being sent to prison if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders.

So under this bill, someone could receive a two and a half year sentence, suspended for three years and with an electronically monitored curfew lasting for two years. In this scenario, if they breach their curfew or commit a further offence, they face the prospect of being sent to prison. I would like to reassure the noble Lords that there is already provision within this bill to prohibit the use of suspended sentence orders under any circumstances in relation to sentences for offenders of particular concern, and extended determinate sentences.

These sentences can be imposed in relation to the specific offences listed in the noble Lord Lord Russell of Liverpool amendment, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous. Currently, if an extended determinate sentence is imposed for two years or less, it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence. Both can be suspended. However, the sentencing bill will change that position so that where an extended sentence is imposed, it cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including when it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence.

I will now turn to terrorism sentences where a life sentence is not imposed unless there are exceptional circumstances. A serious terrorism sentence is required if the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, and the offence was likely to cause multiple deaths, the minimum sentence of imprisonment will then be 14 years, and therefore a suspended sentence order would not be available. The noble Lords have also proposed to exempt offences with mandatory minimum sentences and those eligible for referral under the unduly lenient scheme, if the offence which is being sentenced has a mandatory minimum sentence and is capable of being suspended, judges still retain the discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence when there is the appropriate outcome.

To be clear, we are not abolishing short sentences offences falling under the unduly Lenient Scheme, Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme are rightly treated very seriously. I can reassure noble Lords that clause two does not interfere with existing mechanisms that allow for the review of sentences. In these cases, we believe that these safeguards protect the public while preserving judicial discretion. Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts, considering the full circumstances of the case, I now turn to the amendments.

The noble Lords, noble and learned Lord Keen and noble Lord Sandhurst have tabled, which would have the effect of preventing the court from suspending a sentence where an offender has not complied with previous court orders, and to exempt offenders convicted of multiple previous offences from being suspended, I can reassure noble Lords that sentencing guidelines are clear that where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and the court thinks that they are unlikely to comply in the future, that may be a reason not to suspend the sentence.

Additionally, when an offender is in custody, for example, when an offender has breached their licence conditions by committing a further offence and has been recalled into custody as a result, the court will not suspend the sentence. Sentences are generally served concurrently when offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the courts should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate.

Noble Lords will know that this government takes prolific offending extremely seriously, and previous offending is already a statutory aggravating factor. I must also be clear that a suspended sentence is not a soft option. The courts can also impose a range of requirements and an offender, ranging from curfews to exclusion zones. This bill includes new tough restriction zones, which will restrict offenders to a specific geographical area. These will be electronically monitored in most cases and are intended to serve not just as a punishment, but also as an important tool to protect and reassure victims.

Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims in the public and we must drive it down. That's why we're ramping up intensive supervision courts targeting the prolific offenders, whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction or other needs. The international evidence is clear these courts cut crime with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrest compared to offenders who receive standard sentences, and that is just one way in which this government is putting the necessary structures in place to build a sustainable justice system going forward.

Suspended sentence orders in appropriate cases give offenders a chance to stay in work, keep stable housing and access support in the community. All of this goes towards reducing repeat offending and supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that that remains the case. By targeting the causes of offending in the community, we can lower reoffending rates in return and in turn reduce the number of victims. I hope the noble Lords are now assured of the government's position on this, and I therefore urge them to withdraw these amendments.

With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, another noble Lords, for their contribution on this topic. These amendments are designed to ensure that dangerous or repeat offenders cannot avoid custody due offenders cannot avoid custody due to a general presumption of suspension. Now I hear what the noble Lord, the Minister, has to noble Lord, the Minister, has to say about the discretion of the say about the discretion of the independent judiciary. But it seems to me that he's attempting to go in two different directions at the two different directions at the same time, because we've only just looked at clause one, where he's imposing upon the discretion of the imposing upon the discretion of the independent judiciary the presumption that has to apply.

presumption that has to apply. There's no discretion there. They must abide by the presumption. So must abide by the presumption. So in a sense, we go from one extreme
18:08
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
to the other with regard to the justification for these provisions in the bill. And it's very difficult to understand any underlying logic or principle that is being applied here. So I do hope that the government will give further consideration to clause two and the proposed amendments to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause two, but for present amendments. Is it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it. Your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by. Leave withdrawn. Amendment 31

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave withdrawn. Amendment 31 Lord Keen not moved, or 32. Or 33.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or 33. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. of that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause two, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it after clause two, amendment 34 Lord Russell not removed. Then we move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then we move. To 35 Lord Keen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To 35 Lord Keen. My Lords, we've on the the Her Majesty's Opposition have made no secret of our profound reservations secret of our profound reservations about the sweeping presumption in favour of suspended sentence. We fear that it risks sending entirely fear that it risks sending entirely the wrong signal about the seriousness of offending, and will undermine public confidence and undermine public confidence and place additional strain on already overstretched probation services. overstretched probation services. Yet, my Lords, if the government is to insist on pressing ahead with this presumption, then it is this presumption, then it is incumbent upon us to ensure that public protection, good order and the prospects for genuine rehabilitation are at least properly safeguarded.

That is the purpose of this amendment. So amendment 35 requires that where a court imposes a suspended sentence order, at least one meaningful rehabilitative or supportive
18:10
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
support based requirement should be attached, whether that be attached, whether that be engagement with the NHS, mental health services, substance misuse treatment, accredited offending treatment, accredited offending behaviour programmes or structured education training and employment support. The intention is clear a suspended sentence must be more than a paper exercise. It must be a tool to reduce re-offending. Noble Lords will have noticed that the Lords will have noticed that the list of activities is rather broad. The intention here is to permit the court to use its discretion as to which activity the offender is required to undertake.

The activity required to undertake. The activity or service will depend upon the particulars of the case before the court in the offender's personal court in the offender's personal circumstances. If the offender has a history of alcoholism and their offending is related to that offending is related to that behaviour, the judge could require attendance at a substance misuse. Services. In other circumstances, Services. In other circumstances, the court could require an offender to for to for the purposes of rehabilitating that person and helping them to contributing member of society.

If contributing member of society. If we are now to envisage a very significant expansion in the use of suspended sentences, then it is only right that Parliament builds on builds in minimum expectations. Rehabilitation does not happen just because you want it or by osmosis. If an offender has underlying mental health needs or substance addiction, or lack stable employment, then simply to suspend a sentence without addressing those elements which are the real drivers of crime is neither just nor sensible.

It helps no one, least of all other members of the public. Importantly, the amendment does not interfere with the sentencing powers of the independent judiciary. Rather, it simply ensures that the court has power to enforce rehabilitative activity, for otherwise any failure to comply with this order would be considered a breach of the suspended sentence order. I know the noble Lord. The Minister has a long history of involvement in rehabilitation of prisoners, and I praise him for that. Hopefully he will see that this amendment complements that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after. Clause two. Insert the new clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the new clause. In the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, my observations are very brief and I entirely agree with the sense behind the amendment, but I do notice that it's a but I do notice that it's a mandatory requirement that judge must do it. And my own preference, must do it. And my own preference, as is so often the case, is to leave it to the discretion of the judiciary. As I understand the position, they already have the position, they already have the power to do what is suggested and I would leave it to them.

There may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to do so. My Lords, I said in some earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I said in some earlier remarks that there would be very few occasions when I was likely to few occasions when I was likely to agree with a noble and learned Lord. I've forgotten his name. I'm sorry. I've forgotten his name. I'm sorry. Apologies. I should, in fairness, have added at the same time the
18:13
18:15
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
very clear phrase they fall way short of their potential, and goes short of their potential, and goes on to make suggestions of ways in which that the community sentences could be improved. Now, my Lords were well aware that, broadly speaking, the benefits of a speaking, the benefits of a community sentence is that it provides a degree of stability for the offender who might be able to the offender who might be able to continue in the job that they're in, and certainly continue to be engaged in family life and those engaged in family life and those sorts of things, which by itself will help reduce reoffending.

But will help reduce reoffending. But we also know that community sentences, well done, can provide sentences, well done, can provide time to address the underlying causes that led to the crime. And causes that led to the crime. And some of those underlying causes are to do with problems of mental health and various addictions. Now, health and various addictions. Now, later on, I've got an amendment 70 which looks at that particular which looks at that particular issue in more detail. And my Lords, on that occasion I will be wanting on that occasion I will be wanting to include gambling disorder within the sweep or issues that do need to the sweep or issues that do need to be addressed.

But also, my Lords, the report acknowledges that the sorts of things that are included in the noble Lord Keen Lord Sandhurst amendment 35, in terms of opportunities, in terms of work skills and so on are really very important. So I accept entirely that those three areas are areas that should be looked at as part of a community sentence, the order that goes with it. But my Lords, there is a significant problem that, again, I hope to pick up in later amendments.

But the noble Lord, the Minister, may wish to comment on, and that is if we're going to achieve what is in amendment 35. The two noble Lords have moved. We need to have proper pre-sentencing reports. And there is a problem that already the current probation service is overstretched to the point at which the number of pre-sentence reports that are produced is now remarkably low, and so very often sentencing will take place without a pre-sentencing report that would have looked to find those areas that should be covered in what happens in the community sentence.

So, my Lords, yet again, we see the problem of the shortage of resources to deliver what we want. And certainly it brings us back to the need to address the shortfall in our probation service. My Lords, I think pre-sentence reports that look at the issues that are led to perhaps the problem that give an opportunity to identify the type of activity that would be most beneficial to the offender to reduce reoffending, I think is really important. So broadly speaking, I welcome the thrust of this amendment, but I do hope we'll also pick up the problems of resources to make sure it can be carried through, which we can perhaps address at a later stage in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our deliberations. I rise to speak. In support of amendment 35, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In support of amendment 35, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As I said in my Second Reading speech, good intentions Reading speech, good intentions only go so far. This bill transfers a large part of the responsibility for rehabilitation into the for rehabilitation into the community. A change which has has been has been pointed out by many. The evidence supports this has The evidence supports this has benefits, not just for those who would previously have served a short custodial sentence, but also short custodial sentence, but also by reducing the number of those in prison over time.

In theory, it prison over time. In theory, it should also provide the capacity that is needed to ensure that those in the prison estate are better in the prison estate are better able to access the education and support services they need to give them a second chance on release. The challenge, though, is that this bill places more people out in the bill places more people out in the community, but it doesn't go far enough in answering the question of what support they will be receiving
18:19
Baroness Porter of Fulwood Portrait Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)
-
-
what support they will be receiving to help address some of the underlying factors driving their offending. Unless this happens, it could make a difficult situation worse. This amendment specifically deals with those on a suspended sentence, obliging them to undertake at least one form of support, such as an apprenticeship. The proportion of people with a rehabilitation activity requirement attached to their suspended sentence at the moment is relatively high. The challenge is that adequate resourcing for them is often not available, and access can be patchy.

A ministry of justice assessment from earlier this year found. I quote the rehabilitation activity requirement tended to be seen by probation staff as the right idea in theory, but more resources needed to deliver it appropriately. When asked about the biggest barriers that affect how the rehabilitation activity requirement is delivered, responses tended to centre on limited funding and resource. All practitioner participants reported that resource constraints, for example, staffing shortages and time pressures and practical constraints e.g. a lack of meeting rooms were barriers to effective rehabilitation activity requirement delivery.

This matters because, as the Magistrates Association pointed out in their submission to the Sentencing Review, the impact of delays on offender outcomes is clear as they set out, one magistrate told us an offender was given a mental health treatment requirement as part of a suspended sentence, yet their first appointment didn't occur until nearly six months after it was imposed. The offender was not able to access treatment in time and subsequently reoffended. This may not have happened had he been given support earlier.

If this is happening at the moment, then my worry is what will happen when the system is placed under much greater strain through many more people being managed in the community. Although the government has committed to some additional funding for probation, it has published no detailed breakdown of how this funding will be deployed. It is also not addressed. The central role that the many community and voluntary organisations in this sector play as a critical part of the delivery

**** Possible New Speaker ****

model for this type of activity. I just want to, if I may, help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to, if I may, help the noble Lady with the very powerful argument that she's making with one set of statistics that I hope noble Lords will find worrying. hope noble Lords will find worrying. And if you look at the 1990 1000, on average people who are currently on average people who are currently engaged in probation, community services and community sentences services and community sentences and so on have 91,000. In 2023, and so on have 91,000.

In 2023, only 1302 of them even started only 1302 of them even started treatment. That's 1.8%. So the shortage of the support services is deeply worrying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deeply worrying. Thank you. Building on that, in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Building on that, in terms of the community and voluntary organisations, more needs to be done to set alongside this bill that will help build the capacity to be able to deliver so that those to be able to deliver so that those kind of rates just outline. There will be increased examples in terms will be increased examples in terms of policy, multi-year, unrestricted grant funding and regional commissioning. Coming back to this amendment, though, by being more explicit here about the central role rehabilitative activity plays in this bill, my hope would be that government would be forced to resource this area sufficiently and signal that they view it, view these services and programmes as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essential rather than discretionary. So I rise to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friends on the front bench. 12 years ago, sorry, 14 years ago I years ago, sorry, 14 years ago I travelled to San Miguel prison in Santiago in Chile, which was one of Santiago in Chile, which was one of the worst prisons in South America. I had the dubious distinction of travelling often with Baroness Stern, who is a noted prison Stern, who is a noted prison campaigner, and when I travelled with her, she invariably asked me to accompany her to a prison and to accompany her to a prison and she would regale me with greatest hits of the worst prisons in the hits of the worst prisons in the world.

I think her choice was Kingston Prison in Jamaica, but at San Miguel Prison in Santiago, we San Miguel Prison in Santiago, we saw the results of a system which
18:24
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
saw the results of a system which was overly concentrating on punitive actions and did nothing in terms of education, training and rehabilitation. In fact, the a few weeks before 81 prisoners had died in a fire following a riot in that prison, and I also visited over the course of a few years, the toughest prisons in Honduras and El Salvador. And I can tell your Lordships' House that that was not Pontins holiday camp in any respect. But the point.

The serious point is, my Lords, that if we accept the importance, the centrality of suspended sentences, notwithstanding our debates earlier, and the fact that incarcerating a person in the prison estate, according to Ministry of Justice figures, costs £53,801 a year, then I think we have an obligation to make sure that those those individuals involved in the criminal justice system who have endemic underlying problems around drink and drug misuse, poor family backgrounds, poor education, skills and training should have an obligation or the state has an obligation to provide them with an alternative way out of recidivism.

And I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord Foster of Bath, particularly the work he's done on betting problem betting and gambling. And I look forward to our debates on that issue in this bill. But he neglects he's rather shy in in not mentioning, of course, the offenders we Rehabilitation Act of 2014, which arose from the coalition government. Now the Minister and others will know that prior to that act that that really groundbreaking piece of legislation, prisoners were turfed out of prison on a Friday evening with £46, and within a few hours they were in the company of ne'er do wells, drug dealers and other people that were leading them back onto the life of crime.

And so in that respect, in terms of, for instance, drug testing and the need to attend appointments, the specific targeted help for young people and the beginning of a rehabilitation activity requirement that was needed as a policy, and the beginning of a bespoke treatment of female offenders, which is something I know the minister's care deeply about. That was the beginning of rehabilitation being taken seriously for offenders who were not at the top end of seriousness in terms of their offences.

And so I welcome this amendment, and I welcome the imperative of the wording, because whilst it's important to respect the discretion of the judiciary, I think to put on the face of the bill a requirement that we use that time in as efficacious way as possible to ensure that, as my noble friend Baroness Porter put it, those people who have the most acute problems, who will cause the most acute problems, give way to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligation to fulfil the condition. My noble. Friend makes a very fair point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend makes a very fair point, but you could put it the other way in terms of chicken and egg in that, in putting it as an imperative on the face of the bill, it will oblige the probation service and oblige the probation service and other organisations such as the NHS and community trusts, to raise their game to provide those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their game to provide those services I give way, of. Course, but it takes you back to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course, but it takes you back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord foster, was making. The fact is that there isn't capacity in many that there isn't capacity in many of the required services.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the the point that my noble friend is making, but but I do make the point again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do make the point again. That could I help the noble Lord a little bit in his answer to his noble friend, because I'm sure he has seen that later on on the agenda. There are a number of amendments in my name and that of others in your Lordships' House, proposing that this bill not be allowed to go ahead until we have got evidence of sufficient numbers, got evidence of sufficient numbers, both in terms of our prison officers and in terms of the probation service.

So that might be the way out of his dilemma.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the way out of his dilemma. I don't often get in fuel in-flight refuelling from the Liberal Democrat benches, but I'm Liberal Democrat benches, but I'm grateful that on this occasion it's grateful that on this occasion it's happened. If I had my way, my Lords, I would. I would encourage the I would. I would encourage the government to develop an education training plan for each individual prisoner in the prison estate, as prisoner in the prison estate, as some in legislation, in primary legislation, but as the noble Lord legislation, but as the noble Lord Foster of Bath has said, this is this is a wide area for debate.

I think this is beginning in this amendment to try and encourage the government to put in place processes in the Probation service and other key stakeholders to assist prisoners. And if you are already in a position where you've given a suspended sentence, then it seems to me very sensible in terms of opportunity cost and saving the taxpayer significant amounts of money in the long term. To have a position where education and training and drug treatment and other areas of of work are not just encouraged, but are mandatory.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that basis, I strongly support amendment. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I want to agree with the noble Lord, Viscount Hailsham. You can't Lord, Viscount Hailsham. You can't ask for mandatory work or process unless you're sure you've got the facilities and the people on the ground. If you haven't, you really? ground. If you haven't, you really? From what girl? Setting up a scheme that's going to fail in 1966. As that's going to fail in 1966. As you all know, there was an organisation established called organisation established called Nacro National Association for the Rehabilitation of Offenders, and I Rehabilitation of Offenders, and I was a member of it, and we tried our best with Howard League.

Our our best with Howard League. Our success really was a very, very small success in terms of small success in terms of rehabilitating criminals in our prisons. And the evidence of our short sentences, which at the
18:31
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
short sentences, which at the moment we've been talking about is one other great failure. So you can't it seems to me history and experience tells us that we as a nation have actually failed to rehabilitate people we put behind bars. We take away their freedom in the hope that they're going to be rehabilitated and come out as good citizens. Some do, but there is still great failure. If that is so with people who are in our prisons, how much more will it be for those who've got suspended sentences and you make it mandatory? You have not identified where the centres are going to be.

You haven't found who's going to carry it out. Schooling, education. I worked as a chaplain in a young offenders institution, and some of us classes were no good. It didn't actually help, but in some there was a lot of success. So our history of incarcerating people really doesn't incarcerating people really doesn't work. Not even. What? That are. Who talked about payment by results? It didn't still do it. So I want us to have a health check on ourselves because these are suspended sentences.

You're creating a mandatory process in which they might go. And I think if a judge is going to do this, we want to know these orders that you're putting on. He would like to know who's going to deliver it. How certain are you it's going to be delivered, because if they don't turn up at one, that may be a way of revoking this. And I and I just I just think it it mixes up two things that should not be mixed.

The suspended sentences suspended sentence. And if people do not fulfil what that suspended sentence is about, they know the sentence will begin in prison from the day they break the order. But this one of rehabilitation, turning up to drug centres were actually already saying this suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence because somebody's going to watch over you are things they can't, for example, go away if it is very clear they are going to be tagged, that one will be abided by.

But this rehabilitation I have been with now for so many years that I want to say we did our best, but we never cared much. We never rehabilitated a lot. We talked about it, we provided money, we provided books, we provided all sorts of things. And these people were in our prisons. What about those who are roaming our streets? And we think this is going to work? I'm a realist and I don't think that you would like this particular part of the bill, particularly where it's crafted.

I'm. I'm with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you, sir. My Lord. I'm grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Lord for noble Lord and the noble Lord for for raising the very important issue of offender rehabilitation. And as noble Lords know, this is an And as noble Lords know, this is an issue that is extremely close to my heart, and I thank the noble Lord Sandhurst for his generous words Sandhurst for his generous words about my work rehabilitating offenders. I must clarify that clause two does not create clause two does not create presumption to suspend sentences.

It simply gives judges the power to suspend sentences of up to three suspend sentences of up to three years. This amendment would require a court, when passing a suspended sentence, to oblige an offender to sentence, to oblige an offender to engage in at least one of the following a treatment programme. Education, training and employment Education, training and employment support, or an approved behaviour change programme. As noble Lords change programme. As noble Lords are aware, sentencing an individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary.

It must take
18:36
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the purposes of sentencing. The courts already have a range of requirements that can be included as part of a suspended sentence to rehabilitate offenders. These include treatment requirements requiring offenders to take part in accredited programs, as well as unpaid work which can include education, training and employment. As noble Lords identify. Interventions such as these can be incredibly valuable in supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that they're available and used in those cases where they are needed.

And the noble Lords Lord foster and Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness Porter all raise the important issue of probation and the future of probation. And whether it's pre-sentence reports, rehabilitative activity requirements or all the various support options that probation have, they need to be funded. We need strong leadership. We need to train our staff, we need to retain our staff, and we need to have the technology also available to support them to do that job. We've got a 45% increase in funding for probation.

That's £700 million. And I'd be delighted to do a presentation to noble Lords in the coming weeks on what my plan is for probation and how the funding of that links to that plan being landed successfully. And I'm also very keen to hear more from the noble Lord Jackson about Santiago prison system that I've never heard of before. I've been to a number of prisons abroad, but that is one I've never got to. So if we ever have time, I'd like to also hear about his reflections on rehabilitation more widely.

That would be appreciated. However, as a noble Lord, Viscount Hailsham and the noble Reverend Lord Sentamu clearly explained the decision about which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case. This is to ensure that the most appropriate requirements are included in a sentence, and that the probation service is not overburdened with requirements which may not be necessary in the circumstances of the individual offender. Additionally, there is evidence that has shown that for low risk individuals, the Effects of accredited programmes programme participation are usually found to be either negligible or in some cases even negative.

There will be cases where an offender does not have any of the needs listed by the noble Lords and but by the noble Lords, and the court determined that it simply needs to impose a punishment. This amendment would fetter that discretion. I therefore urge the noble Lords to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment. My Lords, I'm grateful. To all. noble Lords who've contributed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords who've contributed to this debate, and many of you have supported the sentiment have supported the sentiment underlying this amendment. It is clearly shown our shared recognition that if suspended recognition that if suspended sentences are to become more prevalent as the government intends, then they must be made fit for that then they must be made fit for that purpose. We on these benches continue to oppose the presumption continue to oppose the presumption that a custodial terms of 12 months or under should routinely be suspended.

The noble Lord Lord suspended. The noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath has helpfully supported the thrust of this supported the thrust of this amendment, while also highlighting the issues with resources facing the probation service. My Lords, the probation service. My Lords, our duty today is also a practical one. The government are introducing one. The government are introducing a major shift in sentencing practice. If they are to do so,
18:39
None Portrait
-

they must build on the legislation into the legislation, the safeguards necessary to preserve public confidence and deliver genuine rehabilitation. The my noble friend, the Baroness Porter of Fulwood, has explained the difficulties in delivering support for offenders in the community, and that was a powerful speech. And she's explained why support really is necessary for offenders. So to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, after his excursion to Chile, made an important point that if we propose to go down this line, we must give practical help to Recidivists or they will simply come back and re-offend.

And that leads me to say this. If we don't deal with this, and if offenders who have been given a suspended sentence, even if it's only suspended for 12 months, re-offend within that period, they will have to be brought back to court. And this is an important point. It's not simply that they may end up in prison, but having been brought back to court, they will occupy court time. That will not help the backlog in the courts. And I speak with the experience of someone who in some ten, 12 years ago, sat as a recorder for 20 odd years in the courts.

So I have some practical experience of this. And if and people breach suspended sentences and if there are too many of. And that's why judges in the past have often been cautious about imposing suspended sentences, particularly on people who offend time and time again. That is a really impractical point. And what will happen will be in about two years time, we will have the courts overwhelmed with people coming back for resentencing and then having to be put into prison, because otherwise, as the courts will say, it will show that a suspended sentence is not a suspended sentence in any meaningful sense.

So I really put that before the government, in a spirit of constructive criticism, not, not not trying to make difficulties. That is what lies down the road. If we are not very careful indeed. If suspended sentences are to be used more widely, they cannot be hollow, they cannot simply be deferrals of punishment, and they must require offenders to confront the issues that led them to offend in the first place. And they must offer the public some hope that these offenders will cease offending.

I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister and those behind him, so to speak, will carefully consider this proposal. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn in clause is by leave withdrawn in clause three, amendment 36. Baroness Hamwee. I beg to move amendment 36. I'll speak also to amendment 39, I'll speak also to amendment 39, amendment 79. In the name of my noble friend, Lord Marks of Henley noble friend, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames is in this group as rapid on Thames is in this group as rapid consultation during the course of this afternoon's proceedings has this afternoon's proceedings has revealed that none of us is entirely clear what he wanted to entirely clear what he wanted to say.

I hope that it's not too late to d-group it, because there will be the opportunity to come to it on be the opportunity to come to it on one of the days next week. I'm one of the days next week. I'm sorry if that causes a problem to any colleagues, otherwise I'll just any colleagues, otherwise I'll just let the Minister reply as if it had
18:43
None Portrait Amdt. 36 Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-

let the Minister reply as if it had been introduced. Amendment 36 and been introduced. Amendment 36 and 39 deal with income reduction orders. They're complex and not very practical. I would suggest the these orders were not. I understand, as I believe it recommended in the independent sentencing. A review. They're not easy to achieve. They can impose additional and unpractical burdens on the court system, which, as we know, is overstretched and on HMRC and benefits and benefits administration.

A lot of fines are imposed by the court. I think they're the most common criminal sanction, but payment is persistently low in 2023, 49% of fines remained unpaid after 12 months, despite the requirement that's set at an amount which can be paid within a year. If that system really rather simpler, cannot reliably recover half of what's imposed within a year. The more complex income reduction order is not likely to be more successful. The IRO penalises a person for finding employment by making deductions from their earnings each month.

This poses the risk of discouraging individuals from engaging in employment or, at any rate, formal employment. They may move into low visibility work or decide they're better off not working at all. The impact of court fines is disproportionately severe for low income households. People with court debts are very likely to live in social housing and very likely to be unemployed. Strong indicators of economic precarity. The fines system, particularly additional court charges, rigid payment plans and deductions from insufficient benefits often escalates the total owed beyond what is affordable for people on low means, and I don't think I need to spell out the path that some people may follow.

So some questions for the Minister. Firstly, what is the projected collection rate for IROs and how does it compare with the current 50% unpaid at 12 months for court fines? How will the system track fluctuating incomes? Excuse me? Pay chart changes, zero hours self-employment and resolve disputes without adding to the burden on the court? What employment impact assessment has been conducted? I'm going to come back to employment in a moment. Given the minister's well-known support for hiring people with convictions to cut re-offending, and how will IROs avoid pushing low income households further into poverty, I said I would come back to employment and our amendment 39 is to raise the dangers, as we see it, of income.

Reduction orders. Hindering the the good things that we want to see of offenders taking up employment and taking up training and achieving housing. If the net income with which an offender is left is too low for these various activities, then the net benefit would be a disbenefit as we see it. I beg to move amendment 36. Amendment proposed in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause three, page ten. Line on line nine. After amounts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. I'm sorry to interrupt the debate. I didn't quite follow what debate. I didn't quite follow what the noble Baroness was proposing about regrouping, but I would just draw attention to what it says in draw attention to what it says in the companion, which is regrouping is discouraged once each days. Groupings have been published. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Groupings have been published. But I may have misunderstood. No, my Lords, Lord Lemos is is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, my Lords, Lord Lemos is is is quite right. It had only. I only realised it shortly before we came to this this group. And if if discouraged, means no in House of discouraged, means no in House of Lords language I think so. I wonder whether the Minister can regard me whether the Minister can regard me as having spoken to what is set out in quite a long amendment, because I'm sure he will have words to I'm sure he will have words to answer what my noble friend would have said had he been here.

We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have said had he been here. We should, we will assume. Sentencing Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sentencing Bill. My Lords, clause three is, of course, a novel sentencing tool, course, a novel sentencing tool, and it's entirely correct that the House should probe its design with some care, and many of the amendments before us seek reassurance that the scheme will be fair, will be proportionate, and indeed that it will be workable in practice. The noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, with her amendment, draws attention to the basic question of impact. An income reduction order must not be set at a level that undermines an offender's ability to work, to train, or to maintain stable housing.

If these orders are to be effective, they must support rehabilitation, not jeopardise the very stability on which rehabilitation depends. The noble Baroness Cass amendments highlight that there is a risk here that
18:50
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
requires very clear scrutiny. My Lords, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst raise a series of questions about the architecture of the scheme. As drafted, the Bill establishes broad powers to reduce an offender's income, yet it leaves almost all of the crucial detail to almost all of the crucial detail to regulations we have not yet seen, and which may, in due course, prove and which may, in due course, prove insufficiently robust.

Amendments 37 to 44 asked the government to 37 to 44 asked the government to place on the face of the bill the essential elements that will govern how these orders operate in the real world. They begin by posing real world. They begin by posing the most basic question of all what does the government mean by monthly does the government mean by monthly income? Are we assessing gross or net income? How are fluctuating net income? How are fluctuating earnings to be treated? The Lords what of the self-employed or those what of the self-employed or those on a regular or zero hours contract? It is very difficult to see how a fair and consistent system can be construed without clear statutory guidance on these points.

If Parliament is to authorise a mechanism allowing the state to deduct a portion of a person's deduct a portion of a person's income month after month, it is surely right that we also understand with precision how that income is to be defined, what thresholds will apply and how caps are to be set, and which factors the court must take into account before imposing an order. Amendment 44 goes to the heart of our concern that the bill, as currently drafted, lacks the necessary clarity about the conditions under which an income reduction order may be imposed, leaving this almost entirely to secondary legislation again risks undermining both transparency and fairness.

Surely qualities that are fundamental to the integrity of such a system? My Lords, these amendments illuminate the substantial gaps in the present drafting and ensure that Parliament does not sign off on a broad new power without understanding how it will work in practice and what safeguards will accompany it. And I look to the Minister to provide the clarity that has so far been somewhat lacking. I should add that, for our part, we do not oppose the principle of creating a more flexible and enforceable means based penalty.

But before we take such a significant step, we must be satisfied that the framework is sound, that the protections are clear, and that the consequences, particularly for those on the margins, have been fully thought through. I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will address these concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, one of the three guiding principles of the David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishment outside prison. We are determined to make sure that crime doesn't pay, and that is why we introduced clause three of this bill, giving courts the power to impose income reduction orders on offenders who receive suspended sentence orders. From the debate we've just had and from my prior we've just had and from my prior conversations, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in how these will work in practice, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this at greater length today.

I've been employing prisoners for over 20 years. Many are on day release and in some cases a proportion of their earnings go back to victims. Income reduction back to victims. Income reduction orders are inspired by that principle. The offenders must pay back to society for the harm they back to society for the harm they have caused. I will first turn to amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44,
18:54
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44, tabled by the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. This seeks to specify what must be contained in the regulations detailing the scheme. I can assure noble Lords that we're working across government to develop a process for delivering income reduction orders in a way that works cohesively with the rest of the powers that sentences have at their disposal. What we have intentionally kept, what we have intentionally kept the legislation flexible to ensure that we can deliver this measure in that way.

For example, we do not agree that it would be appropriate for income reduction orders to be mandatory in certain circumstances. This would unnecessarily curtail judicial discretion to decide whether an order should be imposed based on the full facts of an individual case, and the Sentencing Council is actively considering what updates to its guidelines are needed to account for the bill's reforms, including these orders, my officials are working closely with the council and I can assure, and I can reassure noble Lords, that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these details prior to implementation.

I turn now to amendments 38 and 40, and I'm happy to explain the rationale behind the drafting of this bill. Let me be clear. This measure is a penalty for high income individuals. It will ensure that criminals who break the law benefit from keeping their jobs and continue to earn a significant salary should pay back to society. I doubt anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with that. The intention is to set an income threshold that would apply at an appropriately high level, but the bill sets a baseline, which the threshold for an income reduction order can never be below.

The aim is to ensure that those with incomes in line with minimum wage cannot, cannot ever receive this penalty. Minimum wage is set at an hourly rate and 170 times. That is a reasonable approximation of the hours likely to be worked over a month. Noble Lords have also questioned why there is an upper limit. A core tenant of our criminal justice system is fairness and proportionality, so setting a maximum percentage of an offender's excess monthly income that can be collected protects individuals from receiving excessively harsh penalty.

We need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. If the court determines that a higher penalty is appropriate and the offence is serious enough to carry an unlimited fine, the court will still be able to impose that either instead of, or as well as an but income reduction orders must not be a disincentive to employ employment nor amplify existing hardship. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, this is the last thing I'd want to happen. Therefore, there will only be applicable to offenders who earn or are deemed likely to earn a significant income.

We will set the minimum income threshold through secondary legislation at an appropriate level. This will ensure that low income households are not in the scope of this measure. And as with any other financial penalty, judges will consider an offender's means and circumstances when choosing whether to apply an income reduction order as sentencing. This can include, but is not restricted to, income, housing costs, and child maintenance. Additionally, the provisions in the bill allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the deductions which must be made when calculating an offender's monthly income.

For the purposes of assessing whether an income reduction order can be applied. I now turn to amendment 79 table by the noble Lord Lord Marks. This proposes to create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents. I must inform the noble Lord that there are existing mechanisms to deal with payments to dependents. For example, the family courts are able to make spousal maintenance payments on divorce.

This proposed clause would require the court to inquire whether an offender has responsibility for children or other dependents, although this is well intentioned. It risks creating practical difficulties. Inquiring whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or other dependents, and subsequently inquiring as to the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records, or informal informal caregiving arrangements for the purposes of verification. Imposing such a duty risks delaying sentencing. This government has committed to identify and provide support for children affected by parental imprisonment.

As such, the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Education are working to determine the best way to do this to ensure children get the support they need. This builds on a range of services offered by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service to help families and significant others, where appropriate, to build positive relationships with people in the criminal justice system. This includes social visits, letter writing, video calls, family days and prison voicemail. I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, the noble Lord Lord Marks and the noble Lord Lord Beith.

And I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I've got my calculator out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've got my calculator out because I was reminding myself, so far as I could, what the in cash terms the amount might be that. terms the amount might be that. Regarded that an offender could be left with. I'm not sure that I left with. I'm not sure that I believe what I'm finding multiplying the national minimum multiplying the national minimum wage by 170 and so on, is the wage by 170 and so on, is the Minister able to share? Now I realise we're talking about the realise we're talking about the future, but share now what the cash amount would be.
19:00
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

What my intention is, is that people who are earning significant amounts of money, who would otherwise maybe have a custodial sentence, let me give you the example of a long distance lorry driver, and they regularly earn over £70,000 a year. These are the people that I believe this income reduction order is appropriate for, not people who have who don't have the means beyond which they need to have a, you know, just look after their children and so on.

So it is very much, as I reiterated in my comments, the high income earners, that level is the minimum wage level. And that is that's where we see as the is the minimum. But obviously we have further conversations internally to have on this. But my intention is, is for those people who earn significantly more than that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's helpful because to one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's helpful because to one person, a high income is not the same necessarily as in the eyes of same necessarily as in the eyes of another person. I'm grateful to the Minister for his response to Minister for his response to amendments, moved and not moved, and for dealing with them in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for dealing with them in that way. And I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment 36. Lordships amendment be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 37 and 38 Lord Keen not Amendments 37 and 38 Lord Keen not moved. Amendment 39 Baroness Hamwee not moved. Amendments 40 to 42 Lord Keen not moved. The question is that clause three stand part of the that clause three stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Content. Contrary, not content. the contents have it after clause three, amendment 43 Lord not moved. Amendment 44 Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord not moved. Amendment 44 Lord Keen not moved. To move. That the House be resumed and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the House be resumed and we will then move to a dinner break business. I would think we will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business. I would think we will not question. Is to be resumed as without opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents. Habit. You will have a short break before Questions on the statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on G20 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ukraine. My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for repeating this important statement. Though for those who statement. Though for those who haven't read it, it did end with claims, and I quote, that the government is driving growth, government is driving growth, creating jobs, cutting the cost of living and strengthening the economic security of the British economic security of the British people. Well, my Lords, having heard the Chancellor's assault today on pensions, savings and the today on pensions, savings and the homes of families who work hard, multibillion pound handouts to multibillion pound handouts to those who do not work, you do have to ask if the Prime Minister missed something in the ten weeks he's something in the ten weeks he's spent outside Britain since he took spent outside Britain since he took office, and my Lords promises not to tax working people were broken
19:03
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
to tax working people were broken today, with another punishing £8.3 billion stealth tax on people who work hard and earn more through fiscal drag. But, my Lords, I guess we should be thankful for small mercies and we all take a cheap bingo game in. On the way home. My Lords, there are grim months and we'll have other opportunities to debate this ahead for the British economy, and which I do not share with the Prime Minister's sentiments in the statement. But we must all agree that even that is put into perspective by the sufferings of the heroic Ukrainian people since Russia's brutal invasion of their country.

Even as peace is being discussed, barbaric bombardments continue of the capital and of civilian areas in other Ukrainian cities. And we on this side are proud that what the Kremlin thought would be a six day war was initially blocked by the technical, logistic, arms and training support offered by the British government, first under the determined leadership of Boris Johnson and then by all governments in all the years since. And we on this side are also proud of the unity displayed in our house, with a few, sometimes remote, exceptions.

Since those first days when the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House sitting on this side, reached out with the unequivocal support of the Great Patriotic Labour Party for our stand with Ukraine. And I like to think we've reciprocated that in opposition, and we reciprocate it fully and sincerely. Today we're proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine across this house and our support, I can assure the noble Baroness remains unwavering. Not only has Ukraine been battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity and sovereignty in Europe in recent times, its soldiers on the front line are protecting principles that underpin our whole way of life democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

And we thank the Prime Minister for his resolute efforts to support Ukraine and with the coalition of the willing to seek and secure a just peace which can only be won, involving and acceptable to Ukraine. We strongly agree with the Prime Minister and his statement after the meeting of the coalition of the willing, that Ukraine must have the resources, forces and security guarantees to sustain its independence up to and far beyond any ceasefire or peace that may now be secured.

Indeed, my Lords, for ever, this proud sovereign nation must never be erased from the map of Europe. So can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress was made on the European security guarantees which the Ukraine and the US are seeking? At yesterday's meeting of the coalition? Can she say what precisely is the government's vision of the multinational force about which the Prime Minister spoke last night? To what extent do we envisage the involvement of UK forces in that? My Lords, we must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, now propped up by an axis of authoritarian states, in trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent.

And I have to say, frankly, if Mr. Putin's best chum is the crackpot North Korean dictator, what more do we? What more do we need to know about him? My Lords, we have no illusions about the declared and published ambitions of a revanchist Russian regime to throw Stalinist influence and Leninist borders once again over much of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Lasting peace in face of that can only be secured through strength, and it can only be sustained through strength, in which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees.

The defensive role of a revivified NATO will be essential. It wasn't actually clear from the budget speech today how that will be achieved in the year ahead, but it's vital that we and our allies stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental principle that aggressors should not win. This isn't the time for the EU to be demanding an entrance fee from the UK for participating in Europe's common defence. My Lords, this is a fast moving situation, sir Colonel the noble Baroness, when she replies bring us up to date on events since the statement in the other place yesterday, including the coalition of the willing, to which I have alluded, does she share the publicly expressed opinion of Secretary of State Rubio about the progress on developing the US plan? Can she confirm the Prime Minister has correctly reported in saying that Ukraine believes a large part of the Trump plan, Trump plan can be accepted? Does she have any intelligence on the latest position of the Ukrainian government? The President Zelensky has spoken of? I quote, a solid foundation laid in the Geneva talks and can she confirmed that the coalition of the willing has endorsed the US plan as the basis of progress, albeit with the refinements which all parties say are being discussed? Can she shed any light on the main remaining areas of concern on the part of the UK government? My Lords, we hear that US envoy Witkoff is going to Moscow again in the next few days.

Is the noble Baroness able to say anything about our latest understanding of the Russian position? My Lords, we pray for progress in these initiatives. We are frankly sceptical. We have our eyes open. We may not succeed if Ukraine cannot justly accept the full price asked, or if Russia truly and truthfully does not, will a peace. But President Trump was surely right in a humanitarian aspiration to end this bloody conflict, where a group of old men in the Kremlin, besotted by Wilfred Owen's ram of pride, slaying their own sons and half the seed of Ukraine and Russia one by one, it must somehow be brought to an end.

And in all that our Prime Minister may do to assist in securing a fair just end to this terrible war in partnership with Ukraine, I can assure the noble Baroness he will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carry our full support. I also. Welcome these statements. Repeat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome these statements. Repeat from the leader on Ukraine. The leader knows of our continuing support of the government's efforts. support of the government's efforts. I know our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party value greatly the cross-party support in both houses, other than some weakness from one party so perfectly displayed in the courts perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. But all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent. Indeed, This does not prevent. Indeed, there is a duty for my benches to press the government to go further, press the government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas, and we have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of opposition since the beginning of the conflict.

It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war measures against the Russian war economy, and a real focus on ensuring loopholes and sanctions.
19:11
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ensuring loopholes and sanctions. Sanctions circumvention are closed, and it is why we make the case as strong as we can, that Russian assets, frozen for some time need to be fully utilised after seizure for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance whereby whereby we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin's regime. So we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told on a number of occasions that we can only act as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity.

So I hope the leader may be able to update us on when we will be to see concrete action regarding the current developments of the US. This is becoming what I might call you. Your diplomacy where we at any given time, it is quite hard to grasp what is actually the intent of the white House. Russia's response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners, that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans is directly directed exclusively for Trump himself.

We support the Prime Minister in his efforts, but we should not need to say this. But we have to. The future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide anything other is appeasement. Ursula von der Leyen put it right in her comment. A settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians, and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve up with the white House as the other party.

Our government is doing its best with a coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case and our support for Ukraine, and we back up the government 100%. The two lines in the statement on Sudan are welcome but insufficient. The world's worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communique. That is unacceptable. The world's worst humanitarian crisis, actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK. As the UN penholder last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those that we have witnessed in El Fasher.

Those horrors could be in lobbied and in tawila. I hope that the leader can update the House as to what concrete actions us as the UK as the UN penholder are taking, because we need to be spending every hour in securing a country wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, who cynically say they support peace and the SAF and the NCP, who have ridiculed it. Last week I called for the Prime Minister's direct involvement with heads of state.

I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communique and his statement indicates, and if the leader can update me, I would be very grateful. Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the First Presidency of the G20 in the coming years. Since 2009. This is most welcome, but I hope very much that as it comes to that, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity.

For that, I reread the 2009 G20 communiqué that the UK hosted, and I was heartened that we had inserted in paragraph 26 that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our Oda pledges. The budget today confirms what many of us feared that the government will miss the Oda target for every year of its administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of Oda in 50 years since Oda statistics were calculated. An illustration that the 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration that on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the fear is that the UK is making us, the UK government is making us smaller on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international stage. My Lords, first of all, can I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine? And I would say to the noble Lord True, I didn't repeat the statement. He thanked me for repeating it for his thanked me for repeating it for his comments and and I didn't repeat it because I'm sure noble Lords had read the statement. I think both read the statement. I think both comments from both noble Lords really indicates, I think the noble really indicates, I think the noble Lord finished on this point.

The importance of the unity, both in this House and across Parliament, across both houses and across across both houses and across parties. The strong message that sends that we are united in our sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine, and lots of comments been made about us reasserting our support for the
19:17
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine. Comments we've all made time and time again. We will continue to do so. And if anything, as time moves on, I think our resolve is even stronger than it was because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. And the sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and I think that can't be repeated often enough. But it's not just us being supportive of Ukraine. I think it's a very strong message we send that Ukraine's fight is our fight.

The consequences of Ukraine losing sovereignty of, you know, it's hard to say about winning and losing a war with so many on both sides have died and suffered. But if Ukraine was, if Russia was to succeed, then the security of ourselves, other countries across Europe is also compromised. So our fight is also the fight of Ukraine people and we work together. And I think the coalition of the willing, which the Prime Minister mentioned first to meet in London, and they met yesterday as well, sort of virtually met yesterday.

36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing. And I think that's a very strong message to Russia and to Ukraine, of the strength of feeling that what is required is a just and a lasting peace. I think the noble Lord True made this point as well. It's no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution to come back to this point. In 2 or 3 or even ten years later. It has to be something that can last. Noble was asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action.

I think the Prime Minister said yesterday. A lot of this is around the capability, the coordination and the command structure across the coalition of the willing, and that is really important. It's not just saying, oh, we've got capability, it's there to help you. It's working out how that works in practice and what it would practically mean. And that's what the coalition of the willing is about. And he asked about funding. I thought at one moment he was going to divert into a party political rant about the budget.

I have to say, I think today is actually a more sombre and serious point. We'll have that when we have our debates on the budget. But he knows, as you've said time and time again, the Strategic Defence Review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding. Both noble Lords asked for something more up to date. Where have we got to with the plan? And I think that, if I understood correctly, were saying that we should just roll out the plan completely understood correctly.

And if I'm wrong, I think that's a matter for the Ukrainians to say what is there? They're clearly part of the 20 point plan that were totally unacceptable, that could not be accepted by Ukraine. And if they say they can't be accepted, we support that. That's right, that they make that decision. But there may be other points within that plan that they think they can work with and discuss further with Americans. I think it is very fast moving. I think during the statement yesterday, one MP said, oh, there's a deal being done.

Can we confirm that? No, the deal hasn't been done. There are ongoing discussions, and I think it's important that if Ukraine every support we can in having those discussions on what they need, but we would never, ever move away from supporting them and them deciding on their sovereignty. I think that's one of the most important things as well. I can't give a running commentary on where it's got to, and I think we want to do so, and I think it's one of those things where there will be, you know, we all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days and perhaps longer.

But I know we have to put our support and our faith and our trust in Ukrainians because of the suffering they have had. It's also the case of the Russian community has suffered as well. And yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with the President Putin. And I think that's really important that we recognise that. And we say to both Russia and Ukraine, that's where we take the responsibility and the liability lies. I'll try and answer the points that were made.

Points were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored to look at the the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets we've seen, I suppose where we come from is whilst this war continues, sanctions continue and we will continue to freeze assets. And we are working closely with the EU Commission and the G7 counterparts to make progress. And nobody has asked me this before. I can't give you any more update. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we've got to on that, but I think we're making progress, progress on how they can be used.

But he understands that the impact of that is if we work together to get to that point, and that's part of discussions that are constantly under under review to make sure we can move forward on that. Can I say on Sudan, I understand that was extensively discussed. That probably isn't reflected, I think, in the statement at all the suffering, it probably is the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. And it's hard to imagine, I think, in so many of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through and the lack of hope people must have.

We fully support the work of the quad in trying to reach some progress, to get some kind of agreement to end the suffering there. But and the famine that's ensued from that as well. So it was extensively discussed, and I think very much it was in the forefront of minds there. He also asked about the. International aid and assistance, the Oda, can I say to him, in 2009, we'd had 12 years of a Labour government. The economy was in a better place and the world was in a different place as well.

So it doesn't surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009, but our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to where it was, remains that commitment hasn't ended. But that isn't going to happen as quickly as perhaps as quickly as he would like, but certainly quickly as others would like, as well. I think on the the Lord Sugar to finish on this point, ask for more information about the coalition of the willing.

I would say this is one of the most significant moves from the government to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defence Contact Group. We're looking at the full range of European military capabilities and I think President Zelenskyy, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be under no doubt that he doesn't just have our sympathy and support, but he has our total backing and that's not going to fail him.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I think the I think the Prime Minister is to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congratulated on the. Key part. He's played. In the coalition of the willing,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the coalition of the willing, and I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing. I wonder if I could if I could ask my noble friend a question on, could she say a little bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It's going to cost a lot of money, but I think it's of money, but I think it's important that we get our our policies in place so that a quick

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reconstruction of that country can be, can, can be brought into being. Well. I thank my noble friend for his
19:25
19:26
19:27
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
has been extremely stalwart and and I, I heard what the noble Lady said I, I heard what the noble Lady said that he and I think that does come through, that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. And he's and he's intellectually. And he's and he's quite right. And it has been actually quite heartening in my actually quite heartening in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European counterparts from European Parliament in the last few months.

I recall meeting Finnish colleagues, I recall meeting Finnish colleagues, people from the French Senate yesterday and today, the some from yesterday and today, the some from the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. And to be able to say to to note and to express this solidity, the cross-party solidity solidity, the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is, is, is, you know, it's obviously welcome to them. But it, it is gratifying to be able to express that just though a question to that just though a question to press the noble Lady about the use of the frozen Russian assets.

I realise that. Things are realise that. Things are discussions are ongoing, but could you give us any hint of, you know, where the current sticking point is? And it's reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees? I may be out of date, but wants guarantees about its position, given that most of these assets are in, in, in. Well, insofar as anything is located anywhere these days located in Belgium. But is it is it that is it legal? Is it political? Is it, you know, can you give us any kind of time horizon? Because I think people are very impatient and want to see these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assets used for the benefit of Ukraine. Okay. I thank the noble Lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Okay. I thank the noble Lady for her comment. I say when she talks about domestic travails, I think this is nothing compared to what this is nothing compared to what people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, so I wouldn't want to trivialise that in any way. One of trivialise that in any way. One of the things I think she said is important how across all parliaments in different countries, it's not just the politicians and it's not just the politicians and the representatives.

I think this goes down to the people of this country, our friends of mine. They feel their lives have been rich by feel their lives have been rich by being hosts to Ukraine, family who left Ukraine and and want to return left Ukraine and and want to return when they're able to. But it's, you know, because the politicians have been united, we know to lead our been united, we know to lead our country on that as well. She asked for further information about where the sticking point is.

I think she will understand that I can't go will understand that I can't go into those discussions. I think she'll understand why. Let's just say that we want to ensure that say that we want to ensure that everything we do on this and make progress as quickly as we can, will
19:29
19:31
19:31
19:32
19:32
19:33
19:34
19:35
19:36
19:36
19:38
19:39
19:42
19:42
None Portrait Amdt. 45 Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-

confidence that the system is working for them. It's working to keep them safe and is also working to assist victims and to ensure that they are they get what they deserve, which is proper police pursuit of criminals and effective courts process and appropriate methods of dealing with offenders, which make it less likely that other people will suffer what they've suffered. And that's a frequent comment from victims. What I care about this is something like, this shouldn't have to happen to anybody else in the way that has happened to me, so I don't need to make a long speech on the subject.

I think the the issues that we're concerned about are well understood by Ministers, but we actually want to make sure that people can see that this is what this bill is about. And I very much welcome that. Amendment 45, which is on a separate sheet of paper, has commanded the support of Bishop of Gloucester, Lord Moylan and Lord Burnett and sets out the purposes of imprisonment, and that which is what I was talking about a moment ago. So the public can understand that we want to deter and prevent re-offending.

And amendment 45, which is the amendment, but closely related to what we're talking about, is the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to commit further crimes, the deterrence of prisoners, the just punishment of prisoners, and the rehabilitation of prisoners. That sets out very clearly one of the purposes of crime. And I was very interested to hear what Minister's reaction to it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause four, page 14, line ten after crime insert with a view to protecting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. So to speak, in the place of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So to speak, in the place of the Bishop of Gloucester who regrettably, is not able to be here regrettably, is not able to be here today, but to speak to amendment 45. today, but to speak to amendment 45. A it seems that in wider society there's a greater push for harsher punishment, longer sentences, and there's a tension there with what the purpose of such punishment is. And this amendment is designed to provide some elucidation on that.

It would define in law the purposes It would define in law the purposes of imprisonment, and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment. The His Majesty's Prison and Probation Services
19:45
Lord Bishop of Leeds Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Bishops)
-
-
Prison and Probation Services strategic objective is, and I quote, to carry out sentences given by the courts in custody and the community, and rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment. But there's no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. So while the Bill sets out the statutory purposes of sentencing, these do not provide guidance to judges and whether imprisonment is appropriate, nor on what should occur once an offender is incarcerated. The need to confront this, we would suggest, is quite urgent.

The tension, obviously, between punishment and rehabilitation. Restoration. So in the absence of a clear understanding of the purpose of imprisonment, then it seems as important both for prisoners and their wider families and community, as well as victims, that the expectations of what the particular punishment is set out to do are clear, rather than just, well, we sentenced them to prison and hope that something good will happen. I should also add that in my own experience of prisons and talking to people engaged in prison rehabilitation, the resources to enable such rehabilitation to happen, education and so on are reducing.

And this can't be good. Now, at present, the public expresses little confidence in courts and prisons, in part as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment and a clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve prisoners who would better understand why they have been imprisoned. This is about clarity. A number of jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, have legislated guidance for courts in the community more broadly regarding this issue, and I would put it on behalf of the those who signed up to this amendment, that this is an amendment that could be taken seriously and would actually help the judicial system.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, of course, we on these benches fully support the principle benches fully support the principle that victims rights, safety and experiences must be considered experiences must be considered included already in the statutory purposes of sentencing is the protection of the public. In practice, courts make an effort to take victims interests into account, take victims interests into account, and the explicit addition to clause four does raise an interesting principle, and the amendment serves principle, and the amendment serves perhaps as a useful reminder of the centrality of victims in our justice system, and we look forward to hearing the government's response to amendment 45.

Turning response to amendment 45. Turning to amendment 45, in the name of the Bishop of Gloucester, which would Bishop of Gloucester, which would place in statute the purposes of imprisonment and require both the courts and the Secretary of State
19:48
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to them. The first of these principles is, and I quote, the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to reoffend in the community. I would simply observe that the purposes of clauses one and two of this bill are to the opposite effect. They are to raise presumptions in favour of their release into the community, rather than their incapacitation, to restrict their ability to reoffend. But again, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord.

The Minister's response to that. I would have note that amendment 45 does reinforce principles already central to sentencing and prison. Possible prison policy, I should say, and that can only be good for public confidence. And if it can lead to improvements in rehabilitation and public protection, then all to the good. Again, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the Minister's reflections on the four aims proposed in amendment 45 A. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Marks Henley on Thames, and in his place Lord B, for bringing forward amendment 45 and for the spirit in which it has been proposed.

I and the government share his goal and dedication to ensuring that victims are properly protected within our justice system. And that is why clause four of this bill makes clear that the protection of the public explicitly includes victims of crime. This is a significant and and I must stress, intentional step forward. While I wholeheartedly share his intentions and commitments to noble Lords intentions and commitments, I do not believe, I am afraid that the additional wording proposed under the amendment would add substantial substantive value to what is already being achieved by the changes we are making in this bill.

Clause four of the sentencing Bill
19:50
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
will make clear that courts should consider the protection of victims as part of sentencing. That's very important, and this amendment would simply restate what is already made simply restate what is already made explicit by clause of this bill. And, of course, the government. This government's commitment to protecting victims is not limited protecting victims is not limited to the changes we are making in clause four. The noble Lord Keen clause four. The noble Lord Keen asked me, asked me to comment on the centrality of victims to the justice system, and I'm very happy justice system, and I'm very happy to do that.

I'm so happy to do that. I rewrote this speaking note this morning with the help of the officials. This bill contains other officials. This bill contains other important measures that will protect victims. As noble Lords know, we are introducing new restriction zones which limit the restriction zones which limit the movements of offenders. Instead of limiting the movements of victims. We are also creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are more domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This help prison.

This helps prisons and probation services manage offenders probation services manage offenders effectively and ensure victims are better protected. And we are taking many steps outside this bill to many steps outside this bill to protect victims. We are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences, and we're expanding the use. This is a very important cause with which I've been associated for many years, where we're expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts with trained staff to support victims and more coordinated management of perpetrators.

Can I now turn to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate? In the absence of the Bishop of Gloucester, who's made an important contribution to this debate by raising the question of whether the purpose of imprisonment should be defined in legislation. Can I just say to the Right Reverend, I spent many years chairing the agency board of HMPPS, and one of my jobs was to set the strategy, and we spent a long time debating precisely this point and how we should frame it.

So I understand the issues he's seeking to address. And while I agree wholeheartedly that our debates should be guided by principles and evidence, but not by headlines, and the noble Lord be said that one of the most important principles, one of the most important duties of new legislation, is to win public confidence. And I entirely share that sentiment. But I'm afraid I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is needed for purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines.

These principles should guide our courts every day and provide the flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances and emerging threats. And so, with those comments in mind, I ask the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw their amendments. I think the Minister has made a good case in his reliance on clause four of the Bill and its reference to victims, I think the wider issues raised in 45 are still to issues raised in 45 are still to attract government's interest as we proceed with the bill. But on the basis of what's been said in this basis of what's been said in this short debate, I'm happy to seek the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause four stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content the that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 45 not moved. The question is that clause five stand part of the bill. As many will say. Content the contrary not
19:54
19:55
None Portrait Amdt. 46 Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-

And my hon. Friend, the Member for Eastbourne played no small part in achieving getting this onto the statute book. Both generally enabling the understanding of event of offences involving domestic abuse is important and it's important for the victim. I assume that with the court being required to state that the offence involved domestic abuse, this will better enable the MoJ to keep data about this. I don't know whether the Minister will be able to confirm that or at any rate, note the point that keeping data is important.

It's we're going at a little more than a snail's pace in recognising domestic abuse, but. It's quite laborious achieving each step. It's important for the victim. I doubt I need to elaborate on this to noble Lords, but to have a recognition and not just a general recognition, but something which is official stated by the court of what the victim has gone through and what underlies it, is of great significance to the individual, but simply providing for findings of domestic abuse seem to me to provoke the question.

And then what? And amendment 46 is intended to provide the answer by putting the matter into sentencing guidelines as an aggravating factor. I believe that the commission of of an an offence in the domestic context is already an aggravating factor under the sentencing guidelines with which I struggled over the weekend. But domestic abuse is more than context, and I would think that the MoJ must accept that. Otherwise the new clause 56 would refer to domestic context, not domestic abuse.

It's important, as people say, you can't deal with what you can't name. I beg to move. Amendment 46.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause six, page 15, line 16. Insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 15, line 16. Insert the words as printed on the Marshall List. My Lords, I speak briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak briefly to amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. As I noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. As I read it. The amendment seeks to treat domestic abuse as an aggravating factor when determining aggravating factor when determining or sentencing. And of course, domestic abuse is a serious, domestic abuse is a serious, pervasive crime, and it clearly has profound long term impacts on its victims. This amendment does appear victims. This amendment does appear to promote some degree of clarity and consistency, and indeed, fairness in sentencing, and ensures that the courts can take full account of both the nature and impact of domestic abuse when deciding on an appropriate sentence.

So I look forward to hearing the So I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the Minister's views on it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord Lord Marks for drawing attention to this important topic.
19:59
19:59
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
follow this, unless it would not be in the interest of justice to do so. in the interest of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council has looked carefully at this issue and has issued an overarching guideline on domestic abuse. This guideline domestic abuse. This guideline makes clear that the presence of domestic abuse can make an offence more serious. In addition, a wide more serious. In addition, a wide range of offence specific guidelines include offence committed in a domestic abuse committed in a domestic abuse context as a specific aggravating factor.

Furthermore, the Council reviewed its overarching domestic reviewed its overarching domestic abuse guideline last year and found it was working well. Following that review, the council opted to add the aggravating factor. I've just mentioned to 23 more offence specific guidelines. This specific guidelines. This demonstrates that the current framework is robust, is working and is actively maintained. For these is actively maintained. For these reasons, this amendment would duplicate existing provision and is therefore unnecessary. I am committed to improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the system through this bill.

Clause system through this bill. Clause six introduces a Domestic Abuse Identifier at sentencing, which will help ensure that cases involving domestic abuse are consistently identified and tracked. This is a meaningful and practical This is a meaningful and practical reform. For example, under the current system, an offender could be convicted of an assault, but there is no systematic way of recording the domestic abuse context of this offence. This could lead to the police missing this risk and not disclosing this information to a new partner.

With the marker that we're introducing in this bill, the abuse appears on the offender's record. This helps the police to spot perpetrators and protect future victims. I thank the noble Lady for raising this issue, and I hope I've provided sufficient reassurances, and I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the the Minister for that. As I have said earlier today, I've I have said earlier today, I've struggled with the guidelines, struggled with the guidelines, which are long and and dense without seeing the individual offences for which which domestic abuse aggravates. If I've got the abuse aggravates. If I've got the words in the right order, it's hard words in the right order, it's hard to respond, though I think I would to respond, though I think I would retain a wish to see domestic abuse being an aggravating factor overall, being an aggravating factor overall, rather than just in some specified rather than just in some specified circumstances, but I'm happy to pursue this outside the chamber so
20:02
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pursue this outside the chamber so that I can understand precisely how this is currently dealt with. I'm grateful to the Minister. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw the amendment. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause six down pass the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it after clause six. Lord Keen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Elie amendment 47. My Lords, this amendment would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a full assessment of how the courts are using their existing the courts are using their existing powers to make parenting and financial orders for young offenders. These powers are already offenders. These powers are already available under the Sentencing Code, but in practice they're being used but in practice they're being used far less than Parliament had originally intended. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that more than 1000 such orders that more than 1000 such orders were made in 2010, yet only 27 have been made in recent years.

And that is a striking decline. And it is a striking decline. And it raises serious concerns about whether important statutory powers designed to support families and designed to support families and address the causes of youth offending are being neglected or
20:03
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
overlooked. The purpose of these orders is not to punish parents, but to support them, to help but to support them, to help restore discipline and stability in the home, and ultimately to prevent the next crime before it happens. the next crime before it happens. Through assessing their effectiveness and making recommendations to increase their use. This amendment seeks to strengthen parental responsibility and engagement in the rehabilitation of young offenders. Children are, of course, amongst the most vulnerable in our society the most vulnerable in our society and it's our responsibility as lawmakers, indeed as parents and ultimately as adults to ensure that ultimately as adults to ensure that when young people offend, there is structure, support and the necessary resources in place to necessary resources in place to prevent them from re-offending.

And this amendment is, I suggest, a measured and constructive step measured and constructive step towards achieving that aim. I note that the noble Lord Jackson is not that the noble Lord Jackson is not in his place, but could I just mention his amendment 87? This amendment addresses a very amendment addresses a very different but equally important aspect of youth justice the question of transparency in cases involving the most serious offending by those under 18 years of age. The amendment would require of age.

The amendment would require reporting restrictions to be listed at the point of sentencing where a young offender received a custodial sentence of four years or more. I think I said listed lifted. I apologise, my Lords, to receive a custodial sentence of over four years. This telling of the crimes committed. I appreciate that anonymity has been a protected safeguard for most children within the youth justice system, and of course, rightly so. But where an offence of such gravity that it warrants a substantial custodial sentence has been committed, there is a strong public interest in transparency and accountability.

So I welcome the noble Lord. The Minister's response not only to my amendment, but to that which was tabled by the noble Lord. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause six, insert the new clause. The words is printed on the Marshall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for raising these important Lords for raising these important issues. This bill obviously focuses on the adult system, but I am pleased that we have this pleased that we have this opportunity to debate these amendments about the youth justice system, about which all of us are concerned. Excuse me. However, our concerned. Excuse me. However, our position is that neither of these amendments are necessary. Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness of certain orders available when dealing with the child under the dealing with the child under the age of 18.

This include. Parenting includes parenting orders and costs, fines, and other financial orders. We acknowledge. I'm very happy to acknowledge the the importance stressed by the noble Lord Lord stressed by the noble Lord Lord Keen of these orders, and they are very much part of the toolkit for dealing with youth offending and
20:06
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
dealing with youth offending and youth justice. And they have a they do have an important role in supporting greater responsibility for a child's offending, whether they're used in a particular case we believe is best determined. we believe is best determined. Excuse me. I'm sorry. The the NHS is working. Restoring my mellifluous tones is not quite complete yet. Whether they used in a particular case is best determined by the court, with access to professional advice from the youth offending team.

And when we were discussing this prior to this debate, this committee tonight, we recognise the importance of youth offending officers having a view on what would be most effective in working with parents who should be doing more. It is right that the court retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation, so we're not at all opposed to that, and they have access to information on the individual circumstances of the child. However, as the noble Lord, the Minister, said at Second Reading, we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in light of the changes of this bill.

This bill will introduce in due course and will be very happy to return to these important matters then. So while we do not agree that primary primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment of these orders, I can confirm to noble Lords that we will consider this matter. Can I now turn to amendment 87, in the name of Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place, but the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Ely, has set out the issue? I thank the noble Lord.

But let us be clear that the most serious criminal offences, serious childhood offences which result in longer custodial sentences, are dealt with in the Crown Court. Here it is at the discretion of the independent judge whether to impose restrictions to protect the identity of a child defendant. Reporting restrictions exist to protect vulnerable child victims, witnesses and defendants. They're very important. Being named in the press can obviously have a very significant negative impact on the safety prospects and opportunities of a child.

That said, in all cases, judges have discretion to lift reporting restrictions once a child has been convicted or before where they are considered unreasonable. For example, in the well-known case of Axel Rudi Cabana, who was 17 when charged with the Southport murders. The government's view is that our existing system strikes the right balance between the fundamental importance of open justice, but also proportionate safeguards for children. And with that in mind, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

I wonder if before the noble Lord, the Minister, sits down, would he acknowledge that there has in fact been a very striking decline in the use of parenting and financial orders since 2010? Yes, we are conscious of that, and we actually did discuss that in our briefing this morning. And we do want to find out what that's all about. I think the important point to make at this stage, without, without sort of jumping to conclusions, is that we want this to be part of the armoury, but we want it to be for youth offending officers to have the discretion about what will really work with the parents.

But anyway, you've got me on one of my favourite subjects, so I should get off it. Well, I'm obliged to the noble Lord, the Minister, for getting on and then getting off

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this particular topic. And at this point I will draw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 48 Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, amendment 48 seeks to establish a notification and establish a notification and offender management requirement clause for criminals convicted of clause for criminals convicted of child cruelty offences and of course, for convicted child sex offenders that are already exists. offenders that are already exists. Notification requirements. Those who abuse vulnerable and dependent who abuse vulnerable and dependent children in the worst possible way must, of course, notify the police of their home address and other of their home address and other relevant details following their release from prison.

Now, I know
20:11
20:11
None Portrait Amdt. 48 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

victims. And it means that those who commit sex offences cannot just disappear back into the community. disappear back into the community. Now, there is evidence that it is therefore working with sex offender re-offending rates having decreased re-offending rates having decreased in the past 15 years. Given the fact that overall sexual offences have increased nearly fourfold over have increased nearly fourfold over that same period, a decrease in offences does suggest that this offences does suggest that this part of the justice system is actually working, and it's reasonable to argue that mandating the keeping of an offender register the keeping of an offender register will have had some part to play in that reduction.

In the case of that reduction. In the case of those particular offences, but it is unfortunate that similar provisions do not exist for those provisions do not exist for those convicted of child cruelty offences. The offence is in a sense different, The offence is in a sense different, but the principle is largely similar. Similar child cruelty, like child sexual offences, is heinous, life altering abuse to some of the most vulnerable members some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The only difference at present is that once released, those guilty of such cruelty offences and not managed once their sentence and probation is over, a person can commit these horrific crimes causing or allowing the death of a child, neglect and violence to a child.

Even female genital mutilation in some cases, once they've served a period of imprisonment, they're free to slip back into the community unnoticed. And there's no centralised way for the police to know who these people are and where they are living. This is all the more an issue, given the fact that in the majority of child cruelty cases, the offender very often has had parental responsibility for the victim, and this means that they will often have connections to the child's current guardian, in many cases to other family members with connections to the children.

So there is the very heightened risk that they will be able to secure access to a child in these situations. And yet there's no means of oversight nor management of these people. Amendment 48 does seek to correct this anomaly and to introduce something analogous to the sex offender register. It would require those convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of their details. Following their release, they would need to share their home address and any other places of residence, and indeed any other name that they might choose to use.

And it provides the police and probation services with the necessary information to identify individuals that might continue to pose a threat within a family community and would give victims, in particular child victims, some additional safeguard from the risk posed by such convicted offenders. It would also act as a deterrent to these offenders themselves, just as entry in the Child Sex Offenders Register has done so. My Lords, the child protection system should exist to save children from abusive circumstances and to give them a measure of safety.

And it seems to us that this simple step of introducing a register would allow some additional protection for these victims and ensure greater public awareness of the risks that such convicted persons would pose. The Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed after clause six, insert the new clause, the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall List. My Lords, I'm extremely grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Keen for raising this matter. I must begin by paying tribute to Helen begin by paying tribute to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell. They have campaigned tirelessly and movingly on this tirelessly and movingly on this important issue. Earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister had the great honour of meeting Paula and great honour of meeting Paula and Helen to hear the Hudgell story, to learn more about their campaign. This government is taking decisive action to protect our children from those who would commit abhorrent crimes against them.

Currently, crimes against them. Currently, under Sarah's law, the police can and do proactively disclose information regarding offenders to members of the public when they believe a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult who has ever had a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse, having unsupervised access to a child, the police can and will disclose this
20:16
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
police can and will disclose this to the person best able to protect that child, usually their parent, carer or guardian. Sarah's law also enables members of the public to make an application to the police for this information. If they're worried about child protection in the Crime and Policing Bill, this government is going further with strengthening Sarah's Law by placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State's guidance on Sarah's law.

In practice, this will reinforce the police's responsibility to make disclosures whenever that is necessary to protect children. We have also committed over £2 billion to support the roll out of the family's first partnership programme to improve early identification of risk to children and to take appropriate action. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will establish multi-agency child protection teams in every area. Additionally, we're placing a new duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

We want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to keep our children safe. We're not standing still on this issue. We're exploring the best way to close the gap that Paula has rightly identified. This is why I and Ministers in the Home Office have instructed our officials to explore options for tracking offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, and in light of his undertaking that they are pursuing this matter, and I would take it vigorously, intending to produce something, whether you term it a register or otherwise, so that the register or otherwise, so that the police can not only disclose information, can actually access information, which is a more information, which is a more critical element here. Then at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point I will withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clauses 7 to 9 The question is that clauses 7 to 9 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that schedule two b the
20:18
20:20
None Portrait Amdt. 49 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

believe that the judiciary, who are specifically trained and appointed and not probation officers, are best equipped to make decisions on sentencing. Clause 11, as drafted, removes the requirement to specify the maximum number of activity days to be undertaken as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. The government's intention appears to be to create flexibility for probation services, so that they can gauge and tailor the number of days that offenders must complete the laws. Of course, we appreciate that.

At present, there is a discrepancy between the maximum days of activity ordered by the courts and the number completed in reality. But nowhere in the bill does there appear to be, once the initial sentence order and length of past judicial oversight on the number of days. The probation officers may then sit. Nor does there appear to be any minimum threshold or expectation of participation specified in the bill. Putting this conferral of sentencing power onto the probation service creates an obvious misalignment of, amongst other things, incentives, overwork.

Probation officers already contending with quite unmanageable caseloads are liable to be motivated not only by what is right for rehabilitation or public safety, but by what is administratively possible. And the unavoidable consequence is that the number of activity days ordered will be determined by capacity pressures within the probation service, rather than by the rehabilitation requirements of individual offenders. The clause is currently drafted could enable an offender to engage in little or no meaningful rehabilitative activity whatsoever. Such an outcome would, of course, be a betrayal of victims and simply an illusion of justice.

On the other hand, the judiciary are trained and entrusted to assess evidence, consider proportionality, understand risk and the need to balance public protection with rehabilitations. And it's in these circumstances that we give notice of our intention to oppose clauses 11 and 12 standing part of the Bill. My Lords, amendments 49 and 50 seek to remedy the issue of probation officers operating in a quasi judicial capacity. Amendment 49 would ensure that the court specifies a minimum number of days required under probation activity requirement.

This would mean that rather than setting a maximum threshold, which is still seldom met in practice, there would be no ambiguity for officers or offenders about the number of days that must be completed, and this is a simple and practical proposal that does have the effect of dealing with the impact of clauses 11 and 12. Amendment 50 clarifies in statute that where activity days are to be set for offenders, the number of days must always be set by the court itself, and without these amendments, decisions relating to punishment will effectively be delegated from the court to the probation service, rather than being determined at the point of sentence by the judiciary.

And we believe it's essential that it should remain in the hands of the judiciary. If I could then turn briefly to amendments 125 and 126, which concern early termination of community orders and suspended sentences, these amendments provide that a court may not terminate such orders early, unless a specified minimum proportion of rehabilitation days has actually been completed. This prevents the unacceptable scenario in which an offender could be released from requirements without having undertaken the substance of the sentence that was originally imposed again.

At present, there are no checks or balances under the bill to ensure that this is not the case. These amendments would ensure proper accountability and preserve the authority of the sentencing decisions made by the court, and they would also provide probation officers with a degree of flexibility. And I hope that the government recognises the constructive nature of these amendments. But, Lord, we all recognise the intense pressure under which prisons and probation services currently operate. But the response to systemic problems cannot be to weaken judicial powers or diminish meaningful sentencing.

Offenders must not be permitted to slip through the cracks in a system that is stretched to its limits. And it's our duty in Parliament to reinforce judicial authority, not to erode it. It's for these reasons that I urge the government to reconsider the implications of clauses 11 and 12, and to recognise the importance of the amendments that have been tabled. Judicial sentencing power must remain with the courts, and I hope that the government will listen to these concerns and engage constructively on this issue.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 11, page 26, line seven. At the end, page 26, line seven. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

None of Lord Lord Keen has raised an interesting, very debateable question, which is what should be the role of the judiciary should be the role of the judiciary in allotting rehabilitation time and activity, and what can reasonably be the role of the reasonably be the role of the probation officer? In theory, I should be with him because I'm always anxious to protect the independence and autonomy of the independence and autonomy of the judiciary. But I look at our court system and what is feasible, and I look at the the detailed work that look at the the detailed work that would be necessary, which probation officers are trained and equipped for, not necessarily resources equipped, equipped in terms of their training.

I'm unconvinced their training. I'm unconvinced that it would be a good idea to move away from what clause 11 and 12 does towards a larger role for 12 does towards a larger role for the judiciary. And I say that having decades ago gone to look at the court system in Texas, as the
20:26
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the court system in Texas, as the Minister himself has done more recently, and seeing the proactive court and the judge handing out details of rehabilitation requirements and looking at people as individuals, and the applause ringing around the court when he commends the offender who is fulfil the requirement, and the sight of the one taken away by the State Marshal who has not fulfilled the requirement. The whole setup was very interesting, but very difficult to graft into our system without enlarging the judiciary substantially, giving them time to do this kind of thing.

And I think we're probably better to build on the foundation of the probation service, despite the fact that it has been went through such a terrible time in the privatisation process and is still well below the level it needs to be in terms of numbers and training, I think the bill provides a more reliable route, even though, as I say, my instinct is to be on the side of protecting the autonomy of judiciary. I think this is a job. Probation officers are probably in a better position to do than our hard pressed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judiciary. I've considered the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've considered the amendments and thoughtful debate from the noble and learned Lord keen on this noble and learned Lord keen on this topic. My Lords, change is needed. The process, evaluation of the rehabilitative active requirement or as I prefer to call it, Rada's, published in May 2025, shows that published in May 2025, shows that the RA is not working effectively. Offenders often don't understand what is expected of them, and magistrates sometimes sentence it magistrates sometimes sentence it as a catch all.

Further to this published evidence, probation practitioners from Manchester to practitioners from Manchester to the Isle of Wight have told me personally that the way RA is structured restricts their ability to rehabilitate offenders. From my experience leading organisations, the people who are on the front the people who are on the front line often give you the wisest advice. We value and trust our probation staff enormously. Their
20:28
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
probation staff enormously. Their work is often unseen, but I deeply appreciate it. This change places professional judgement back at the heart of probation, we're enabling probation practitioners to utilise their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works and the the noble and learned Lord Keen. Let me reassure you that this change does not remove the court's sentencing powers. It is, and will remain for the court to determine whether to include this requirement when making an order.

But the removal of court specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where they will have the most impact. It brings our approach to rehabilitation activity in line with how supervision is determined. Both are led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer. If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties.

I'd like to now turn specifically to amendments 125 and 126, which the noble and learned Lord raised. The Community Sentences Incentive Scheme, set out in clauses 36 and 37, already requires offenders to complete all court ordered requirements before the community order or, in the case of a suspended sentence order, the supervision period can come to an end. This will include completing all the required activities under the new probation requirement. These clauses bring the principle of progression and incentivisation into community sentences to encourage good behaviour and motivate offenders to change.

This scheme was inspired by the model in Texas that used incentives to reduce their prison population. This will mean the probation service can encourage offenders to engage early, comply with their sentence requirements and complete rehabilitation work. This will free up staff time to focus on more serious and complex offenders, to better protect the public and reduce reoffending. Probation practitioners will be responsible for determining the amount of rehabilitation activity that must be completed under probation requirement. The measure requires them to complete all of those before the community order or supervision period can be eligible for early termination.

Therefore, it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to require offenders to complete a minimum proportion of these days. For example, someone could be sentenced to a two year community order, including a probation requirement, unpaid work and a treatment. Probation will undertake an assessment up front to determine how much rehabilitation activity is needed under the probation requirement. This will be set out in a sentence plan alongside all other objectives. Only once the offender has completed all of these and there is nothing more to deliver, will the order end? This means offenders are incentivised to comply with probation and show good behaviour, but if they do not follow the rules, offenders will serve their sentence in full.

I'd also like to highlight that suspended sentence sentence orders will continue, and it is only the supervision period that can end early. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments and we can, however, return to this at Report stage. If the noble Lord is still not content with my response. And I'm also happy to talk to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before then, if he would find it helpful. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his answer and the Minister, for his answer and the noble Lord Beith for his contribution. I fear that the noble Lord, the Minister, is not properly distinguishing between issues of rehabilitation and issues of rehabilitation and issues of sentencing. There is a matter of principle that has to be addressed in this context, and there is a in this context, and there is a risk that the bill in its present form, turning sentencing into some form of administrative exercise performed by the probation service rather than by the court.

I believe rather than by the court. I believe we will have to return to this at report, but I look forward to discussing the matter further with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discussing the matter further with the noble Lord, the Minister. At amendments. Is it your lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
20:32
14:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Supporting local authorities and charities in providing emergency accommodation for those experiencing domestic abuse Baroness Donaghy (Labour)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 2 House of Lords - 26 House of Lords - 26 November
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page