Lords Chamber

Tuesday 6th January 2026

(began 1 day, 6 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Well, as I mentioned earlier, we have investing a huge amount of record amount of money money into flooding, and we've also reviewed the actual the way that that funding is applied and that the communities and businesses and so on can apply for funding. And the new programme we've set up has got four metrics. And I think if I briefly go through those metrics, it will help to answer the noble Lords programme. One is there are two outcomes and there are two output metrics.

The first output metric is around economic benefits, which captures all the damage that's been avoided to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and a range of other areas. As long as the positive economic benefits of things like natural flood management, which we're very keen to invest in. The second metric is around the risk to properties. So the Environment Agency is developing a way of reporting on the reduction in flood risk due to the investments made through the National Flood and Coastal Investment Programme. I think that's due to report in April.

There's the first output metric is around properties benefit from from the investment that's made up of three parts, whether it's large reduction, small reductions or prevented increases in any size of flood risk. And the last one is asset condition, which initially remains the percentage of environmental agency high consequence assets that are target condition. So we've actually bought a whole new system of managing exactly those outcomes and investments.
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Well, my Lords, my noble friend is a tribute to Dundee Institute and indeed of the country, so we all have cause to be grateful to them for their investment in him. My friend is right. I mean, there are clearly challenges in the graduate market. What I do want to say up front on AI is that it is not. We do not yet see the evidence that this necessarily means a long term decline in graduate jobs. AI is having a range of impacts, its impact is contested and it's different and it's changing as we go.

However, the point he makes is incredibly important, and what the government needs to do is to act to ensure that graduates and young people generally have access not just to entry level jobs, but proper, high quality careers. And that means investing in sectors which are producing growth, making sure we have the right skills, and also that career services, both within education and in the new jobs and Careers service, are supporting people to make sure they develop the skills that are needed, and they go into the sectors where there are increasing numbers of jobs and those jobs are better paid.

So I'm very optimistic. Actually. AI offers opportunities as well for young people. Young people are much more technologically savvy than than me anyway, hopefully. And also they're much more optimistic about the impact of AI. So there are real opportunities as well as challenges. opportunities as well as challenges.
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
our universities need fundamental reform, particularly in the area of funding, to face up to economic funding, to face up to economic reality. Yeah. Well, the one thing I do want to say to, to any students or graduates out there is students or graduates out there is to recognise that, that the evidence does show that those who are graduates are more likely to be are graduates are more likely to be in work, they're more likely to be in higher skilled work, and they earn more.

Graduates continue to experience higher lifetime earnings, and the nearly three times as likely to be in high skilled employment than non-graduates. Having said all of that, the most important thing is young people get appropriate advice to choose the forms of study that suit them. What this is not a message is to say that people should leave school and go straight into work. We are increasingly going to an area where employers will need skills that, especially in a world where AI could automate some activities but also can augment others.

We need people to have the skills. So I am absolutely with him. What we are doing about the need to get the right people, going into the right kind of education and training. But on the question of funding, the sector clearly needs a secure financial footing to face into the challenges coming down the track. But we have therefore acted to increase tuition fee caps for all providers in line with forecast inflation. But my Lords, future fee uplifts will be conditional on those providers achieving a higher quality threshold through the office for students.

Lib Dems. office for students. Lib Dems.
14:52
14:53
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
The question of intern of internships and apprenticeships for those who are going into specialist areas. The DWP has been working to find to look for either internships or work experience opportunities for young people. I think one of the things we all know from the number of requests we get from them, is it's an awful lot easier to get internships if you a have money and b have connections. And one of the challenges is for us to make sure we create opportunities for work experience and internships for those who do not have those things.

And we are doing a huge amount of work specifically with the 1 in 8 young people who are not in employment, education or training, of whom some will be in the North West, but they are there around the country, but they are more likely to be in areas of deprivation. So we are looking very much in how we support that. And at the other level, for those who, for example, for young people who've been 18 months on Universal Credit looking for work and not getting it, at the end of that, we'll give them a guaranteed job for six months to make sure that they do have that experience of work.

On the question of professional apprenticeships, the government is prioritising young people, but that does include apprenticeships up to level seven for those who start them, who are under 22 when they begin. And so, for example, I think most nursing and nursing, sometimes they'd be post-degree, but they would often be level six. But there are young people, for example, who qualify as solicitors or accountants through the apprenticeship route. So again, what we're interested in is where do we grow jobs? The final words I read a really interesting World Economic Forum report about the areas that are growing.

And one of the one of the growth areas is nursing.
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: The reliability of the Channel Tunnel infrastructure given the recent failure of the electrical supply and the subsequent cancellation of all train services between London, Paris and Brussels
-

Forth Oral Question Lord Snape. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's important that there's a full investigation into the three separate incidents which disrupted tens of thousands of passengers journeys on the 30th and 31st of December last and saw some passengers stranded throughout the
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:19
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
-

The government.
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
None Portrait Legislation: Sentencing Bill – report stage
-

15:40
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, amendments in my name are concern the interaction between the presumption of suspended sentences and clause one, and the application of credit for a guilty plea at the first opportunity. At committee, I raised what I consider to be a straightforward but important point of drafting and of principle whether the presumption for a suspended sentence is intended to apply to the sentence before or after credit is given for a guilty plea.

The purpose of that amendment was to probe how wide the government intend this presumption to operate. The Minister's response at committee confirmed that the presumption would apply after guilty plea credit has been awarded. That confirmation is important, as it means the presumption of suspended sentences is not confined to offences attracting sentences of up to 12 months, as has been repeatedly suggested, but in practice extends to offences carrying a sentence of up to 18 months, which is, of course beyond the sentencing provisions of the Magistrates Court, and takes us into the realm of what is generally regarded as serious crime.

The Minister opposed this amendment on the basis that it would create inconsistency. He argued the presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea reduced a sentence to 12 months or less, but could still apply for other forms of mitigation achieved the same effect. That objection respectfully misunderstands both the purpose and the effect of this amendment. The distinction between credit for a guilty plea and other forms of mitigation is deliberate and long established. Credit for a guilty plea is not mitigation in the ordinary sense.

It is structured, formulaic reduction applied for specific policy purpose to encourage early admissions of guilt and spare victims. The ordeal of trial, and indeed Parliament and the Sentencing Council have always treated it separately. My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the starting point for the court whether an offence ordinarily attracts custody or suspension, is determined by the seriousness of the offence itself and not by a subsequent procedural discount. Without this amendment, clause one operates in a way the government have never openly acknowledged.

An offender facing a sentence of up to 18 months imprisonment can, by entering an early guilty plea, reduce that sentence by one third and thereby bring himself within the automatic presumption of suspension. That, my Lords, is not a marginal effect. It is a substantial expansion of the scope of clause one, my Lords, that is what I described it Committee as opening Pandora's box. Once the presumption is allowed to apply after a guilty plea credit, it ceases to be confined to genuinely low level offending offences such as robbery, serious assault or possession of knives, offences which Parliament and the public would reasonably expect to attract immediate custody are surreptitiously drawn into the presumption, even though they can carry sentences of 15 months or more, if that is the government's intention, it should be stated plainly.

But if, as Ministers have repeatedly suggested, the presumption is aimed only at genuinely short sentences of up to 12 months, then this amendment is necessary to give effect to that stated policy. My Lords, we also heard a wider concern at committee that was left, I think, unacknowledged by allowing guilty plea credit to determine eligibility for suspension, the bill risk creating perverse incentives. Offenders may come to believe that pleading guilty is not merely a matter of sentence reduction, but a route to avoiding custody altogether, and that risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.

My Lords, this amendment does not undermine the policy of encouraging guilty pleas, nor does it widen the scope of custody. It is a technical clarification designed to ensure that clause one operates, as the government have publicly described it, and not in a far broader and unintended manner. My Lords, if the Minister cannot give us these assurances, I will seek to divide. The House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And clause one, page one, line 14. Insert after months, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words printed on the Marshall List. My Lords, if nobody else has came to speak on this amendment before me, I shall do so, but only very briefly. I hear everything that the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen has said, but it would be
15:46
15:47
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
safer communities. And we're following the lead of the previous conservative government, who originally introduced this measure during the last parliament. Without the amendment we are debating today. I am a great believer in working across the political spectrum to get the best policies that reduce reoffending. I have dedicated myself to solving this problem and creating a sustainable justice system. I strongly believe that the clauses drafted without any further amendments is the best policy. I must repeat again, we are not abolishing short sentences.

I can assure noble Lords that I have considered the issue of early guilty pleas raised by amendments one and 27 with great care, and I have met with the noble and learned Lord to discuss his concerns and value the attention given to this issue. But it has long been the practice of the courts to give a reduction in sentence. Where a defendant pleads guilty, this avoids the need for a trial, enables cases to be dealt with quickly, and shortens the gap between charge and sentence.

The government does not wish to disincentivise early guilty pleas, in part because of the urgent need to reduce the backlog in cases coming to court, and early guilty pleas can save victims and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence, which is particularly important in traumatic cases. These amendments risk reducing the incentive to plead guilty, potentially causing further avoidable trauma for victims, and they would create a clear and significant anomaly in sentencing for reasons of simplicity and coherence. It is the final sentence length given by the judge that must be relevant for the purposes of the presumption.

Under these amendments, the presumption would not apply where an early guilty plea has been brought has brought the sentence down to 12 months or less, yet it could still apply where any other mitigation, such as age or being a primary carer, had the same effect. The inconsistency is stark. Two offenders receiving the same final sentence could be treated entirely differently, based solely on the type of mitigation applied. This is neither coherent nor fair. And finally, the sunset clause propose an amendment 103 would introduce unnecessary instability.

It would undermine public confidence and complicate operational planning for courts, prisons, probation services and local authorities. The last thing we need at the moment is instability in the justice system. I'm a firm believer in dealing with problems head on and solving them for the long term. We inherited difficult decisions that needed to be made. But but someone had to make them because we simply cannot run out of cells. We're building 14,000 new ones, but that takes time. I came into this job to rebuild our criminal justice system to lead to fewer victims, not more.

Clause one is a crucial means of achieving that, and undermining it through further exclusions is not the right way forward, and there will be a long shadow over those who vote for amendments that put even more pressure on the prison system. I hope that I've explained why the government's position is the right one, and I hope for cross-party support for a truly cross-party policy. After all, this was originally a conservative measure, reintroduced in this bill by Labour and supported by the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party.

At the Commons Committee stage. I therefore urge noble Lords not to support these amendments.
15:51
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
I'm obliged to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his observations. However, a number of points. First However, a number of points. First of all, the apparent use of statistics comparing repeat offending on those who suffer a suspended sentence with those who are given a prison sentence is potentially very misleading. In general, repeat offenders will receive a sentence of imprisonment, whereas singer single offenders will often receive a suspended sentence. So it is those who are inclined towards the repetition of criminal conduct who are imprisoned, and therefore the comparison that's made with these statistics is potentially highly misleading.

Secondly, I don't accept the reference to any other mitigation, the procedural mitigation or procedural discount in reality, granted in respect to the guilty plea is not comparable and is not in the past considered comparable to the other aspects of mitigation mentioned by the noble Lord. The government have repeatedly described this policy as targeting only genuinely short sentences. Sentences of more than 12 months are not genuinely short sentences. They are sentences that can only be imposed by the Crown Court.

They are regarded as sentences applicable to serious criminal conduct. That is not the purpose of clause one. In its present form, the government wrote in its manifesto that the sentences criminals receive often do not make sense either to victims of the wider public, and allowing serious offenders to evade custody will do little in rebuilding public confidence in the justice system. If the government truly intends to suspend sentences of up to 18 months as a matter of policy, then it should have plainly said so.

If it does not, then it should accept this amendment. And in these circumstances, with some regret, I have to beg to test the opinion of the House.
15:53
16:04
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this amendment concerns an exemption to the presumption of suspended sentences for those convicted of sexual offences and domestic abuse. We listen carefully to the points which were raised by noble Lords at committee. It was suggested then that our amendments were overly expansive and risked undermining the central objective of the bill to free up spaces in prison, and that we might constrain judicial discretion. We've listened to and taken into account those concerns.

The amendment before your lordships today is far more tightly drawn. It does not seek to carve out a long list of offences, even though that might be our preferred position. Nor does it attempt to undermine clause one central objective. Instead, it is narrowly focussed on two categories of offending, where the case for custody, even for shorter sentences, is at its strongest. Sexual offending and domestic abuse. My Lords, this amendment would preserve the presumption in favour of suspended sentences in the vast majority of cases, with only exemptions being for sexual offences and domestic abuse that seems proportionate and indeed I would venture necessary.

Much of the debate in committee rested on the assertion that short custodial sentences are ineffective, or even counterproductive, when judged solely by re-offending rates, even if one accepts that the data paints a mixed picture, it is a mistake to treat sentencing policy as though it serves only one function. Prison is not simply about re-offending statistics. It serves other essential purposes deterrence. Public protection, the expression of society's condemnation of serious wrongdoing, the maintenance of public confidence in the justice system, and, crucially, in cases such as these, the protection and reassurance of victims for victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse.

The distinction between a custodial sentence and a suspended one is not an abstract policy question. It is the difference between knowing that their abuser has been removed from the community and knowing that they remain at liberty. This point is reinforced by the government's recent recognition of the scale of the problem. Violence against women and girls has been described as a national emergency, and a strategy has been announced to halve such violence within a decade, including the creation of specialist rape and sexual offence investigation teams in every police force.

By 2029. These measures, this government notes, will provide officers with the right training to understand the mindset of both abusers and victims and ensure consistent investigation of sexual offences across the country. Much has been made of the evidence on re-offending, but even the government's own publications urge caution on these. Official statistics emphasise that comparisons between custodial and non-custodial sentences do not control for differences in offender characteristics. Those receiving short custodial sentences, as I noted earlier, typically have far longer and more serious criminal histories than those given community or suspended sentences.

The reality, my Lords, is not a simple dichotomy between bad, short custodial sentences and good suspended sentences. Outcomes depend heavily on the risk posed by the offender and the need for immediate public protection. In cases of sexual offences and domestic abuse, those considerations weigh heavily in favour of custody. Nor should we overlook the deterrent effect of custody. While difficult to measure with precision, deterrence remains a central principle of sentencing. Removing custody from the toolkit for these offences risks sending the wrong signal to offenders and indeed to victims and the general public.

At committee. It was also argued that carving out exceptions undermined judicial discretion. But with respect that argument sits uneasily with the structure of this bill itself. The bill already imposes a statutory presumption in favour of suspended sentences. This amendment simply ensures that in the most serious and sensitive cases, Parliament does not compel court to start from what I suggest is the wrong place. We believe this amendment is modest and targeted. It reflects a simple proposition that for sexual offenders and domestic abusers, short custodial sentences continue to have a vital role to play.

If the noble Lord, the Minister, cannot provide the appropriate assurances for this limited exception, then I will seek leave to divide the House.
16:10
16:11
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lords, very. >> Because I agreed with everything important. >> To acknowledge that a violence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To acknowledge that a violence against women and girls strategy and policy can only mean something and policy can only mean something if, in practice, it results in taking that issue seriously. And it would. It seems to me if this amendment is not accepted, and I would expect across the House that everybody would agree that this exception is proportionate and correct. If this amendment is not accepted, then I'm afraid it does make you query whether a violence against women and girls policy is anything other than a piece of paper.

That doesn't mean very much, and certainly will be viewed by women and girls with some scepticism. I also just wanted to draw attention to the fact that sexual offences and domestic abuse are escalating issues. Somebody might do something quite considered to be quite minor as a sexual offence and therefore you could say would maybe not require the full weight of being put into custody. But we know that these particular offences get worse. Ask anybody who's been a victim of them, and they'll find out that the perpetrators, once found guilty, have actually built up to what they've done.

And so I think that we have to have custody as a mechanism for dealing with even the less serious examples of sexual offences and domestic abuse. I would just also remind us that the the Secretary of State for justice has talked about the importance of taking, for example, the issue of pursuing alleged perpetrators of rape and sexual assault so seriously that he, David Lammy, is even prepared to sacrifice jury trials. I completely disagree, by the way, with the use of the issue of sexual assault to undermine jury trials.

And there are empty courts as we speak where people could be being tried. I don't think this would resolve it, but I think it does indicate that the government is prepared to say, well, make exceptional. We will make exceptions when it comes to such cases, with victims of women and girls of such heinous crimes. And I think therefore I would really appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment as being perfectly sensible. There will get cheers from around the country, because it is absolutely right that we take this particular form of crime very seriously and act on it, rather than just using the words and the rhetoric.
16:14
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, are we on these benches do not agree with this benches do not agree with this amendment. That is not because we do not take the issue of sexual offences extremely seriously, because we do as we do the issue of domestic abuse and domestic violence. That's why we sought to make domestic abuse an aggravating factor in sentencing, and why we've argued for the fact of domestic abuse in an offence to be recorded, even in the case of those offences, which of themselves do not imply domestic abuse like common assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

And we fully share the government's determination and applaud the government's determination to halve the incidence of violence against women and girls over a decade, and we will do everything we can to help the government achieve it. But more prison is not the answer. It's not the purpose of this. It's not the purpose of the government to outlaw sentences of immediate imprisonment. And that's an important point. And I say that in answer to the noble Lady Baroness May and the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, it only applies to sentences of 12 months or less.

Immediate custodial sentences remain available for offences deserving more time in prison. But we, after considerable reflection and discussion with the government and with our colleagues in the in the Commons, take the view that if a court is of the view that although a sentence of imprisonment should be passed, it should be for a period of less than a year, then it should be suspended. Sexual offences, of course, include some of the most serious offences there are, and they will remain to be dealt with appropriately.

But they also include less serious offences for which immediate custody is not the answer. My Lords, if I may make a couple of general points on the presumption, the presumption in favour of suspension of sentences of less than 12 months. This bill has two very important objectives. The first is to address the prison capacity crisis, and the second is to introduce the presumption. I've said many times in this House that we imprison far more people in this country, and for far longer than any comparable country.

And that fact has led to no appreciable decline in crime as a result. And the prison capacity crisis is the last government's fault above all others. They failed to provide sufficient prison places. They legislated consistently for more and longer time served in prison, led not by evidence that that would lead to a reduction in crime, but frankly, by a populist demand from the press and their supporters to be so-called tougher on crime. And when the capacity crisis hit them, they introduced, frankly cack handed emergency early release provisions to attempt to short term and stop gap solution, which was far, well, far less well thought out, far less well researched than the measures proposed in this bill, and those measures owe much to the work of David Gauke, a former conservative Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State who brought to the Independent Sentencing Review an independence of mind and an evidence led approach that does him and his team credit, and for which we are very grateful.

We on these benches have long argued for a presumption against short sentences of immediate imprisonment. And I note for the in response to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen said that we always argued that 12 months should be the cut off point, and we know that that is appropriate, because all the evidence is that short sentences of imprisonment do not work. They do not lead to rehabilitation, and they are much less effective than community sentences in reforming offenders.

And these are the outcomes that the bill proposes. The amendments, which were originally to have been moved in Group one, would have worsened the capacity prison capacity crisis and have led to a breakdown of our penal system. The arguments are against short sentences. The government has recognised our concerns about the seriousness of the prison capacity crisis. They've also recognised the seriousness of the problem of staffing and resources in respect of the probation service, who will have to handle extra work and more cases as a result of the move from imprisonment to probation, which is the inevitable result of the proposals in this bill, we agree with the earned release concept that this bill incorporates and the government has moved towards our position on rewarding good behaviour in prison.

So introducing what I can call carrot as well as stick in relation to that. These are important reforms. And for these principled reasons, we will be opposing this amendment.
16:20
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
While the government understands >> While the government understands the concern that underpins this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. It was not included by necessary. It was not included by the last conservative government when they originally introduced this measure. Let me be clear. We are not abolishing short sentences. Public protection is our main priority, and we will make sure the most dangerous offenders are put where they belong behind bars. In response to the noble Lady Baroness May and Baroness Fox.

I recognise that prison sentences, even if short, can be critical to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse or civil courts, will still have discretion to impose immediate custody in any case involving significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual. For example, to protect an at risk domestic abuse victim. Courts will also have discretion to impose immediate custody in exceptional circumstances and where offenders breach court orders through Committee stage amendments. In the other place, we strengthen the wording in the bill even further so that there can be no doubt where offenders breach court orders, including vawg related protective orders.

They can receive an immediate custodial sentence. For example, if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order, a civil breach rather than criminal offence and assaults their partner, the presumption would not apply and they could go straight to prison with thanks to the Liberal Democrats and importantly, the Member for Eastbourne. In the other place, we are also introducing a new judicial finding of domestic abuse at sentencing. This is so these offenders are better identified and monitored throughout the system. This has been welcomed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and in this place, the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord Lord Marks.

The noble and learned Lord clearly cares deeply about the experience of victims. But if these amendments were to pass, it would undermine the fundamental problem that this legislation will fix the issue the previous government neglected for 14 years. I urge the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord to withdraw this amendment and to support the government's position.
16:22
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the arguments of the noble Lord Marks about fault for the issue of prison capacity, about staffing and resources, will bring little comfort to the victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse. His reference to offences that attract a sentence of 12 months or less omits the point that, of course, clause one in its present form will apply to offences attracting a sentence of 18 months or less, albeit there is then a discount for a guilty plea because of a procedural provision, I am obliged to the my noble friend Baroness Main, to the noble Lady Baroness Fox, for their contributions.

The fact is that sexual offending and domestic abuse are uniquely serious and harmful. That's been recognised by the present government. They're characterised by repetition, by coercion, by control, and they have a profound victim impact. In such cases, custody serves functions that a suspended sentence cannot. Protection of victims. Reassurance, deterrence and indeed public confidence for sexual offences and domestic abuse. Immediate public protection should take precedence over other considerations, including questions of capacity, prison capacity, and that includes abstract arguments on rehabilitation.

And indeed, what is non-conclusive data regarding reoffending rates between suspended sentences and prison sentences. This government is pledged in its manifesto to halve violence against women and girls. They're hardly proposing to go in that direction with the present form of clause one. It's not enough that there should be exceptional circumstances. The very. Essence of a sexual offence and of domestic abuse is an exceptional circumstance. The public recognise that, and this government should recognise that. The Lords.

I seek leave to divide the House.
16:25
16:37
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-
was adequately addressed in Committee amendment number 52. In my name and the name of the noble my name and the name of the noble Lord Lord Moylan would define in law the purpose of imprisonment in law the purpose of imprisonment in law, and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment. Briefly, we know that depriving someone of their liberty is an someone of their liberty is an action taken by courts with caution and care.

His Majesty's Prison and Probation Services strategic objective is to carry out sentences given by the courts in custody and the community, and rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment. However, there is no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. That's what this amendment seeks to achieve. Indeed, may I say that if we had this legislative definition, it would actually have brought into focus issues we've been talking about in debates so far.

At Committee stage, the government disagreed that a definition in statute was needed. The noble Lord Lord Lemos stated that the purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines. I respectfully disagree that the purposes of imprisonment are set out in law in this way. At present, the public expresses little confidence in the courts and prisons. In part, I believe, as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment, a clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve both prisoners and victims well and provide clarity at all levels of decision making for those involved with and within the criminal justice system.

This amendment holds together clarity around the reduction of offending and justice for victims. With this in mind, I beg to move. Just briefly moving to other amendments in this group, I've added my name in support of amendments 71, 72 and 73, which I know will be well introduced by the noble Lord Lord Marks. Suffice to say, I am in full support of the proposal to set up an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. I am also in full support of amendment 98.

In this group.
16:40
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment after clause four, insert the new clause as printed on insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. >> My Lords, I rise very briefly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise very briefly, if I may, to support this amendment 52 and I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. Whilst section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020 sets out the purposes of sentencing, that is to say, punishment reduction in crime reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public and reparation. It does not provide guidance to judges on whether imprisonment is the appropriate sentence, nor on what should occur once an offender is in prison.

This lack of guidance on the purpose of imprisonment is all the more damaging in light of the greater push for longer and longer sentences of imprisonment, which we've seen over the last 30 years. The noble Lord, the Minister, in rejecting this amendment in committee, said that the purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and in Sentencing Council guidelines. But with respect. Section 57 of the 2020 act does not mention imprisonment at all. By contrast, the amendment we are debating is focussed entirely on the purpose of imprisonment so as to give the sentencing judge guidance on whether that is the appropriate sentence.

Among the different sentencing options available. In addition, and importantly, this amendment would indicate what should occur once the offender is in prison so as to fulfil the statutory purpose of imprisonment. There is currently a major gap in our legislation addressing that critical issue. This helps to explain the shameful statistic that 80% of offending is re-offending. This amendment would chime with the rest of this excellent bill in helping to reduce that re-offending rate. As regards those released from prison, since they would have benefited from clear statutory purposes behind their sentence of imprisonment, and in turn would have benefited from a corresponding obligation on the Secretary of State to deliver treatment regimes in prison.

Consistent with these new statutory purposes of imprisonment.
16:42
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my >> My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments which are 64 and 66, and to thank my noble friend Viscount Hailsham for his amendment 65 and Hailsham for his amendment 65 and 67. Whilst my amendments only apply to new sentences because that's the scope of this bill, I am content with his amendments because disappointingly, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere and my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie in committee, the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to education and training is severely limited.

Indeed, as we were told, the Justice Committee's 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisons are not now engaged in education or employment programmes, so it's fair to provide that a breach of the condition I proposed only bites if the relevant purposeful activity is available. My Lords, we have a tragic situation. At the end of 2024, there were 88, 87,919 people in prison and the numbers receiving education were closer to 50,000. On most metrics, something must be done so that we make use of the time that a prison spell provides to give more offenders the skills they need to return to employment, and avoid the temptation to return to crime, and probably to prison.

The Prison Reform trust mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I know he has a role there, agrees, and I've been struck at the support for action to deal with the concerns I've raised with people who might not normally warm to me. And to cap it all, the chair of the Independent Monitoring Board took time amidst the Christmas break to write to the Minister to raise concern about cuts in real terms in prison education budgets. It is particularly worrying that courses, especially vocational courses, have been or will be curtailed dramatically across all categories of prison.

These are the courses that provide a route to steady employment after release. The IMB say that cuts affect prisons in all regions and across all functions and performance levels. This is despite prison rules dictating the prisoners other than those on remand, are required to work or take part in training or education, if physically and mentally able to do so. That is what most voters want to see, though I do wonder whether the caveat carve out is not too broad and allows too many prisoners to bury their heads and avoid purposeful activity.

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

Part of his approach to change are very important, and we talked about the use of data, and I was directed to the Prison Education and Accreditation program statistics. These are useful, but they focus on subjects like maths, IT and English, particularly for non-English speaking foreign nationals, most of whom are supposed be sent home after release. So their education is less important when money is short. They also focus on accreditation for reducing, e.g. for reducing substance abuse and sex offender treatment. I'm not convinced of the effectiveness, and I want to see much more focus on practical vocational skills as in my amendment like bricklaying and plastering and motor mechanics and gardening.

And we should encourage more employers to work in prisons, training staff for the future, as Timpson's do. Moreover, such training needs to come through much more prominently in our statistics. What you count is what you do. And I would add that given the variability of performance, the Prison Service should publish education and training data. Prison by prison, which I hope the Minister will reply to. My experience of retail is that there is a powerful incentive effect, with managers trying to outdo each other.

Interestingly, the private prisons have a better education and training record because they work to contract and lose out financially if they fail to deliver education. I've softened the amendment I tabled in committee. It would no longer be mandatory for every custodial sentence as originally envisaged. It allows the courts sentencing an offender to require participation in education, skills, training, work or other purposeful activity, but it allows the governments to make regulations on how far this should apply. It also for annual reporting on prisoner participation and, crucially, the ability of such activities.

An addition at the suggestion of the Prison Reform Trust. Only with that feedback loop will we have the drive driver for change that we all want. My Second Amendment, Mr. House may prefer establishes a review of all these arrangements and complexities with a report to Parliament in six months after the establishment of a Committee for the purpose, and annually thereafter. Again, that would be a driver for change, and I prefer that to an independent advisory panel, as proposed in amendment 71, which I do not think would get things done in the same way, given the degree of concern expressed on this subject at Committee stage.

And this new contribution from the independent monitoring boards. I hope the Minister will agree to come forward with a government amendment on these lines, or to make appropriate undertakings to actually get something done. Otherwise, I minded to test the opinion of the House on amendment 64.
16:48
16:49
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
To support what my noble friend >> To support what my noble friend has said, and indeed, if I may, to support the Right the Lord Bishop support the Right the Lord Bishop of Gloucester amendment, I come, as it were, from a prison background in this sense that I was prisons Minister. God help me. 40 years ago, and also until relatively recently, by which I mean ten years ago, I was on the monitoring board of one of our local prisons.

And I do agree entirely with my noble friend and indeed with the right reverend Prelate about the importance of purposeful activity out of cell, purposeful activity. And I agree too, with the noble and learned Lady about Baroness Butler-Sloss that far too often the prison workshops are not functioning and that is a very great misfortune. There are just two points. I would like to make a proviso and a question. The proviso in a sense, is self-evident. If a condition is going to be imposed, it can only operate if the purposeful activity is actually provided within the prison service.

And whilst that may be implicit in my noble friend's amendment, it isn't explicit. And if the government does it in due time come forward and appropriate amendment. I do hope that the provision is made explicit. There is a different question which I would like guidance on, perhaps from the Minister, and it really reveals my own ignorance. I suppose if there is a condition that a prisoner is compliant with the requirement of purposeful activity, one has to ask what is the consequence of non-compliance? Now my only friend, my noble friend, has addressed that, at least in theory, by her amendment 66, subsection two B, because she's contemplating very sensibly a report which might lead to the provision denying a prisoner early release for non-compliance.

But and this is the question, if there is no consequential legislation to that effect, other any existing statutory provisions or other binding provisions which would actually penalise a prisoner who is deliberately not complying with purposeful activity, which is made available because I think there should be. But if there isn't any such requirement, which can be enforced, in a sense, my noble friend's aspirations may prove to be ineffective. I Lord Dear. You will speak.
16:52
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
You're very kind. My, my, my >> You're very kind. My, my, my noble friend, Lord Hailsham. Second point illustrates his first point. Because if there is no purposeful activity available, how can one enforce the absence of an early release or sorry, the denial of an early release by virtue of a person's failure to comply with a purposeful activity? I wonder if I may briefly to go back to the late and much lamented Lord Ramsbotham, who in his book about prisons, and I know the Minister will have read this many times, he said that the three things that will reduce repeat offending are that a prisoner on release should have a place to live, to be able to return to a loving relationship and to have a job.

And I took that very much on board when I wrote a paper. Now, probably 15, nearly 20 years ago, entitled prisons with a purpose, I wrote it when I was the shadow Minister for prisons in the in the days when David Cameron was the my noble friend was the Leader of the Opposition, and I visited about 75 prisons, young offenders institutions and secure training units during the course of that time. And one of the things that struck me was that, yes, there were some wonderful examples of purposeful activity going on in a number of prisons.

But as my noble friend Lady Neville-rolfe has pointed out, it very much depended on the leadership of the prison. And if you have an inadequate governor, you had an inadequate regime within the prison and particularly within the education and training sections of that prison. And I noticed on just a few visits to a number of separate detention centres being taken with great pride by the governor on duty on that particular day to a workshop in a great big shed in this West Midlands prison.

It was a category C prison. I won't name it because things may well have changed by now, but in this workshop were adult men aged between 21 and goodness knows what. And they were making hairnets. Now, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a market somewhere for hairnets, but I equally had no doubt then, and I have no doubt now, that the prisoners in these workshops were never going to go out. Having been released to go and work in a hairnet factory.

So that was a that was just time filling. I went to another prison in Wales where I saw other male adult prisoners sorting blue plastic bits from green plastic bits and putting the blue ones in one tray and the green ones in the other tray. They were apparently parts of some electrical connection system, but again, these are the sorts of activities which were going to achieve nothing insofar as Lord Ramsbottom's provisos were to be complied with. I went to an open prison in the south of England, where, far from the prison and the prisoners and the prison officers taking advantage of the farmland and the garden, the market garden that they had within their premises, now long closed.

Of course, I found men playing cards behind the wheelbarrow sheds. And who else was in the card game but a couple of prison officers? Now, again, this is just time filling the. The problem is further exacerbated by prisoner churn. If you are sentenced, let's say, in Canterbury Crown Court and are sent to, let's say, Canterbury Prison that evening, within a few days or weeks, you will be then transferred in order to allow others to come in to Maidstone Prison.

And Maidstone Prison will be pushing in. It will be receiving prisoners receive from Maidstone Crown Court, so they will require the Canterbury prisoners who've been moved to Maidstone to move to Lewes, from Lewes to Southampton, from Southampton to Winchester, so that there is this jumbo jet, metaphorically speaking, of prisoners moving around the prisoner state. And how can they do any sensible activity? How can they go on any sensible course if, having barely started it, they are then moved to another prison? I am happy to advertise on behalf of Timpsons.

I have seen a number of their workshops at in operation in prisons up and down this country, and I have been served in shops by those who are graduates of the Timpsons in in house system within prisons. There people are learning a real job which can translate from inside the prison to to the high street. They can go out and earn a living, they can pay their rent, they can pay their taxes, and they can look after their dependents. That is the sort of work that we need to see done, and more of it in prisons.

And that is why I, I wholly applaud the amendment 65 and 67 advanced by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, because that hits the nail on the head. If we don't have real activity, really, genuinely purposeful activity in prisons, the whole thing is a sham. And you will then get repeat offenders coming in and out like a revolving door, and the prison population will simply grow and grow. So whether we vote on this or whether we don't vote on this, it's absolutely essential that the government gets a grip of the way in which training and education is dealt with within, within prisons.

I know, of course, the Minister personally knows this. He's known this for 30 years, but lots of people in government don't. And lots of people in the Treasury don't either. And they don't seem to realise that by reinforcing failure, junk in, junk out, all you're doing is wasting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public's taxes and not producing one ounce of public safety. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Sir, I better stand up quickly. While I could still take the pleasure of agreeing with everything that's been said so far everything that's been said so far in this group. So? So forgive me, in this group. So? So forgive me, Lord Moylan. I have amendment 98 in this group, which concerns remand, but I want to support every
16:59
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
but I want to support every sentiment I've heard so far about the other amendments that have been mentioned. In particular, I want to congratulate the right reverend Prelate, because I do think that it is important that sentences like legislators and the public are constantly reminded of the seriousness of incarceration and the justifications and purposes for it, namely public protection, rehabilitation, deterrence, and justice for victims, not political virtue signalling, which has too often been the purpose, in my view, over the last 30 years.

During an arms race that involves people from all sides of our, of our political discourse that is in no small part led to the crisis that we currently have in our in our criminal justice system, let alone the prison system. So I certainly I certainly support that. But if it's serious to incarcerate someone post-conviction, it is arguably just as or even more serious to incarcerate them when they are a presumed innocent person awaiting trial, potentially at the moment for a long time.

And so amendment 98, in my name, supported last time by the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, this time by. I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb 98 concerns this bizarre anachronism in the bailout whereby people can be detained pending trial for their own protection, even where the offence for which they will stand trial is not an imprisonable offence. Now, in my view, that is simply unconscionable and I think some of you may have been sent correspondence between my noble friend, the Minister and me, effectively the department and me at some back and forth that it's been collated by the by by the NGO justice.

And I declare an interest as a council member of that organisation which many noble Lords support. I know the what that correspondence seems to boil down to is the department's view is that in a very small number of cases, there is no no data on exactly what number of cases, but in a very small number of cases this is needed because there wouldn't otherwise be provision for this vulnerable person. No housing, no safe housing, and so on. And if that's true for a defendant, that would be true for a witness or another vulnerable person.

And so I don't see that that provides an adequate justification. It would be the equivalent, my Lords, of bringing back debtors prisons because of inadequacies in our social housing or our welfare state. And I don't think any of us would want to see that in 2026, as it now is now. I know, as far as I'm concerned, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a breath of fresh air in politics around these issues and in the department, and I've been so glad for his engagement on this and other and other issues.

And so what I'm hoping I know that the government is not currently able, it says, to repeal this provision, this anachronistic, slightly barbaric, actually provision in the Bail Act. But if he could at least indicate some ambition for a direction of travel where we could get more data and end up with adequate provision for protecting vulnerable people, whether they are witnesses or whether they are defendants? I would be I would be incredibly grateful to to hear that in his reply.
17:03
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm sorry that the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti was noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti was so quick to assume that I was going to say something with which she was going to, with which she was going to disagree. I, I hope, in fact, disappoint her. She might be able to agree with what I'm about to say. I added my name to the amendment number 52. I think it is in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with every detail of what her amendment says, but I the reason I added my name now and also in committee, is that I strongly believe that we do need greater clarity about what the purpose of prison is.

Now, other noble Lords have given some very good arguments and reasons as to why her amendment deserves support. I'm not going to repeat those. I'm just going to make one comment of my own and try to be very brief. And that is that there has been a change, a very big change. And I think it's included in this over the last 50 years, probably there was a notion certainly, I think still it was current when I was young that the purpose of prison was based on a sort of classical notion of justice, that is, that the the perpetrator had incurred a debt to society, a debt which was to be discharged by a fixed period of imprisonment.

And then that perpetrator was was free to go. But what we hear nowadays is we don't hear about that form of justice, what we hear about the rhetoric and the argument, and it appears across all parties. It's not an accusation against this government or this Minister, is that the purpose of prison is the protection of the public. Now, now, that is a hopeless case. It's it's hopeless, really, first of all, because it's logic with every prisoner being subject to an indefinite sentence, we're back to sort of the thinking about IPP prisoners to whom we're going to come later in the course of this evening.

But but if if the protection of the public is is what you're aiming at, then then that is that is the logic of where you're going. The second thing is it says nothing about the prisoner. It's entirely outward looking towards the public. So it leaves the prisoner there in prison. But to what purpose? As far as their, their, their activity, their their purpose while they are there. And that's why some of the suggestions made in the amendment to suggestions made also by other noble Lords in this debate about about activities for prisoners and facilities are so important.

And the third thing is, I think it has led to longer and longer. It's been one of the contributing factors to longer and longer sentences, because if you're constantly under pressure to think about protecting the public and you have a huge 25 year old man in front of you who's done something very violent, and you're going to have to think about protecting the public when you send him down, then you're going to have to think about quite a long sentence. If you're going to protect the public from this person before he ceases to be to be a danger to the public.

And I think that does add to the longer sentences, which are at the root of the problem that we are we are facing, and which this bill is to some extent intended to discuss, intended to address. So that's why I think we do need at some stage, and we won't complete this task in the course of this debate, obviously. But we need, I think, at some stage to have serious thought about about trying to get back to some notion of justice and querying this idea that the purpose of prison is and the purpose of the criminal justice system is the protection of the public because of because of the dangers.

I think that involves, it crept into our thinking without, in my view, a proper debate as to its consequences. And I do think it deserves some challenge.
17:08
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Thank you Lord. >> I feel the no. Lords Minister has probably been in your Lordships' House long enough to understand how rare this is, that we're actually getting a degree of unanimity from around the House on on the the amendments that we've on the the amendments that we've debated so far. And I will be the first to admit that I'm not particularly socially savvy when it comes to actually how people run the country, because, quite honestly, the idea that we put people in prison for their own protection when prison is actually a really dangerous place for vulnerable people to be.

And also, as I have told the noble Lord, the Minister before, I am extremely anxious about the people who are being put in prison on remand for so many months because people on remand face the poorest access to health, health care, the highest rates of self-harm, self-harm and are routinely held in most overcrowded and unstable parts of the prison estate. And courts have no control over which prison they go to and and for how long. And so it it seems to me that we are here trying to correct an injustice that vulnerable women and children are put into a prison where they are clearly not safe, is absolutely horrendous.

And so I would urge the the noble, the Minister, I know that there's an inquiry about this, but he is seeing and hearing from people who, who, who know about this, where the problems lie. And I'm sure he will take these back to Ministry of Justice. I do welcome the government's acknowledgement through the mental health bill that reminding people for their own protection on mental health grounds is wrong, but this power has to be removed completely. It really does not fit with a decent society, and I would be very happy to vote for quite a few of these amendments if they go forward.
17:10
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, really now for something completely different, and something completely different, and I'm not absolutely sure why my amendment 101 100 A is in this group at all. So I kind of group at all. So I kind of apologise for coming in at this stage when we're talking about such important matters. And the debate is really around those important matters, but it's important, in my view, that this amendment is at some stage debated, and this is the point where it's been put in.

So I apologise for that. I want to thank the Law Society very much for supporting my amendment and for the help that they've given. I also want to thank Zoe Coleman for her assistance to in this amendment. My Lords, the government's asylum statement, Restoring Order and control, a statement on the government's asylum and returns policy makes clear that reforms within the sentencing bill and this is the, quote, make foreign national offenders. And that's what my amendment is about.

Foreign national offenders eligible for immediate deportation from the first day of their prison sentence in the interests of access to justice. This amendment probes what access to legal advice and representation will be available to foreign national offenders who may now, of course, face immediate deportation. Clause 32 of our bill removes the requirement that a foreign criminal must serve a minimum pre removal custodial period before they can be deported from the UK. In practice, this means that the government will be able to deport a foreign national offender upon sentencing, the House will know that there was an early return scheme which allows allowed foreign criminals to be removed from prison before of their custodial sentence for purposes of immediate.

Yet previously, deportation was not immediate. There was a minimal custodial period of was longer of 50% of their requisite custodial period, or 18 months before their earliest release point earlier last year. Secondary legislation reduced this pre removal custodial period from 50% to 30%. The bill will now reduce the pre removal custodial period to 0%, meaning a foreign national offender will not need to serve any of their sentence here, or only a very minimal portion before deportation.

Despite the consequent tight, tight time frames, no provision is made for access to legal advice and representation. It's known that there are significantly more barriers for foreign nationals in prison to access legal advice and representation. The prison environment relies upon restriction and isolation from the outside world, hindering an individual's ability to access justice, and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2022 highlighted this in reviewing the experience of immigration detainees in prisons and, I quote, an inability to access and contact legal representatives created a risk that detainees were unable to fairly challenge the Home Office's decision to remove them.

My Lords, this amendment, therefore, probes what access to legal aid, advice and representation will be available to foreign national offenders who may now face immediate deportation from the first of their prison sentence. My Lords, there would undoubtedly be many people outside this House who will say, who cares? Who cares if these people have no right to legal aid advice? In effect, they deserve it. I'm arguing, and I would hope that that the House would be with me on this, that anyone who comes under the umbrella of English law, however evil or unpopular they might be, is entitled to legal advice when the situation they are in demands it.

It seems to me essentially an important part of the rule of law. Doesn't a foreign national offender becoming being immediately deported after sentence? Sound like someone who is in such a situation? How is a prisoner going to be able to appeal his sentence of deportation if they're removed at once or within a very short period in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act? This situation arose in the context of asylum seekers, whether in prison or in Ircs.

All parties, all parties in this House agreed that advice should be available. The noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, from the opposition front bench, said I. Column 115 on the 8th of September last. We on these benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. But Lords, the key issue is whether people will even be in prison for long enough to access the telephone legal advice scheme before they are removed or deported.

Under this bill's provisions, this amendment probes that point about how, where and when people with access. Such in scope legal aid services, how will they scope those legal aid services if there is no time for them to do so?
17:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
No fault of the noble Lord Lord >> No fault of the noble Lord Lord Bach, who's just explained why his amendments maybe shouldn't be in this group. But I'm not going to this group. But I'm not going to talk about what he's just said. I wanted to go back to the purpose of this group, which is to discuss the purpose of prison. And I just wanted to make a couple of quick points, which is that I think one of the problems I've had with the whole of this bill is that the issues of sentencing were originally motivated and framed by the Ministry of Justice as necessary because of an overcrowding crisis, and we were told that we had to reduce sentences or let people out early from sentences because there was too many prisoners in prison and there wasn't enough prisons built, and it was all the previous government's fault and all of that argument that went on.

But that that, in a way, has felt far too pragmatic to me in terms of discussing the very serious issue of who you put in prison and why, and what the purpose of prison is, which I think this small group has indicated that there's an appetite for that kind of discussion, and it is one of the reasons why I was particularly pleased to see the right reverend Prelate. Email. The Bishop of Gloucester email, email amendment tabled and supported by the noble Lord Lord Moylan, because I think that we heard from the noble Lord Lord Marks Henley on Thames in the earlier group, where he basically kind of set aside what we were discussing in Group two.

Say, by the way, we in these benches think that too many people are sent to prison for too long, that prison is generally terrible, and it leads to all these bad results. I I'm sorry, that's a caricature, and I'm not. I'm making the point that that's a debate that one can have, but it's just that this sentencing bill was set up as a how can we reduce the number of people in prison because there's too many prisoners and I think it's myself aloud, something of a muddle in some of the discussions that have gone on.

And I think that's why I've got reservations about it. I, I then would like to say that I think that the, the amendments by the Baroness Neville noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe on purposeful activity are very important because I think it does matter what prison is for, that it should be considered all the time. And by the way, we should remove from ourselves this notion that prison is always a horrendous situation. It is not meant to be a holiday camp on the one hand, but it is also the case that it is not meant to be something that is so horrendous that we say we can't send anyone there, which is effectively what we've done.

We basically said it's so awful, so sort of drowning in, you know, criminal activity, you know, ethnic minority gangs of all ethnicities ganging up against each other, ideological. Coercion going on. We hear about all the time in terms of Islamism, the fact that people are self-harming. It's so grim. If you read the chief inspector's reports, you would actually think, never send anyone there. But actually that is a disaster because we need a justice system in which we can be confident that we can send people to prison.

And whilst they're in prison, I think purposeful activity then becomes very important. I actually think that it's a it's a mistake to imagine that purposeful activity and education and training and so on are not happening because of overcrowding, because actually, since I've been interested in this issue, I haven't always been consistently happening in all prisons that have not been because of overcrowding or too many prisoners or all of these issues. I think that becomes a cop out. And so therefore, I was very pleased to see these amendments because they try and say, you've got to do this.

It's part of what prisons job is to do. And I would like to see that hardening up and no excuses given. The only thing I did want to slightly challenge, by the way, is that purposeful activity isn't always practical skills. You know, accredited training. And you can kind of go off and work in, in a practical job. I mean, I think purposeful activity can be, would you believe it, of the mind and in prison, I mean, the work that I've done is with debating competitions in prisons.

And the point is, is that it gives people things to think about other than fighting each other or all the awful conditions they've got. So it doesn't have to be. I think that was just a bit instrumental myself. Locked in the cells and bored is a recipe for disaster. I also wanted the one of my favourite kind of prison things that that initiatives that happen in is training therapy dogs, prisoners, actually taking pups and training therapy dogs. I know it's an expensive activity.

It happens in in limited number of prisons. It's actually often long term prisoners who may never get out who are doing it. But first of all, they're doing something very useful and practical. And also they become completely transformed by the fact they've got a purpose in prison, and they spend all of their time thinking about how they can rear the dogs, train them, get them ready, writing to the people they get sent to afterwards to see how they're getting on all of these things.

And some of them are in for life, right? But who cares? That is, it seems to me, a humane and useful, purposeful activity. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go and work. No disrespect in Timpson's there is more to life is the point I'm making. I do want people to be trained to get jobs, but I don't think purposeful activity should be narrowly confined to only that. In other words, to conclude, we need a proper debate in this country about the purpose of prisons.

We should not allow the state of prisons to mean that. We then start saying, we're not going to send anyone to prison, because that is absolutely disastrous for justice and for public protection. But also, I think the state should get over its incompetence and sort things out. And thirdly, I think that this sentencing bill has relied far too much on the problems of too many people in prison to then be seriously trusted in making decisions about what sentences people should get based on justice, rather than based on pragmatism,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I think is a mistake. My Lords. I speak to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I speak to amendment 71 to 73, in my name and in the names of the right reverend Prelate, names of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester, and my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, who unfortunately is unable to be here today. And I thank them both for today. And I thank them both for for their support. My Lords, the House will have seen that the amendments call for the establishment of an independent panel on sentencing and reducing re-offending, and I will not repeat in detail the arguments I made in committee, but I will summarise them.

The establishment of such a panel was a firm recommendation of the Gauke Review, and is a recommendation that we support. The point made by the review is that it would be of great value to government to have an independent body assembling evidence on what works in punishment, and advising government on sentencing policy. And that is, of course, a totally different function to the function of the Sentencing Council, which advises sentences on what sentences they should consider imposing within the context of the law.

As it stands, not only would such a panel assist government, but it would also assist. I suggest the public in understanding sentencing policy, what works and what doesn't, what the thinking is behind developments in prison policy, in probation and in community sentences more widely, and of course, on the resource implications of policy. The public is entitled to understand how public money is spent and what public expenditure achieves, as well as where that expenditure fails in its objectives.

And we have suffered. I suggest for a very long time from popular misunderstanding among press and public of the evidence in these fields, and I would suggest that an independent panel such as the Gauke Review recommended would do much to let in light on this difficult area. My Lords, the state of Texas, not often regarded as the most liberal of states in the Union in many ways as the noble and as the noble Lord. The Minister has reminded us that state has succeeded in closing prisons and in reducing crime by minimising reliance on imprisonment and introducing an earned progression model.

I would suggest that informing the public and advising government, and so ensuring that policy follows the evidence, are important functions of policy generally nowhere more so than in the field of criminal justice. And if Texas can move in that direction, so can we. On other amendments in the group, I'll just say a few words. I fully support the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord Lord Moylan on the importance of defining and being very clear about the purposes of imprisonment.

My Lords, our system accepts the concept of imprisonment without frankly being entirely clear of what the purposes of imprisonment are, and in that I agree with one of the points made by the noble Lady Baroness Fox. I also agree with her that her portrayal of my arguments earlier this afternoon were a caricature was, and her portrayal was inaccurate. But I do agree with her that we need to be very clear about what the purposes of prison are. And in that context, it's right that we've been reminded by the Noble and Leonard Lord Garnier this afternoon of the work of the late noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the area of the purposes of imprisonment.

I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe in every word that she said on the importance of education, skills, employment, and vocational training. And though I saw some difficulties with her amendments at committee, she softened them, as she said, and they're now worthy of complete support. Subject, though I suggest to the amendments 65 and 67, in the name of the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham, which have been accepted by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss emphasised the importance of making time in prison meaningful and productive.

Of course, prison is intended as and functions as as punishment, but it needs also to be thoroughly and carefully directed at turning offenders lives around. And so reducing re-offending. The noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier spoke of prisons with a purpose that is the object that should inform our entire approach to all elements of our penal system. The noble Lady, Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord bath have both highlighted important injustices. Baroness Chakrabarti are on remand and Lord Balfe on legal assistance for foreign offenders before deportation.

I close by expressing the hope that the government will respond to both their very specific, but completely justified point with a legitimate response.
17:30
17:30
17:30
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
these benches. We are supportive of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which focus on purposeful activity in custodial sentences and on ensuring that offenders do have access to suitable education and access to suitable education and training. On the question of defining the purpose of imprisonment as proposed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester, we welcome the recognition of rehabilitation as one of many purposes. At the same time, we note that this bill addresses the objectives of sentencing and imprisonment far more generally, and would question whether it is necessary to place a statutory definition on the face of the act.

My Lords, we remain opposed to the amendment tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti, to remove the court's power to remand a person in custody for their own protection, or, in the case of children or young people, for their welfare. As I observed at committee, this power is tightly circumscribed and used only in rare but very real circumstances, where it may be the only safe option available to the court, and removing that safeguard would potentially leave vulnerable individuals, including children, without protection, at a time when they most need it.

And I would take issue with the suggestion from the noble Lord Marks. This very limited power involves some element of injustice. My Lords, I would not agree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Bach, albeit I recognise that he may have been somewhat surprised to find himself in this group with an issue with regard to legal aid. But again, I acknowledge the important contributions from all noble Lords contributions from all noble Lords on this issue.
17:32
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
And I thank all the noble Lords who tabled amendments in this group. They speak to the fundamental questions about the purpose of the criminal justice system, and I recognise that a sincere desire to improve it underpins them. Amendment 71 to 73 raise important points about transparency and evidence based policy making. The government fully appreciates the sentiment behind these amendments. An independent body could offer valuable insight and security, and it is a concept that requires careful consideration. The Independent Sentencing Review recommended establishing an independent advisory board in the longer term.

It noted that it could help ensure a strategic, evidence based approach to the use of custody and provide transparency for the government and the public. We therefore, considering this recommendation carefully, as I hope your lordships will understand, creating such a panel requires detailed thought to ensure it fits coherently within the wider criminal justice system. And I want to assure your lordships House that the government is carefully considering this recommendation in detail. In the meantime, we will continue to publish comprehensive data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences on a quarterly basis.

Ultimately, our shared goal is a fair, sustainable justice system that protects the public and reduces reoffending. This bill is a key step towards that and I hope this reassures. This reassurance enables the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. I appreciate the sentiment of amendment 52 proposed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord Moylan, as well as the thoughtful contribution from our noble friend Lord Carter. However, I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is necessary.

This is because the five existing purposes of sentencing must already be considered by the court when imposing all sentencing disposals, including imprisonment. We are not aware of any gap in law or practice that would justify introducing a separate purpose of imprisonment into statue. I also share the ambition of the noble Baroness Neville Rolfe, and the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss and Baroness Fox and the noble Viscount Hailsham. And thank you for your service with the Independent Monitoring Board to ensure time in custody is used productively to support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending, I have dedicated many years of my working life to this, setting up workshops in prisons so offenders leave custody ready for employment.

However, making participation mandatory for every custodial sentence would be impractical and in some cases counterproductive. Prisons populations vary widely, and rehabilitation works best when voluntary and tailored to individual needs. Many prisoners face educational trauma, neurodivergence mental health challenges or are nearing retirement age. Some prisoners have many or even all of these. A blanket statutory requirement risks undermining genuine engagement. That said, we are not standing still. Last year, over 50,000 prisoners took part in education, marking a 10% rise year on year.

We are expanding digital tools like launchpad to increase prisoner access to educational content, and I look forward to showing the noble Baroness some of the work in progress on a joint visit. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble and learned Lord Garnier as to the importance of employment for rehabilitation. That is why we are increasing work opportunities through prison industries and opening workshops with employers such as Halfords, Greene King and Marston's. Our new working week pilot in five prisons will further boost purposeful activity and strengthen links with businesses to improve employment prospects.

On release, we publish prison performance data that includes attendance and progress in English and maths by prison, and we publish the percentage of prisoners in purposeful activity in each prison. In the prison Performance framework. This takes me on to the legal aid need in order to lodge deportation appeals, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment to the Bill. I recognise and pay tribute to his long standing experience, expertise and contributions in the area of legal aid, both as a Minister and as a chair of the Commission to Review Legal Aid and Access to Justice, which bore his name.

I want to reassure the noble Lord that legal aid is already available to appeal a sentence, and in other circumstances set out in the amendment. I therefore do not think this amendment is necessary, and I recognise that this legislation makes changes to the early removal scheme. We are working closely with His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service and the Home Office to make sure the new arrangements take account of the need for some prisoners to have access to legal aid. We will, of course, also continue to keep under review the overall effectiveness of operational processes regarding access to legal aid in prison.

I would like to thank my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti for tabling amendment 98 and for writing to me, setting out her considered effort on this. Repealing this would remove an important safeguard that, although used very infrequently, remains an option for the courts as a last resort and out of concern for the defendant. For example, if an individual could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected. I know my noble friend and the noble Lady Baroness Jones would like more transparency of the use of this measure.

The Ministry of Justice currently publishes court remand data within the criminal justice statistics. However, source information on reasons for remand is not currently available. However, we are continuing to monitor and assess the quality of the data captured on the reasons for remand. This will enable us to publish more detailed data in the future, which I think will be really helpful. The Mental Health Bill, which has now received Royal Assent, ends the use of remand for own the Bail Act, where the court's sole concern is the defendant's mental health, is good news.

This reform ensures remand for own protection, is only used as a last resort for a short period, and where no reasonable alternatives have been found, and it has been found by the High Court to be compatible with article five of the European Court of Human Rights. I am grateful for my noble friends challenge on this. I want to go further and am in the process of organising a cross-government round table to discuss how we can reduce the number of people who remanded for their own protection.

I would be delighted if my noble friend would support me in these endeavours. I thank noble Lords for raising these important points, but respectfully ask that these amendments be withdrawn.
17:38
17:39
None Portrait Amendment:g53 Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-

I beg to move. Amendment 53. I must begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for raising this important issue. I also thank the Shadow Minister of Justice for justice. In the other place, a whole life order is the most severe form of punishment. The courts can impose. The sentencing framework for murder already provides the whole life order is normally the appropriate starting point for the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of their duty.

I am pleased to confirm that amendment 53 with broadening the current whole life order starting point. This will mean that it applies where the motivation for the murder is connected to the current or former duties of a police officer, prison officer or probation officer. This could apply to revenge killings such as the tragic murder of former prison custody officer Lenny Scott, where the murder occurs for reasons connected to the duties of a current or former officer, but not while the officer is acting in the course of duty.

I look forward to meeting with Lenny's family soon. Amendment. Amendment 53 also expands a whole life order starting point to include probation officers. A whole life order will become the normal starting point for the murder of a probation officer in the course of duty, or where it is motivated by the current or former duties. We recognise the unique and dangerous job that police, prison and probation officers do. They? They perform a distinctive role with routine contacts with dangerous offenders in difficult situations, and I am proud to call them colleagues.

We want to ensure that the exceptional seriousness of murders, motivated by their work are expressly recognised in the sentencing framework for murder. I would like to conclude by thanking both noble Lords and Members of Parliament for advocating for this change, and the family of Lenny Scott for so admirably advocating for their son. I am pleased we've been able to work together to bring about this change, and given the government's amendment, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord will be content to withdraw amendment 62.

I will now turn to amendment 89 and thank noble Lords for the points of concern they raised about this clause during the committee debate. These echo the concerns raised by many throughout the passage of this bill. I have listened carefully and recognise the issues raised. I am satisfied that current delivery of unpaid work, bolstered by the wider provisions in this bill, means that unpaid work will continue to be tough and visible enough without the addition of this specific measure, as unpaid work often involves physically demanding work out in the community.

It is, by its very nature a visible form of punishment. Moreover, the public is involved in nominating unpaid work projects, and local agencies are consulted on the suitability of projects. Beneficiaries such as charities and local councils often publicise the positive work that goes on in this space. Wider measures in the bill aim to increase the effectiveness of unpaid work by streamlining processes and incentivising offenders to comply with and engage in their placement. These come alongside a suite of changes which ensure robust management of offenders in the community more generally.

These include introducing new community requirements available to the courts to punish offenders. This includes banning them from certain activities, restricting their movements to ban them from attending bars, pubs, clubs, sport events and concerts, and increasing tagging upon release. It is on this basis that I accept the noble Lords Amendment to leave out clause 35 from the Bill. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I hope noble Lords agree that this is the right course of action. I beg to move.
17:43
17:44
17:45
17:45
17:45
17:46
17:47
None Portrait Amendment:g54
-

help to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when considering any request from the council. Our amendments seek to add important safeguards to both processes and to increase their transparency, and we are particularly grateful to the Lords Constitution Committee for the recommendation concerning clause 18, which has informed and inspired our approach of the government through these amendments. Can I first turn to the concerns that have been raised about the consequences for the Council? If the Lord Chancellor were to reject a request to approve a proposed business plan? As I explained at Committee, clause 18 provides the Lord Chancellor with the opportunity to review a business plan before it is finalised.

This ensures that the council has appropriately considered priorities from the government and Parliament in developing the business plan. This should help to give the Council a greater understanding of the Lord Chancellor's priorities and help minimise the risk of disagreement later on during guideline development. If the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 55 requires them to notify the Council and, as soon as practicable, lay a document before Parliament stating their reasons for that decision, and amendments 56 and 57 make similar provision in respect of sentencing guidelines.

Taken together, the government's amendments will ensure that any reasons for rejecting a business plan or guideline are publicly available and drawn to the attention of Parliament. This is an important commitment to accountability and will increase the transparency of both approval processes. And I must make clear, since this is a point that was raised at committee, that nothing in this clause is intended to prevent the Council from carrying out its statutory functions in the event that a business plan was to be questioned or rejected.

Can I next turn to the concerns arising from clause 19 requirement that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must each individually approve definitive sentencing guidelines before the Council can publish them? We want to make it clear on the face of the bill, that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected. Amendments 56 and 57 therefore provides that guidelines can only be rejected in instances necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Our intention, our intention is that a rejection only occur in very rare cases when it is truly, truly necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. And it is absolutely not our intention for guidelines to be rejected arbitrarily. It is with that in mind that we have put these safeguards in place. I hope noble Lords will recognise that this approach represents a significant constraint on any involvement in the guidelines, and will help safeguard against any guide guidelines being rejected without a proper justification, and in requiring approval from both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice.

It is the government's intention for there to be close collaboration between the two on any approval requests from the Council. In drafting this measure, we have also had regard to their existing joint responsibilities for the Council, including, for example, the appointment of its members. We are keen to ensure parity between them in respect of the approval of guidelines. Finally, we are also keen to provide assurance that the council's work will not be subject to unnecessary delays. Again, a concern raised at committee through amendments 54, 56 and 57.

We are therefore proposing that any approval requests from the Council are to be considered by the Lord Chancellor and, in the case of the guidelines, the Lady Chief Justice, as soon as practicable. We remain very grateful, and I should stress this to the Council for its continued work in bringing greater consistency, transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process. And we look forward from the government's perspective to working closely with the Council in the months ahead. I beg to move.
17:52
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 18, page 36, line 18 at end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. recollect. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. At committee. Stage I supported an amendment which would have an amendment which would have removed clause 18 from the bill altogether, and whilst also suggesting that clause 19 would be best removed, laid an amendment to the effect that a guideline could the effect that a guideline could be prevented from being issued only if both the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed that that should happen. I'm grateful to both the noble Lord Lord Lemos and the noble Lord, Lord Timson, for the time and trouble they've taken in discussions which have included both me and my noble and learned friend, Lord Thomas of Neath.

And I'm also particularly relieved that Lord Lemos has explained that in the all peers letter that went round. Forgive me, I don't remember the precise date before Christmas, which drew attention to the fact that both the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice had been engaged in these amendments, that that should not be taken in any way as suggesting that either are happy with them or supported with them, or supported them. Indeed, on the 25th of November, before Christmas, the Lady Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, and she explained that the clauses that we're concerned with do not sit easily with the independence of the Sentencing Council.

She explained that there were no conceivable circumstances in which the lady Chief Justice or Lord Chief Justice would seek to exercise the veto, and she also made the point, an important point that the mood of the Sentencing Council is quotes pretty bleak. Close quotes. Because of the uncertainty hanging over its head. And that was particularly important, as she explained, because the sentencing Council is due to be very busy, it's going to be busy revising sentencing guidelines that will be necessary as a result of the contents of this bill, particularly because of the reduction in the use of suspended sentences.

And also it will be busy if the proposals that the government has foreshadowed to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates come to be enacted because, again, guidelines will have to be changed to reflect that. But nonetheless, as I've said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord in committee agreed to consider these matters further, and I am particularly grateful for the care with which he and Lord Timpson have treated my concerns. My Lords, I regret, if I may say so, that His Majesty's Government was not able to accept the amendments that I laid at committee stages.

Because these clauses remain unfortunate, to put it as mildly as I can. Clause 18 requiring a business plan to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, might be thought to serve no obvious purpose, save to empower the Lord Chancellor to exert some pressure on the Sentencing Council. But as the noble Lord Lord Lemos has just explained to the House that pressure will have no statutory effect, and that's because the government has accepted and accepted just now that the Sentencing Council would still be obliged to carry out the positive statutory duties laid upon it by statute, and to exercise the discretionary powers conferred on it by statute.

But at least if the Lord Chancellor is to exert pressure, pressure, which is, in my respectful opinion, continues to be inconsistent with the independence of the Sentencing Council, he must at least do so as soon as practicable. That's a positive step. And explain himself. And that too is a positive step. My Lords, clause 19 is now proposed to be amended. Remains, and this should not be sugarcoated. A potential executive veto that veto too, if it is to come, must now come as soon as practicable, and the grounds upon which it can be exercised have been identified.

And I recognise that that is a an improvement, if perhaps only a slight improvement on the original drafting, as Lord Lemos has explained, there is perhaps a hope and indeed expectation that the government within the government that these powers will never be used in a way which brings conflict between the government and the Sentencing Council and conflict between the government and the Lady Chief Justice. But, my Lords, when conferring powers, it's important to contemplate how they might be used by others in the future who perhaps are not so benign in their attitudes as the current government and Lord Chancellor.

And so, my Lords, the government has, as it seems to me, laid the foundations for what could be the destruction of the Sentencing Council through executive interference, where such interference to occur. I fear that the Sentencing Council would actually cease to function for the simple reason that all of its members, all fiercely independent, would leave. My Lords, I concluded that there would be no purpose in relaying my amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lords, both Ministers, for the tentative steps that have been taken to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and for that reason I support them.

for that reason I support them.
17:59
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it would appear the noble Lord Marks has that he will make some submission. Well, that apparent position represents the truth. First of all, my Lords, I agree and in a sense have only very little to add to the speech of the Netherlands and Lord Lord Burnett. Your lordships will remember that I moved that both clauses 18 and 19 should not stand part of the bill at committee. However, that said, I join with the noble Lord in thanking both Lord Timpson and Lord Lemos for their engagement with us on some compromise position.

I'm not sure that this represents an entire compromise of their position, because I still feel that the bill would be better off without these clauses. However, that said, Lord Lemos has explained that the intention is entirely benign. I share Lord Burnett's concern that other governments may not take such a benign view, but express the hope that that will not eventuate. The safeguards now in the clauses are certainly sufficient to dissuade us from attempting to remove the clauses altogether at this stage, but I would just say this if it were to turn out that the independence and functioning of the Sentencing Council were to be seriously compromised by the fetters now put upon its power, that would be extremely worrying.

I repeat what I've said before, that the Sentencing Council does extremely important work. It performs its functions with creditable independence, and it's a very significant body indeed. I hope that nothing will happen as a result of these clauses to kerb that independence or the effectiveness of the Sentencing Council.
18:01
Viscount Eccles Portrait Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
-
-
I, I would just like to make a very short intervention before my frontbench replies. I do believe that we should remember that Farage, in a chance remark, more or less a chance remark, said he thought that the council should be abolished. And so I think the issues raised by Lord Burnett are very important, and I very much admire the detailed presentation to your house that he made on these clauses.

I am grateful for what I would regard as a rescue mission on which the government has gone to make the best of a bad job, and certainly the hair that was run in March last year, to which the government made its reply, was a very unfortunate hair. It was something to do with two tier justice. And I must say, I do think it would have been better to let that hair run has run in circuits and they come back to where they started and very often everything settles down.

And instead of that, we have had to have some very careful work done to get us to where we are. And I'm sure the house is great. I think all over the house we will be grateful that the Sentencing Council has, in effect, received a vote of confidence and we were looking for that. And we're very grateful that it has happened. But I don't think we should forget the rather troubled way in which the two parties, which have the greatest experience of government and the implementation of policy, got themselves into a tangle quite unnecessarily.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm obliged to the noble Lords and Ministers for their engagement on this issue. But we engagement on this issue. But we should bear in mind that our statutory provisions are designed statutory provisions are designed to address powers and not intentions, and it is certainly intentions, and it is certainly questionable whether we should be enacting provisions which we consider will never be used. They are on the statute book and they are available for use.

I'm obliged to the noble and learned Lord Barnett for outlining the issues here. The language he used was indicative of the reservations that we all have with regard to this course of action. Unfortunate, inconsistent. A slight improvement. It's not a ringing endorsement of
18:05
18:06
18:07
18:07
None Portrait Amendment:g58 Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-

58 Lord Timpson. And. >> I beg to move amendment 58. My Lords, in my first month in this job, I told you Lordships House, that this government would introduce a new standard of transparency. We've demonstrated this by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity last December. This amendment goes further by making it a statutory requirement to lay the statement before Parliament each year, when the requirement to publish an annual capacity statement comes into force, we will also repeal section section five of the Prison Act 1952.

This is to ensure that there are no duplications or overlaps in statute between the new duty and section five of the 1952 act. I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord foster, for raising this issue during Committee stage and his continuous engagement, since to help keep transparency at the heart of our approach, the government resisted the noble Lords Amendment because we want to retain the necessary flexibility on timing for publication and content. The 2024 annual statement included a section on probation capacity, and the 2025 statement will do the same.

We agree that probation capacity is an essential part of understanding pressures across the criminal justice system. The government already published detailed statistics about the prison and probation workforce on a quarterly basis. This contains detailed information about both prison and probation staffing. This was last published in November and I encourage noble Lords to review it carefully. I am happy to commit that we will continue to publish this information. I agree that probation, staffing and caseloads are important metrics. We know the risk profile and probation caseload is dynamic and can change over time, so these metrics do not by themselves provide the full picture, retaining flexibility over how probation capacity is presented allows the statement to evolve, reflect changes in delivery, and ensures that the information provided remains genuinely informative for Parliament.

However, I am happy to commit that probation will form a part of the annual capacity statement in the future, and I can also commit to provide regular updates to noble Lords on our plan to rebuild the probation service. I thank the noble Lords who came to the presentations I gave yesterday. I recognise the close interest, the probation trade unions in amendment 134. Trade unions play a vital role in representing their members, and I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations.

We also recognise His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder, and I meet up regularly with Martin Jones. But it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny, and it would harm, not help, the justice system to prevent vital measures in this bill from being commenced. Many of these measures alleviate the pressure on both prisons and probation, and it would be counterproductive to delay their introduction.

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Farmer that evaluating policies is key to achieving objectives such as reducing reoffending, and I hope noble Lords are reassured by the fact that reducing reoffending is so important to me that I got it added to my job title. This is why the Ministry of Justice publishes proven reoffending statistics on a quarterly basis. Our analysts are scoping how we can monitor and evaluate the Sentencing Bill measures across a range of outcomes, including reoffending rates.

We keep the sentencing framework under ongoing review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. I can assure the noble Lords that we will, of course, continue to do so in the future, taking account of the available evidence, including changes introduced by this bill. The evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence order re-offend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. However, there are many factors that go into whether someone re-offends creating artificial targets will not support hard working frontline staff trying to improve the system.

In fact, it would bring considerable uncertainty to those staff. That is not helpful either. Of course, we keep the sentencing framework under ongoing review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. I can assure noble Lords that we will, of course, continue to do so in the future, taking account of the available evidence, including changes introduced by this bill. I look forward to updating the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Jamieson on the evidence we gather as it comes through. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for the continued advocacy for child cruelty.

Register and I pay tribute to Helen Grant MP and to Paula Hudgell, for campaigning to protect children from the appalling abuse inflicted on Paula's adopted son, Tony. As I set out at committee, we are already taking decisive action in Crime and Policing Bill in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect our children from those who would commit abhorrent crimes against them. Further, work is needed to identify the best way to close the gap that Paul has rightly identified. So we are not in a position to accept this amendment at this time.

This week, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls is meeting. Policing leads to get their insights about how register with notification requirements would work in practice. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that government Ministers will continue to pursue this issue vigorously with those reassurances. I hope that at this stage, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I now move on to amendment 97. I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his contributions to the debate around justice in Wales and for taking the time to meet me and officials.

Despite the challenging period we are facing across the prison estate in England and Wales, prisons in Wales have performed well in their inspections by His Majesty's Inspectorate. North Wales Probation Delivery Unit stood out as the highest performing PDU across England and Wales in their inspection in November 2025. All Welsh prisons have robust action plans in place to ensure continued improvement. There are clear strengths in leadership and governance in Wales, but the criminal justice system works in Wales because it is part of a wider system.

The Noble and Lord Low Report on Justice in Wales, published in 2019, spoke of the interface between devolved and reserved services in Wales. The partial devolution of criminal justice would create a new interface between these services and reserved matters such as sentencing, policing and the criminal law. We should continue to examine ways in which things can be done better. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, the government has committed in its manifesto to undertake a review of probation governance, and we will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government on commitments on justice and Wales.

However, it is important that the recommendations of the Sentencing Review and the review of criminal courts are implemented and that we bring stability into the Prisons and Probation Service in England and Wales. Before undertaking any structural review. I therefore ask that he withdraws those amendments. I am grateful to all the noble Lords for their thoughts and engagement, particularly on the importance of probation capacity. Noble Lords know that I believe that the work of our hardworking probation practitioners has gone underappreciated for too long.

I am committed to rebuilding the probation service, and our future Probation Service programme aims to deliver measures to rebalance demand and capacity by April 2027. In addition to the assurance embedded within this within the programme, I am personally overseeing progress through regular meetings with senior officials to monitor progress and will update

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords on that progress. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
18:15
18:15
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Foster of Bath. >> During the various deliberations on the passage of this bill, I have on a number of occasions expressed the great support for many of the measures within the legislation. The proposed legislation, but at the same time a concern that we may not have the means to deliver the ends, and in particular, concern that we would not have the right number of sufficiently inadequately trained staff within both the prison and within the probation service.

And I've suggested on previous occasions, therefore, that it would be appropriate that not only do we look at the, for example, the number of prisoners and the number of prison places, but we at the same time are looking at the number of staff in both the prison and probation service. And that's particularly important because if many of the measures in this legislation go ahead, then they will increase demands on both of those services. More tagging, for instance, having to be taken up and of course, more people hopefully engaging in a wider range of activities in our prisons and in non-custodial sentences to reduce re-offending.

And the two amendments, the first two amendments in my name, therefore simply propose adding those two issues staffing in probation and prison service into the amendment that has now been proposed by the noble Lord, the Minister. However, I am reasonably confident, in the light of the comments that the Minister has made, not only about the assurance that there will be a continuation of the quarterly reports, but that also there will be a bringing together of the data from that and the report, the annual report that we're going to get as a result of this amendment that we have probably got up to the point where we will have the relevant information in a very transparent way.

And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for the discussions that we've had on this particular issue. So, my Lords, I'm not going to press my amendments to a vote, but I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he's gone. I would just say to him, it does seem to me slightly difficult to understand why simply adding in the bits I proposed has not been done, but I know that the Minister really wants to make this work.

I believe he's going to achieve that. I hope he will. And so I shall not be pressing these amendments to a vote. pressing these amendments to a vote.
18:19
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I've tabled 97 A, which is again about probation capacity, and I know the noble Lord, the Minister has done his best to convince us, and I completely understand that his business drive and determination is going to do the absolute best possible for this, this problem. But I remain unconvinced that the concerns raised by peers during Committee stage and by probation staff themselves have been properly addressed. And it is interesting that noble Lord, Lord foster, is not going to push his amendments to a vote.

And I certainly won't push this to a vote. But I do want to I do want to say that at committee, the government argued that this amendment would risk duplicating existing reports and risk delaying reforms. And I don't quite see that because I think that this amendment is not about producing more data for its own sake. It's about independence, assurance at arm's length from Ministers and operational management that the probation service has the capacity to safely absorb the additional demands that this bill will place on them.

Quarterly staffing statistics published by Probation Service are not the same thing as a system wide assessment at arms that the probation service has the capacity to safely absorb the additional demands that this bill will place upon it. And secondly, the amendment balances investment plans. The Minister at referred at Committee to the recruitment of trainee probation officers, to digital innovation and to welcome investment over the spending review period. And we heard as well yesterday from the Minister himself at a briefing about those issues and all of that's positive, but none of it guarantees that capacity is adequate at the point of commencement of new statutory duties.

And the organisation justice also say that the number of probation officers said to be recruited would be inadequate, and I'd be very grateful if the Minister could tackle that problem. The inadequacy of of numbers, because, of course, recruitment takes time. Trainees take time to qualify, technology takes time to embed and to get right. And in the meantime, probation officers are working under extraordinary pressure, managing high risk individuals with caseloads that are already too high. Thirdly, the argument that this amendment would delay reforms misunderstands its purpose because if it delays reform, then it is necessary that the reforms are not not enough.

So carrying on with huge changes, regardless of capacity doesn't strengthen probation, it weakens it and increases risks to staff. So Parliament's being asked to legislate for significant new demands on the probation service. Without this independent assurance by Her Majesty's. What's it? Majesty's government? Thank you. Not government. Probation organisation to that it's actually happened and that it's going to work and it's going to fit. So I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Foster's amendments.

But I will, of course, withdraw mine. I just hope the noble Lord Minister feels he has the backing of the House for everything he's trying to do. And if we're raising concerns, it's only from a point of view of wanting to make it perfect.
18:22
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you for. >> Giving me. >> My Lords. I rise to speak to amendment 70, which Lord Jackson, who cannot be here today, led on in committee and I have signed and which would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on how this act has affected reoffending rates. And I do appreciate the Minister's introductory and encouraging remarks. This amendment would also create a feedback loop into the policy making process by halting various provisions in the act.

If certain metrics are not achieved on the data. I am aware that reoffending statistics, which differentiate between custodial and community or suspended sentences, are routinely collected and published every quarter. As the noble Lord, the Minister, reminded us just now. In fact, during the Committee stage debate, I am also aware of the evidence that those given a community or suspended sentence order re-offend less. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for responding at very short notice to my request for data to rehearse the compelling arguments for the presumption of non-custodial sentences of less than a year, the one year proven reoffending rate for adults starting a suspended sentence order with requirements in quarter three, 2023 was 25% of those released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or fewer, 62% re-offended within a year.

Importantly, robust analysis that compares like offenders with like also shows that suspended and community sentences are more effective than short custodial sentences with a difference of four percentage points. Even where offending has been prolific, they pack a greater punch in reducing reoffending and promoting rehabilitation. All this is to say that I, like many other noble Lords, really want this presumption to bear more of the above fruit because a large body of research shows that even where short custodial sentences are the only recourse, they often fail to rehabilitate.

We are also aware that we cannot build our way out of our long standing prison capacity crisis, and that requires keeping people out of prison, where a non-custodial sentence is the most effective. Disposal. Despite public demand for punishment to mean deprivation of liberty, many simply and understandably want offenders to be removed from our streets, not least so victims know where they are and are unlikely to see them at large. Hence this amendment in a group concerned with transparency of the criminal justice system, we do need to finesse the wording.

I agree that referring to, quote, the impact of this act on reoffending, unquote, presents a minefield for researchers as reoffending is affected by many factors. However, there does need to be a proper stocktake in the aftermath of introducing a presumption that will make a custodial sentence far less likely. My main point is that I and the public will assume it is more likely than not that this presumption will derisk crime for offenders, knowing they will receive a community or suspended sentence order will surely be a less fearful outcome than imprisonment.

We are all aware of how prolific shoplifting has become now that police are not even attending. Hence, and crucially, previous data might not be reliable in this new sentencing world. Therefore, the public need to know not only that this experiment will be evaluated and reported on. As the noble Lord, the Minister has assured us it will be, but also that it will be called off if necessary on this amendment. We also need to finesse whether these reforms are only given two years to bed in, or if the 10% reduction in reoffending pass or fail rate is appropriate.

However, the fact that these details need ironing out should not preclude amending this bill so that there is clarity for the public that steps will be taken to roll this presumption back if proves ineffective or even harmful, I will not be pushing this for a vote.
18:27
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
It was indeed give way to Lord Farmer and to all the way to Lord Farmer and to all the work he has done in prisons. You may wonder why this particular amendment about Wales is in a section about transparency. And I wondered too. But I think there's an answer to which I shall come. I'd first thought it was just Wales as an afterthought. We just put them in somewhere where they don't really matter. But there is a reason why it's there now.

I'm very, very grateful to the Ta Lord Timpson, the Minister, for the discussion I had with him in relation to the amendment I put forward in committee, which was an amendment designed to achieve the devolution just of the probation and related services. And then when that amendment was debated, I'm extremely grateful to Lord Lemos, who in his usual extraordinarily courteous and perceptive manner, pointed out the fallacy of what I was suggesting, namely, that one was devolving part of an entire system of offender management.

They had to. You had to run probation and prisons together. The Welsh Government had thought you should just take probation. The commission I chaired took the view that actually there were two integrated parts. So I entirely agree with law with Lord Lemos and am grateful for him having made transparent the objection to the Welsh Government's proposal, namely that you can't evolve part. And so I put forward this amendment, which seeks to devolve the whole operation provision, probation and prison services.

And then I did did so on the basis. Well, at least that gets over one objection of Her Majesty's Government to the devolution of the justice system to Wales. What part of it? Normally the objection is, well, we know how to do things in Whitehall. They don't know how to do things in Cardiff. Let's leave it here. But there was. Now it is quite clear, another and very substantial objection. That is if you devolve offender management, both probation and prisons, you're devolving just part of the criminal justice system.

So you can't do that either. And so I'm very grateful to Lord Timpson for making transparent that objection. And it's a bit like trying to abstract teeth to find out why the Labour government opposes what the Labour in London opposes, what the Labour government in Cardiff wants, and transparency is of particular importance, as in about four months time, Wales goes to the polls and one ought to know where on such an important issue, such as criminal justice, the government stands.

Hence the the decision to put this debate into transparency was completely the right place to put it, because it is now transparent. What has never been made transparent before, what the objections of Her Majesty's Government in London, as opposed to the government in Cardiff, are to dealing with the criminal justice system. Now, why is it, therefore you need to devolve the criminal justice system, particularly the bit relating to offender management, and that is as is set out in the report of the Commission.

I had the honour to chair in four short paragraphs, a paragraph 4.2280 to 4.283. There is an approach in a small nation that is vastly better than the approach being adopted here in England, and that is to ensure you have a system which radically rethink the way, as Lord Moynihan described earlier today, the way in which our sentencing process works. If you look at small nations and the Commission looked at what happened in other small nations, a small nation may be able to have a system where you spend less on sending people to prison for a long time, which is what we do in England, but not quite as bad as some other nations.

But we're pretty bad at it. And look again at an integrated system where you think, can we use shorter prison sentences? Can we use the resources for keeping people out of prison, and particularly to stop them ever embarking on a criminal career, and by bringing together youth services, educational services, health services and the like? And that's why, in a sense, looking at offender management, which was the purpose of this amendment, or was thought to be at least let's devolve that because one can at least try and move some of the resources that are spent on prisons into a much more productive area.

But at least I now know that that is not an option, because for reasons I completely agree with, you need to devolve everything. And so what? In moving this amendment and putting this issue before the House, which is of vital importance to Wales because of the decision, which may be very impactful on what happens to the government of the United Kingdom. It is important there is transparency because the report that I the report of the Commission I chaired has never had a response from the government in England to its proposals, but at least now we have yet one more reason why they're opposed and why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their opposition is wrong. My Lords. I rise to speak briefly to amendment 97. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to which I have added of Cwmgiedd, to which I have added my name. The case for devolving prisons and probation to Wales has already been eloquently made by the already been eloquently made by the noble Lord. So I'll confine my remarks to three points. First, prison policy in England and Wales continues to be developed largely through an English lens, with insufficient recognition of the realities in Wales.

Many of the services on which effective sentences depends health, housing and substance misuse support are devolved. This creates a fragmented system most sharply felt at the point of release. Release from custody is precisely where reserved and devolved responsibilities collide. The number of people released into homelessness from Welsh prisons rose by 34% in 2024 to 2025, and probation staff themselves warn that without major reform and investment, the ambitions of this bill can't be delivered. So I ask the Minister, how does His Majesty's Government intend to manage this persistent, jagged edge between reserved and devolved responsibilities? Secondly, Wales has no women's prison, meaning Welsh women are routinely sent to serve short sentences in England, most for under 12 months.

At the same time, Wales has one of the highest imprisonment rates in Western Europe, while a significant proportion of those held in Welsh prisons are from England. And against that backdrop, plans to expand capacity at HMP Parc have been approved despite serious concerns about safety. So my additional question is how does His Majesty's Government justify expanding prison capacity in Wales without addressing the systematic issue of Welsh women being imprisoned far away from their families and support networks, or aligning responsibility for the devolved services on which it depends.

Thirdly, Welsh speaking prisoners continue to report neglect of their language rights. Were prisons in Wales accountable to the Senedd? Stronger Welsh language duties would apply. Can the Minister explain how the current arrangements adequately protect the use of the Welsh language within prisons in Wales? And to close, with a snap election imminent? As already mentioned, clarity from His Majesty's Government is essential. So, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to oppose the full devolution of prisons and probation to Wales in principle, or whether it is willing to establish a structured process with the Welsh Government to consider how the devolution could be achieved.
18:37
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. Well done. >> Yeah. Well done. >> My Lords. I will speak briefly in support of amendment 58, which introduces an annual report on prison capacity. This is an issue that we pressed at committee, and I'm grateful to the government for having listened and for bringing forward this amendment. The amendment places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of people in custody, the number of available prison places, and projected changes.

That is a welcome and important step if Parliament is being asked to legislate for significant changes to sentencing and release policy, it is only right that we are also given a regular and transparent account of the state of the business state that underpins those decisions. Ideally, my Lords, we would have liked this report to go further. There is a strong case for including more detailed information on the drivers between sentencing policy, probation capacity and reoffending. However, I recognise that the government faces a balancing act between the need for transparency and the administrative constraints of producing such reports, and I would accept that the amendment strikes a reasonable and proportionate compromise.

Turning to amendment 92 and the issue of the child cruelty, register again, I thank the government for their ongoing communication on this important topic and their assurances that they would like to implement a policy in support of a child cruelty register. This is an issue for which my right hon. Friend Helen Grant from the Other place has campaigned tirelessly, and I would pay tribute to her for the effort she has made in bringing this to the forefront of our legislative proposals.

It has been requested that this amendment be reserved for a Home Office bill, rather than legislation from the Ministry of Justice, and in these circumstances, and having regard to that undertaking from the government, I will withdraw the amendment in my name. But I add that it will be tabled in subsequent legislation in this parliamentary session to ensure that we do not delay in ensuring that action is taken with regard to amendment 97 and the submissions from the Noble Amendment.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, I can only say that I hesitate to intrude. To the west of Offa's.
18:40
18:41
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to >> My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 63, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby and my noble friend Lord Garnier. And I am very grateful to both distinguished noble Lords who have years of experience in the criminal justice experience in the criminal justice for supporting this amendment. This amendment seeks to address an anomaly in the criminal justice system. As the law currently stands, the justice system treats a defendant according to their age on the date of their first appearance in court, rather than their age at the time of the offence.

The result is that a child who commits an offence, for example, 15, 16 or 17 years of age, may be sentenced as an adult if proceedings are delayed until after their 18th birthday. Young people can lose access to the youth specific disposals, such as referral orders, and to comprehensive support of the youth offending teams, even though their offending behaviour occurred occurred while they are children. The youth justice system exists for a reason. Through my experience as a former youth magistrate for over 20 years and a member of the Youth Justice Board, I saw first hand how the approach and disposals given in the youth court can turn lives around and make it more likely that these young people will go on to lead crime free lives.

The range of sentences available in youth court provide a far greater emphasis on the child's welfare, education and the prevention of re-offending, and has specifically trained magistrates and judges who are required to give priority to rehabilitation. The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process can affect a young person well into their adulthood, and not to mention their mistakes. With the treatment of criminal record disclosures. My Lords, this anomaly can also give rise to what can only be described as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes.

For example, two young people may commit the exact same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances. One happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday. The other lives in an area where the backlogs are greater than their first appearance in court is delayed. The first is sentenced under the youth justice guidelines, with access to youth specific disposals and rehabilitation support. The second, despite being no more culpable, is sentenced as an adult.

That difference does not arise from the seriousness of the offence, nor the maturity of the offender, but simply from geography and the resulting administrative delay. In my view, that is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle that, like cases should be treated alike. My Lords, my amendment seeks to correct that. It provides that where an offence was committed before the age of 18, and the offender is under the age of 21 at the time of their first court appearance, their case must be heard and sentenced in a youth court where appropriate.

I do not consider this to be a radical proposal, but a widely accepted principle that culpability and sentencing should be assessed by reference to the age and maturity at which the offending behaviour occurred. Outside the control of the not by administrative delays, which are often entirely outside the control of the defendant and no fault of their own. This anomaly has already been recognised in the Other place back in 2021, when introducing a ten minute rule bill. The former member of Aylesbury, Robert Butler, spoke powerfully about this unfairness.

The Bill had cross-party support as well as from the then Children's Commissioner Magistrates Association, on which I declare I'm a life member, and the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. My Lords, importantly, this amendment does not prevent courts from taking the seriousness of an offence into account, nor does it require inappropriate placement in youth custodial sentences. For older defendants. It preserves judicial discretion while ensuring that sentencing decisions are taken through the correct lens, one that reflects the fact that the offending behaviour occurred during childhood.

The Sentencing Council already recognises that age at the time of offence remains relevant after defendant turns 18. This amendment gives clear statutory effect to that principle, ensuring consistency in how it is applied. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could consider this amendment, as it is about recognising that childhood offending should be addressed as such. Ultimately, my Lords, this amendment is not just a matter of procedure. It is a matter of. It is a question of fairness, proportionality and effective justice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 19. Insert the following clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

19. Insert the following clause. The new clause is printed on Marshall List. I beg your pardon. My Lords. I'm very pleased to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm very pleased to support my friend, the noble Lady Baroness Sater, and we sat together Baroness Sater, and we sat together as youth magistrates for many years at the old Hammersmith Youth Court, at the old Hammersmith Youth Court, and she's very fully set out the anomaly, as she described it, and
18:46
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
it must be an anomaly. I haven't heard any explanation to defend the current situation where and she current situation where and she gave the example of two offenders who may have committed exactly the same offence exactly the same time, same offence exactly the same time, but because of some geographical issue, they were sentenced at different times on either side of their 18th birthday, and there were different outcomes. And so, as she different outcomes. And so, as she said, they would not have access to the referral orders or youth youth rehabilitation orders, which are in our experience, I think I'm right in saying are better at rehabilitating young people.

And also there would be the problem with the DBS checks where where the if somebody was subsequently to go on and get a job or apply for a job, then they would get different results in the DBS check depending on whether they were sentenced before their 18th birthday or after their 18th birthday. So I really do think this is an anomaly, and I'm looking forward to what my noble friend can say, because I know this is part of a wider look at how youth DBS records are kept, but nevertheless, this particular example, which we're talking about with this amendment, is a true anomaly.

And I hope the government can be as sympathetic as possible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the to this amendment. My Lord, in. The spirit of friendship, may I not only acknowledge the charming but highly acknowledge the charming but highly persuasive way in which my noble friend has advanced this amendment, which I am only too pleased to which I am only too pleased to support, and also to recognise the support of the noble Lord. He too,
18:48
18:49
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendments 93 and 94, and I speak amendments 93 and 94, and I speak to those. Amendment 93 is concerned with the impact of changes in the with the impact of changes in the law on sentences that are currently being served under the law that was being served under the law that was in force preceding the change. In other words, there were sentenced other words, there were sentenced under a law that has been altered, and the amendment calls for reports to be provided every three years with a view to such changes in the law, leaving defendants suffering from injustice.

Amendment 94 concerns the direct effect of such changes in the law on sentences that are currently being served, or that have been imposed. 90 41A concerns cases where the offence itself, for which the sentence was imposed, has been abolished, and amendment 90 41B concerns a case where the sentence has been materially altered and the amendment would enable a person serving a sentence for an offence that had been abolished, or whether sentence had been altered, to seek a review of the case of the sentence that is currently being served, and on such a review, the sentence originally imposed could be quashed, or there could be a resentencing.

In practice, of course, amendment 94 would only come into play where either the offence had been abolished or the sentence had been reduced because one cannot imagine an offender seeking a change of sentence where the sentence had been increased. My Lords, underlying both amendments is a concern that changes in the law that would have had would have the effect that an offender sentence would not have been imposed, or would have been less severe had the law at the time of sentencing been the reformed law, rather than the law under which the offender was sentenced, that such changes should have effect to the benefit of the offender, who would not be at such risk.

Now, my Lords, I would suggest that it is a matter of simple justice that changes in the law which would have resulted, resulted in an offender serving a sentence less severe or not being convicted of any offence should have the benefit of the change in the law that pertained at the time of sentencing, so that a review would be appropriate. My Lords, I propose to move that.
18:52
18:53
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. Can I begin by addressing amendment 63 first? And I'd like to thank the noble Lady lady for raising this, and for her work and expertise as a member of the Youth Justice Board, as the magistrate. And I also pay tribute to to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby's long standing interest and work in this area, including and work in this area, including from this Dispatch Box. You sentencing, as I think all the noble Lords who have spoken know, is largely out of scope of this Bill.

But I should say, and I'm very happy to put it on the record, I think for myself and for my noble friend, the Minister, that this amendment raises an issue for which we have a great deal of sympathy, we do recognise that when a child turns 18, it can have a significant impact on the outcome of criminal justice proceedings. And that and that is, in a sense, the heart of the argument that the noble Lady is making the child who reaches the age of 18 before their first appearance, will be tried and sentenced as an adult.

However, sentencing guidelines state that in such cases the court should take as its starting point the sentence that would have applied at the time the offence was committed. That doesn't quite deal with some of the points that that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby was making. I acknowledge that they also state that the offender's maturity, along with other relevant factors, should continue to be considered. This amendment, however, would significantly alter the sentencing framework, and I note the careful way in which the noble Lady, Lady Theta, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the noble Lord Lord Garnier, asked for the government's response.

And if we were to accept this recommendation, I think the government would would feel that they were ramifications across the wider justice system. The sentencing framework has been specifically designed for children, and there may well be unforeseen consequences, which we should think about carefully of applying that framework to young adults. I'm sure that your lordships can appreciate that such a change requires thorough consideration beyond the confines of this bill. And so, while I urge the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I hope she'll take what I've said is as some reassurance.

Now, can I now turn to amendments 93 and 94? I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Marks and noble the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for tabling them. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint the noble Lord Lord Marks, as I think I probably did at committee to, by restating that the government already believes that existing mechanisms are sufficient to address perceived injustices, unduly lenient sentence reviews and criminal appeals are two routes by which cases can be reviewed from the 1st of January.

Just to get the facts on the record from the 1st of January to the 8th December 2025. For the year of 2025, 933 sentences were considered by the Attorney General's Office as valid to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme. The government can't support an amendment that puts more pressure on the justice system, which I think everyone in your in your lordships House recognises under considerable pressure by requiring the courts to reconsider the sentences of those who who apply. We don't believe this would be workable or sustainable, and we don't want to duplicate existing functions at a time when the system is under so much pressure, and the noble Lord Lord Marks knows we discussed this at committee.

We await the Law Commission's report on criminal appeals, which is due later this year, and the noble and your Lordships' House have my assurance that we will take a consider its findings with great care, especially those which relate to the important points made today. Once the report has been published, we'll of course discuss it further. But for the moment I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, who is very positive and Minister, who is very positive and encouraging words? Although, as you say, it is a surmountable challenge. I think it's a challenge worth I think it's a challenge worth taking. This is a probing amendment and I beg leave to withdraw this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 64

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Neville-Rolfe To education in prisons. However, we have some very important we have some very important amendments we need to get to tonight. And in the circumstances, I won't call a vote and I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I won't call a vote and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? But the noble Lady was withdrawing. Yes. Is it your lordships pleasure Yes. Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. I therefore cannot call amendment 65, amendment 66 Baroness Neville-Rolfe not me. Therefore, I can't call amendment 67, amendment 68 Lord Keen of Elie.
18:58
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 68 and indeed amendment 69 concern transparency and sentencing. We listen carefully to the government's response at committee. And indeed, both of these amendments have been revised in light of those responses. And we believe that they now represent a fair and proportionate compromise between the principle of open justice and the practical constraints that may face the courts. If I can deal, first of all with amendment 68, with which this particular concern, which involves the publication of sentencing remarks within two weeks or 14 days of a request, many of the arguments made in committee about transparency in the justice system continue to hold true, and I won't seek to repeat them.

What was notable, however, was the broad consensus across the House that victims should be able to access the sentencing remarks for crimes committed against them in response to the original drafting, which required mandatory publication of all sentencing remarks, the government argued that this would impose a significant financial and administrative burden, and so amendment 68 no longer imposes a universal obligation. Instead, it requires that Crown Court sentencing remarks be provided only where a victim specifically request them, and this reflects the reality that the Crown Court handles cases concerning the most serious offences.

And indeed, statistics indicate that that is about 10% of all cases. The amendment extends the compliance period to 14 days, which is a reasonable and proportionate, particularly having regard to the time limit of 28 days for a victim to seek an unduly lenient sentence review. If victims are to navigate that legal process within a window of 28 days, and it's not unreasonable to expect the courts to address the issue of sentencing remarks within 14 days. This appears to be a principle with which all parties are in support.

My noble friends. The Liberal Democrats recently tabled a far broader and more ambitious version of this same amendment in the Victims and Courts Bill. In the other place, I hope that we will see a degree of consistency with regard to that matter. Turning to amendment 69, which concerns the collection and publication of sentencing data by the Crown Court. My Lords, if we are to expand the use of suspended sentences and community supervision, Parliament should be able to evaluate what is happening in practice and without robust data on who's being sentenced or for what offences and with what outcomes, the bill becomes something of a blind experiment.

And as I observed at committee, you cannot manage what you don't measure. This amendment, like amendment 68, is a challenge for accountability, transparency and robust evidence are fundamental. If we're to retain confidence in the justice system. I should say, my Lords, that with regard to amendment 68, if the government are not with us, I will be moved to test the opinion of the House. But I emphasise that that is in respect of amendment 68.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment, proposed clause after clause 19 insert the new clause set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out on the marshalled list. After the noble Lord has sat down. Could I ask him to clarify an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I ask him to clarify an appropriate point that Subclause two of amendment 68, because that two of amendment 68, because that says sentencing remarks may be published only in certain published only in certain circumstances? Is that meant to restrict the rights of the victim
19:02
19:03
19:04
19:05
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble and learned >> I thank the noble and learned Lord Keen for tabling amendment 68 and 69, and the noble and Leonard and 69, and the noble and Leonard Lord Garnier. It's it's a good point, and I will take it back to the department. We share the commitment to transparency across the justice system, but we do not agree that these amendments are needed. I'll first address amendment 68 and would like to reassure the noble and learned Lord that the government is working to improve the transparency of sentencing remarks significantly.

In certain cases of high public interest sentencing remarks are already published online. Censoring remarks can be and are filmed by broadcasters, subject to the agreement of the judge. The government has recently extended provision of free transcripts of sentencing, remarks to victims of rape and other sexual offences, whose cases are heard in the Crown Court, and it remains the case that bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request judge's sentencing remarks for free. However, expanding expanding this to everyone who applies would be prohibitively expensive.

The amendment would create significant operational and resource pressures on the courts and judiciary. It would also require new systems and staff to process requests and manage publication. The cost and complexity would be detrimental to the work we're doing to create an affordable and sustainable justice system. We are, however, embracing AI and are actively exploring the opportunities this presents to reduce the costs of producing transcripts in the future, and to making them far more widely available to victims. While I recognise the intent behind this amendment to promote transparency, sentencing remarks are already accessible through established transcription services, I now turn to amendment 69, and again, I can assure noble Lords that this government remains committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders.

We already have taken action to increase transparency on data published. I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord Thomas. We are developing and publishing more data specific to prisons and probation in Wales. Notably, in July 2025, for the first time, the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by Sex and Offence group. We are also working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable earlier identification of foreign national offenders. Currently, this is routinely done after sentence when cases are referred to the Home Office being able to verify the nationality of offenders ahead of sentencing would facilitate more timely removals, and will also provide an opportunity for enhanced data collection.

However, methods to verify any information provided must be cost effective and prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff. Investment in digital and AI tools can help us to collect, analyse and publish more data, but we are still building this capability. For this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary operational and technical infrastructure is in place to deliver it. If noble Lords are interested in wider data specifically related to prisons, I can highly recommend the Prison Reform Trust Bromley Briefing publication, which draws on data including regarding foreign national offenders from a wide range of sources.

It's free and it's online. I hope I've reassured noble Lords about this government's commitment to transparency, and explained why the government does not support these amendments, and I urge the noble Lord that the noble and learned Lord to withdraw them.
19:09
19:10
None Portrait Division
-

Clause 19, insert the new clause >> Clause 19, insert the new clause set out on the Marshall list. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, say content. Content the contrary, not content content and that will be decided by division. I'll advise the House when voting is open. the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well Well I Well I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. Maybe Yes. Maybe this Yes. Maybe this time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Maybe this time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, what do we do?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is question is the amendment be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content to that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The matter will be decided by division. Contents will go to the right by Contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the No No love No love you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the There There have voted contents 204, not contents Amendment Amendment 69 Amendment 69 Lord Amendment 69 Lord Keen Amendment 69 Lord Keen of Amendment 69 Lord Keen of Elie Amendment 69 Lord Keen of Elie not moved. Amendment 70 Lord Jackson of Peterborough not moved. Amendment 71 Lord Marks of Henley on Thames not moved.

Amendment 72 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 73 Lord Marks not moved. Not quite. Keep up with the speed. Amendment 74 Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, amendment 74.
19:22
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
And 75 and my main concern exemptions to the government's so-called Earned Progression model. We do not oppose in principle the idea that prisoners who demonstrate genuine rehabilitation should be eligible for early release, where offenders have taken meaningful steps to address their behaviour and reduce their risk. There is a case to be made for earned progression. However, My Lords Clause 20 does not deliver that outcome. Throughout the Second Reading and committee, the noble Lord, the Minister, referred to an earned progression model and to examples such as that in the Texas system.

Yet, as drafted, clause 20 contains no such mechanism as the House of Commons library briefing makes clear, the release point is automatic rather than earned. Prisoners will be released at the one third point of their sentence, unless additional days have been imposed by a court for misconduct that is not earned progression. It is default release and, barring significant further transgressions, releases determined by the passage of time alone. The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has sought to reassure the public by stating that the most serious offences are excluded.

Yet the Ministry of Justice's own data confirms that offenders convicted of rape, grievous bodily harm and the creation of indecent images of children will be eligible for this automatic scheme. If those offences do not qualify as serious, then it is difficult to understand what offences would because this is not a technical adjustment to sentencing mechanics. It is a profound change to how the state responds to some of the gravest crimes. As drafted, the bill would reduce custodial time for over 60% of rapists and more than 80% of child sex offenders.

It would permit those convicted of stalking an offence which we know is strongly associated with escalation into homicide, to be released automatically after serving just one third of their sentence without any assessment of ongoing risk. appropriately excluded before these measures come into force. My Lords, in the other place, a similar amendment, which included an even broader list of exemptions, attracted support from all parties. All 65 Liberal Democrat MPs present for the division voted in favour of this amendment.

Other parties in support of this amendment included the Green Party. The independent supplied camera reform and indeed some members of the government, and it's rare to have such cross-party unanimity. But members in the other place clearly recognised the dangers that clause 20 does pose to the public. Noble Lords may also notice amendment 87 for this report. That's an amendment from the Liberal Democrats that includes the same list of offences, as well as two further categories of offences. Which should, they suppose, be exempt from automatic release following fixed term recall.

So I would call noble Lords to consider consistency here as much as concern clause 20 applies to a far more serious cohort of offenders than other provisions in this bill. And clearly there is concern beyond this chamber. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has described the early release of perpetrators after weeks in custody as simply unacceptable. The victims commissioner has warned that victims will be left unnerved and bewildered. These are not political voices, my Lords, but independent authorities concerned about public safety.

Public confidence is often regarded as fragile. Where the justice system is concerned. When victims see those who harm them released automatically after a fraction of their sentence, trust is bound to be eroded. Amendment 74, in particular, is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that early release is not applied to those whose crimes are too serious and indeed too dangerous to justify it. If the government are not prepared to give an assurance with regard to amendment 74, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House, the Lords.

I beg to move.
19:27
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 20, >> Amendment proposed clause 20, page 38, line seven at end. Insert the words on the Marshalled List amendment be agreed to. Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. Lords, I. Speak to amendment 90 in this group, inserting a new clause on group, inserting a new clause on extended determinate sentence prisoners, which are referred to as prisoners. Currently, the majority of people serving an editor's first become eligible for parole after serving two thirds of their custodial term, and every two years thereafter, with eventual automatic release at the end of the custodial term on extended licence if they are unsuccessful in gaining parole earlier.

This new clause would create a power for the Secretary of State to refer to the Parole Board, a prisoner serving an EDS at the earlier halfway point of the sentence, instead of the two thirds point. If the Secretary of State is of the view that there is a reasonable prospect that the board will direct release, it's therefore in line with recommendation 4.2 of the Sentencing Review, as that review affirmed, this measure would improve incentives for rehabilitation and enhance the effectiveness of measures to address the overcrowding crisis without in any way changing the public protection mechanisms that currently apply to prisoners, the noble Lord, the Minister, said in committee at column 142 of Hansard on the 3rd of December last year that the government rejected the independent reviews recommendation 4.2 on the grounds that the sentence was imposed because the offender was considered dangerous.

It's quite right that the sentence is a public protection sentence, but in statute the parts intended to fulfil its public protection function are the involvement of the Parole board and the extended licence period. So there were no public protection concerns in statute to justify referral to the parole board at the two thirds point of the sentence, instead of the half way point, as is proposed for most other determinate sentence prisoners. Under the provisions of this new clause, and in line with the recommendations of the review, the Parole Board would still engage in exactly the same careful, reasoned, deliberate decision making process at the 50% point as it currently does at the 66% point.

Moreover, the average length of an editor's sentence is nine years, with many serving far longer than that. It's therefore a serious oversight that for no good reason, measures to address overcrowding are ignored. Ignoring these prisoners, who constitute 10% of people in prison, that's more than 9000 people who are serving an average of nearly a decade. Furthermore, all the signs point to the contribution of editors to prison overcrowding only getting worse. There are almost five times as many people in prison serving in EDS as there were a decade ago, when the number was just under 2000.

Now it's well on track to reach 10,000. This trend is likely to continue and increase further as a result of changes in this bill. In conclusion, this new clause in no way reduces public protection, but it does enhance the opportunities for incentivising rehabilitation and safely tackling overcrowding in our prisons.
19:31
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And I'm standing to support amendment 74 in particular, and the amendment 74 in particular, and the motivations have been well made by the noble Lord Lord Keen of Elie. In a letter that relates to IPP prisoners, that the noble Lord Lord Timpson sent some of us at some point during the year I noted down, and this does relate. By the way, there must be a clear reason to consider the early release of the prisoner before they have served the sentence imposed on them by the sentencing court.

Thousands of open ended IPPS, we are told, are incarcerated without a release date because they have to convince the parole board that they are safe enough to be released, all in the name of public protection. And the reason I'm raising that now is because there must be clear reasons to consider. People have to be safe before you release them. And yet, here we have an early release scheme, an early release scheme in which even serious sexual violent offenders can earn their way out of prison.

But you can't earn your way out of an IPP, which does seem to me to be rather inconsistent. We've already heard that earned progression anyway is not going to be earned, and if you actually read what's been written about earned progression put forward by everyone from the the Inspector of Prisons to concerned prison officers and unions and so on, the idea that they have got a consistent way of testing the earning capacity of prisoners inside to check whether they've reached the the they've earned their right to be free, I think is unlikely.

It's going to be automatic. And that's been agreed. Now, I just think that we have to consider who we're talking about, because earlier on when I spoke about the violence against women and girls strategy and my concern that we should be in a situation in which we were potentially making an exemption for non-custodial sentences for what some might call minor sexual offences or, or or. Stalking or domestic violence. In a way, one was assured that one shouldn't worry.

These were minor events. Who we are talking about here, whether we like it or not, let's be honest, or the people who are perpetrating, for example, child rape, grooming gangs members. We are talking about rapists and people, people who have been convicted of sexual assault. And I think that in total, you know, thousands of offenders who were sent to prison for serious crimes against very often women and girls and children will be potentially leaving prison early.

And I think that the public, broadly speaking, might find that disconcerting. I am not opposed to the concept or the principle of earning your way out of prison, or at least I think it's an interesting experimental idea. I don't think it's what's going to happen in our prison service, but I like the notion of it. I get all that. I also am not arguing in principle against any early releases, although I can't bear the fact that those early releases have been conducted on the basis that we haven't got room for people.

I mean, I'd rather it was based on some kind of principle than some sort of like, oh, it's a bit overcrowded. What can we do? That seems to me to be the wrong approach, but I do think that it's perfectly proportionate. Not in any way. Kind of like a mad lock them up and throw away the key for this amendment to simply say there are certain categories of crime that will be not considered for this scheme. Fair enough as far as I'm concerned, and I genuinely think that the government should just simply accept this.

Absolutely. I would really, genuinely hope that members of the the party's crossbench Liberal Democrats and backbenchers from from wherever will go along with this because that's what happened in the other place. I would expect it to happen here because it's absolutely common sense. And it's also very, very important that we do not undermine trust in the criminal justice system or in the prison system by making a mess of this, by not therefore making this exemption work.
19:36
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we cannot accept that this amendment is either necessary or right. The position is that the Bill is posited on the progression model, and the earn progression model involves a phased system of early releases, and it's all very well for the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley to say, well, I can't stand the idea that there are going to be early releases because of overcrowding. The fact is that we have a very, very serious issue, which this bill seeks to address.

And I, for one, accept the government's position that the bill would be seriously damaged by abandoning the earned progression model in the cases with which this amendment is concerned. No one, I suggest, can say that the Liberal Democrats for as a party, are not completely committed to the government's target to end violence against women and girls, at least to halve it within a decade. No one can say that we do not take that commitment seriously.

We accept that sexual offences are serious offences, but there are many other serious offences as well. The point that I suggest should weigh with the house very heavily indeed, is the concern for the position of victims. If this bill fails to solve the prison capacity crisis, then victims will be the losers as people cannot be brought to justice, cannot be imprisoned because there will simply be no space for them. That is the harsh reality. And along with the reasons that I gave in respect of the first group about the presumption, the position about early release is, I suggest, exactly the same.

It requires us to be tough. It requires us to resist the blandishments of the sort of points that the noble Lady Baroness Fox was making. I don't accept the. Accuracy of the position taken by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, because we are left with a very dangerous problem that we have to solve. And so I shall be supporting the government and opposing the amendment today. Lords, central purpose of this bill to put the prison system on a sustainable footing.

There is no doubt that the
19:39
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
offences listed in amendment 74 and referenced in amendment 75 are serious crimes. Indeed, they are so serious crimes. Indeed, they are so serious that many perpetrators of these offences will receive life or extended determinate sentences. And extended determinate sentences. And I remind noble Lords that there are 17,000 prisoners serving those sentences convicted of the most sentences convicted of the most serious crimes. This includes many serious sexual offenders. These serious sexual offenders. These offenders will be unaffected by the reforms we are bringing forward in this bill.

They will remain in prison as long as they do now. But amendment 74 and 75 raise a more fundamental issue. Are we willing, as the previous government clearly was, to leave the prison system on the brink of collapse? This did not happen overnight. It was not inevitable. It was the choice of the party opposite, made again and again. For 14 years they abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing prisons to reach bursting point, to cover up for their failures, they covertly let out over 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic scheme.

If it weren't for the decisive action of this government, the police would have been unable to make arrests and court unable to hold trials. A breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times, we must continue to take decisive action to address the consequences of their mismanagement. But if these amendments were to pass, they would undermine the fundamental issue that the bill is designed to fix the issue they neglected for 14 years. I took this job to fix this issue and countless others that we inherited.

As someone who has dedicated their working life to improving the criminal justice system, it matters to me personally. I am convinced that this bill is the only and best way to fix this problem. I refuse to stand in front of victims of serious crimes, look them in the eye and tell them that we have no space in our prisons to lock up dangerous offenders, that their rapist or abuser can't go to prison at all because there is no space. And let me be very clear, my Lords, running out of space is the consequence.

If these amendments pass, I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me. We cannot in good conscience conscience vote for amendments that we know will cause such great harm. Our immediate priority must be stability, and that is what our measures deliver. We are building more prison places than at any time since the Victorian era. By the end of this parliament, there will be more people in prison than ever before. I recall that the previous government managed only 500 extra places in 14 years.

I must thank the noble Lord Lord Marks for his constructive engagement on this amendment, and for raising important questions about how victims will be protected. I remind noble Lords that once released, offenders will be subject to a period of intensive supervision, supported by a significant expansion of electronic tagging. The highest risk offenders, as assessed by probation, will continue to be actively supervised until the end of their sentence. They will continue to be subject to any licence conditions needed to manage risk and protect victims, including restriction zones where appropriate, and all offenders will remain on licence with the possibility of recall to custody if they breach the terms of their licence.

And of course, if an offender behaves badly in custody, they will spend even longer inside up to the full length of their sentence. And as noble Lords know, the proposals for the progression model, which clause 20 seeks to implement are the result of extensive work by the Independent Sentencing Review. The review, led by David Gauke and supported by a panel of eminent experts from all parts of the criminal justice system, arrived at their recommendation. After extensive research and consultation. All proposals include.

The new framework for release have been thoroughly considered. We now need to put in place an effective release framework that will support a sustainable prison estate and protect the public by ensuring spaces prioritised for the most dangerous offenders. I therefore, urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw amendment 74 and 75. But if they wish to test the opinion of the House, I encourage all noble Lords to vote against this amendment and help this country end the cycle of crisis in our prisons for good.

Dangerous offenders are also are also the subject of amendment 90, tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter. This proposes that extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward. While I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue, the government's position remains that prison is the right place for these dangerous offenders to receive an extended determinate sentence a specified violent, sexual or terrorism offence must have been committed. The court will also have decided that the offender is dangerous and I repeat, dangerous, that there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm by committing a further specified offence.

These dangerous offenders must remain in prison for as long as they do now. And I ask that my noble friend withdraws this amendment here.
19:44
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Here. >> My Lords, we do not oppose an earned progression model in principle, but as was recognised by principle, but as was recognised by all parties in the Other place, clause 20 does not deliver and earned progression. Model A clause 20 contains no mechanism for earning release. That is not, or at least it was not until recently a party political point. The House of Commons Library confirmed that release occurs automatically at the one third or halfway point for offenders, barring serious further offences in custody, release is guaranteed.

The noble Lord Marks talked repeatedly about the earned progression model. I do not know which one he was referring to, but it's not the one in clause 20 that is simply a mystery. What we have is a means by which violent and dangerous individuals will be released after they've served one third of the sentence imposed by a court. Is that supposed to imbue our justice system with public confidence? Automatic early release for serious offenders is bound to undermine that confidence.

And while the noble Lord, the Minister, may make criticism of prison capacity and what occurred during the previous 14 years of government, could I remind him that two wrongs don't make a right and two mistakes? You don't. You you don't cure one mistake by committing an even worse mistake. And that is what is being proposed here. Automatic early release is going to endanger the public. It ensures that releases apply to offenders whose crimes are serious and dangerous.

It is not proportionate, it is not targeted and it is not possessed of any safeguards. The Lords I move to test the opinion of the House.
19:47
19:57
19:58
19:58
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
yesterday on Venezuela. >> My Lords, let me begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me begin by associating myself with the condolences which were expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the other place, following the appalling place, following the appalling tragedy in Montana. I know the victims of that tragic fire, their friends and their families will be in all of our thoughts at this very difficult time. The government and the opposition shared profound concerns about the Maduro regime. Nicolas Maduro was a tyrant responsible for unspeakable criminal abuses against the Venezuelan people.

His was an appalling socialist dictatorship that destroyed the prospects of Venezuela and reduced it to the brutality and repression suffered by the Venezuelan people under Maduro's regime was appalling. In government, we refuse to recognise it and the government are right to have continued that long standing policy. The government, in our view, should always put Britain's interests first, and national security is the first duty of government. We know the United States are our closest security partner. It is the government's duty to work with the United States constructively in the interests of the British people.

We on these benches understand the United States reasons for taking this step. They are acting in their stated national interest against sustained drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. While we understand that there remain questions about the precedent it sets, that much is clear. So could the noble Baroness, the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with their US counterparts on this point? Increasingly, it seems that the United States Acts and Britain finds out later when major decisions are made.

Britain is not in the room. Has the Prime Minister even spoken with President Trump since the US action in Venezuela? Perhaps the noble Lady could update the House. In the same vein, can she confirm what conversations the Prime Minister has had with our European partners since the US action? I know that they are meeting, doing good work today on Ukraine, and I can't believe that this issue hasn't been discussed, at least in the margins. The security of the British people can only be served if the UK shows leadership working proactively and constructively with our international partners.

The government was slow to respond in this case, as the PM didn't even seem to have an opinion on it for many hours. If we are to protect the interests of the British people, we must be a leader on the world stage. In this case, the government failed to provide that leadership. That said, I welcome the Prime Minister's clear statement on Greenland yesterday. It is good to have at least some clarity from the government, although this again could have come sooner.

On the question of the US rhetoric towards Greenland in the other place, the Foreign Secretary said Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders, the Danes and no one else. And I agree with her. But if the future of Greenland is a matter solely a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Danes, which she correctly said, then using the government's own logic, surely the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory is surely a matter for the Chagossians and the British people.

So could the noble Baroness please explain how the government's approach to Greenland sovereignty is consistent with their position on the Chagos Islands?
20:02
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I wish to also associate these benches with the condolences of the terrible incident in Switzerland. And I wish to start with simply quoting from my right hon. Friend Ed Davey, which he said in the House of Commons last evening when he referred to when President Reagan and the United States administration invaded Grenada, he quoted Margaret Thatcher. She said at that incident, we in the Western democracies use our force to defend our way of life. We do not use it to walk into other people's countries.

We try to extend our beliefs not by force but by persuasion. He went on I am disappointed that we have heard nothing as clear and courageous from the Prime Minister, from the Foreign Secretary, or from today's Conservative Party. I agree with him. Why can't our Ministers not be clear that we are seeing what happened in Venezuela as contrary to international law sets dangerous precedents and might likely perpetuate human rights abuses in that country? We all know that the Maduro regime was brutal, repressive, dictatorial and corrupt.

That actions of that regime led to nearly 9 million Venezuelans flee that country. They must be in a state of confusion as to whether or not that country will be safe for them to return, if it is now being administered. As President Trump had said by the United States today, the regime in Venezuela continues to abuse powers even more, with paramilitary forces repressing journalists today and seeking democracy activists out for persecution, but are now apparently this is under the authority of the United States government itself.

If we believe what President Trump and the Secretary of State have said on Sunday in response to Ed Davey, the Foreign Secretary said, and I quote from Hansard, the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy. I agree with her. But she went on to say, I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that, and also about the potential role the UK can play. She did not elucidate any further. So can the Minister State.

In what way will the United Kingdom play for a democratic transition in Venezuela, especially in the context that President Trump has undermined the Nobel Prize winner, Maria machado, a member of our sister party, a liberal in Venezuela who now is also in a state of confusion as to what the intentions of the US administration is, the Prime Minister had said after the news of the attack on Venezuela that he wanted to gain the facts before speaking to President Trump.

What are the facts? Do we now need for the Prime Minister to state categorically to the president that this action is contrary to international law? Also, can the Minister that Dispatch Box restate one of the founding principles of the Special relationship of the UK and the United States as to whether it still applies, that we are consulted and informed on US security actions when they are connected with UK interests? Given our diplomatic location in Caracas, which was bombed, were we informed, were our diplomats informed that they were operating in an area of risk? Are we informed if UK bases and personnel are being used for monitoring Venezuelan shipping, and is our airspace potentially being used and overflown by US assets for the ongoing operations of the US administration in that area, and are our close Commonwealth partner assets in the Caribbean being overflown, and are we being informed? And finally, given the very significant concerns about the statements of President Trump regarding Greenland, they are wholly unacceptable.

Can we now say categorically that we condemn the US economic and diplomatic coercion of a key European and NATO ally, the noble Lord Layard Lord Callanan indicated that the precedents may be set, but he gave a slight indication that they support them. We do not support these precedents. We support international rule of law, we support our allies, and we support democracy and human rights in Venezuela, and we support our sister party and the democratically elected president not to be a vassal state, but a vibrant democratic state with human rights at its core.

The very good.
20:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords, firstly for their support for the Foreign Secretary's remarks on the tragic loss of life that we saw on New Year's Eve in Switzerland. I'm grateful to them for echoing what she said. The noble Lord Callanan asked us about discussions with the our US counterparts ahead of the action that was taken in Caracas and the noble Lord Lord Purvis asked about this as well. And the very, very clear the UK was not informed.

We were not involved in any way. None of our assets were involved in any way at all. And I think it's important that we just very straightforward and clear about that, and we would not expect to be informed of an action such as this either. In response to the noble Lords questions about the communications between the Prime Minister and the US and counterparts in the in Europe, he talks constantly with his counterparts in Europe and in the US, and so does the Foreign Secretary, and so do Ministers throughout the government.

And we will continue to do that in connection to this. But vitally as well, I think today at the front of our minds is Ukraine, and making sure that we continue to do what we believe to be right in Ukraine. I think one of the things that was in my mind when listening to the Labour Lord opposite was many people said when this government came to office that we would be unable to work with President Trump, that our relationship with the US would be impossible to manage.

And actually, I think most people give the Prime Minister credit for being able to manage his relationship with President Trump very, very well. They have a very good relationship, and I think that it is. I think that it's something that surprised many people. It didn't surprise me, but I think I think it's something that puts the British interests first. And there'll be many people who wish to hear the government say various things or make statements. Actually, sometimes the right thing to do is not to use megaphone diplomacy.

The right thing to do is to respect our close partners and allies and give whatever messages we want to give in the right way. As for parallels with Chagos, I think that's frankly quite ridiculous. There is no parallel with Chagos. The the message, the reason that Chagos is able to be has happened because there is a state to state negotiation between the British government and the government of Mauritius. Should Denmark ever wish to enter into such a negotiation, it is free to do so with the consent of the people of Greenland.

This is completely different and the noble Lord should know better. I'm sad that he doesn't. There are 9 million Venezuelans who have left. Their country is noble Lord Lord Purvis correctly reminds us of. I've met many of them in Mexico, in Ecuador, in Chile, in the UK, in Colombia. They are devastated at what has happened to their country over recent years. There will be a range of views, of course, on the actions that the United States have taken, but some that I've spoken to and this is it's very early days, very early days.

They see hope for their country and they want to see a return to democracy. They want to see the elections that were held in 2024. They want to see an outcome of those elections that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is not what we saw at the time, and I think that it is the right thing that the noble Lord suggests, and I agree with him that we put the people of Venezuela front and centre here, and that a way is found for them to get a government that reflects their wishes and that enables them to live in safety and prosperity, that that country should enable, that there needs to be, therefore, a transition to democracy.

How that is taken, how that takes place. Who leads that? The exact timetable for all of that? I think it's impossible to say from where we are today, but we certainly share his view that there does need to be a transition to democracy. And how can the UK help? We will help in any way that that is right at the time. As noble Lords will know, we're the only Five Eyes country to have maintained a presence in Caracas through throughout recent years, and our chargé d'affaires there is extremely capable.

He has good relationships across the political spectrum in Venezuela, and I think that he'd be very well placed to advise on how how it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to support strengthening democratic institutions, as we do in many countries across the world. But this, I accept, is a unique situation. On Maria Corina machado. She is one of the most inspirational, courageous women that I've ever had the privilege to speak to. I think that the way that she has conducted herself, the way that she led her campaign, the way that she has continued to make the arguments that she does from hiding often in Venezuela and then from from overseas as well, is extraordinary.

And I think I think that others will make comments about her fitness to lead Venezuela. I think she's an incredibly impressive person. I don't think it would actually do her any favours to have an endorsement from the president of the United States, perhaps, but what happens there and whether or not Maria Corina becomes the leader? And remember, she wasn't the candidate in 2024 at the election. She wasn't the Leader of the Opposition at that point. So what role she chooses to play in the future of her country, and whether she takes part in in what, in what capacity, in any future democratic process is a is a matter for her.

And on the issue of Greenland, I mean, we have been very, very clear. We could not have been clearer on the position that we've taken alongside others about the the fact that it is clearly for the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland to decide their future.
20:14
20:15
20:15
20:15
20:16
20:17
20:18
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, could the noble Lady >> My Lords, could the noble Lady tell us how she thinks that democracy can be introduced in democracy can be introduced in Venezuela? Clearly, the agenda of President Trump is not about liberating Venezuela or bringing democracy. So how does our government see that actually happening? I mean, what's happening on the streets of Caracas is is continued repression and banditry. So how are we going to get from there to democracy? And secondly, she praised the Prime Minister for managing the relationship with President Trump.

What will it take to switch the Prime Minister from managing his relationship with President Trump to challenging

**** Possible New Speaker ****

President Trump? Well, I think he has an excellent relationship with excellent relationship with President Trump, and at times that involves some challenge. And, you know, sometimes it doesn't. And know, sometimes it doesn't. And that is what relationships are, right? That is that's how it works. On transition to democracy. You On transition to democracy. You know, the frustrating thing about Venezuela is that it has the capacity, it has the mechanisms, it has the structures to hold a ballot in a way that is verifiable.

What it didn't do was count properly and publish the results. That was the problem. So this isn't a situation where there is no infrastructure on which to hold a democratic process that does exist. How exactly we support that, the timing of it, who leads it? All of those questions I cannot answer as of today, but they are the right questions, and they need to be answered in order to move forward to a proper democracy that we all want to see.
20:20
20:21
20:21
20:23
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:29
20:31
20:31
20:32
20:33
20:34
20:34
20:36
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-

20:37
20:38
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to move. >> I rise to move. >> Amendment 76. In circumstances where the last government and this where the last government and this government has done a great deal to help those who were sentenced to imprisonment for public protection and released on licence. And I welcome the amendments being moved by the government and by other noble Lords this evening in relation to the position of those on licence. But we have done nothing to deal with the problem of those who have never been released.

And in moving this amendment, what I seek to do is to provide a measure of real justice in this bill for what is otherwise largely a bill to deal with the prison crisis and to ensure that the prisons can run in an orderly manner. But this amendment is an amendment dealing simply with justice. Now, I needn't tell your Lordships of the current position. It is well known there are over 940 prisoners who have never been released, and some 200 more in secure mental accommodation again, who've never been released.

Even though this sentence was abolished in 2012. Nor is there any need for me to set out the human stories of what these who have been released have been subjected to short tariffs and yet many, many years beyond their tariffs. No one has really tried to address this. Suggestions have been put forward resentencing. But each government has said no. And so the hardly decided it would set up a small group of experts to try and come up with a solution and to do justice.

At long last. And the key element of that solution, which is embodied in amendment 76, is that the parole board ought to be asked to modify its position and to determine what steps were necessary to ensure the release of those who've never been released within a two year window. Now, at the time this amendment was put forward, IT committee, it did not contain what I would call a failsafe clause, but that was at the very great help of Viscount Hailsham now contains a clause that modifies the original proposal and enables the government or the IPPS to go back to the parole board and say, this two year window cannot be met.

So there is a complete fail safe. And the real question is, having left the decision in the hands of the parole board, having tried to ensure that we give these prisoners hope and we provide for the safety of the public, why won't the government accept this? And it is difficult to find an answer, because accepting it would bring justice as far as the public is concerned, as certainly as far as the victim is concerned, there are many of these crimes were, at least by their very nature, more than 13 years ago, and above all, to ensure justice for the offenders.

And I summarised in in what I said at committee the reasons why we needed to do something. There was no conceivable justification in keeping people imprisoned under a sentence that is universally, and without exception, regarded as a mistake. Most people are flabbergasted when you say we are still imprisoning people. 13 years after we concluded that the sentence under which they were imprisoned was wrong. In principle, there can be no justification. More seriously, if you had the position where you committed an offence before 2005 or committed an offence after 2012 of exactly the same kind as those who are subject to the IPP, you would be automatically released at the end of that determinate sentence.

There is no justification conceivable justification, for discriminating against those who happened to be sentenced during a period of mistaken penal policy and worse still, the effect of the sentence, particularly on those who've never been released, is that it is severely damaged them mentally. And to the extent that they may pose or thought to pose a risk of danger, that is something that the state has helped create. Normally, when the state makes a mistake, the estate is sorry and tries to do something for the victims of its mistakes.

Why not here? And then? As is clear from the other provisions of the bill, and as the Minister made very clear when dealing with an amendment just before the break, the prison capacity is in such crisis that we have to send, for example, foreign national offenders back to their own country, and we have to release serious offenders under what is described as the earned progression model. But why, therefore, can't we, in the middle of this current deal and see that we could achieve some balance in prison capacity by addressing this problem? And then how can we continue with an action plan that has been running for years, but is not achieving justice in time? It's difficult to understand how that can be the case.

Possibly it's because, as I explained committee, the officials in the department simply don't understand that IPP is not dealing with with offenders who committed very serious offences that needed life imprisonment. This was an a mistake and sentence, a flawed view that you could cure someone of not being good. And it's no wonder when you think of what the ambition was, it was bound to fail. But they don't seem to understand that, and they don't understand the concept of justice.

That if you do, if you make a mistake and you damage people, you owe a duty to remedy it. Then it said, well, there's a risk. But if you look at what is proposed that reduces the risk to the minimum, it leaves the decision in the hands of the parole board. And it, however, also sets a date and a mechanism by which the public can see what is to be done with a fail safe. If things don't work out right.

And finally, how can they really be any injection? In principle, when the bill. When the act abolishing IPPS was passed, a statutory power was added to enable the release test to be changed, it was a far sighted decision of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Clarke, but no one has sought to use that and we are stuck with where we are. And I think it's interesting to go back 11 years to 2014, when the mistake that had been made and the fact that the bill failed to deal with and the Lord Chancellor was not prepared to deal with the position of those who had been punished prior to the sentence being abolished, to see what was said.

And if you read the debates in 2014, one can see what Lord Ramsbotham thought and what Lord Lloyd thought, and what Lord Brown of Eaton under Heywood said. And he said in October 2014, I think I can fairly say that I have never come across an injustice, as plain and persistent as this on an institutionalised basis, because that is what it is, and it grows worse with every passing year. That was said 11 years ago and nothing has been done to try and address the problem.

And one can see that 11 years later, the problem has grown worse. I need not read out the statistics that have been published by UNGRIPP. The suicide rates, the self-harm rates. We cannot ignore that. But that is what the harm that we are doing by not acting is actually causing. And why. What Lord Browne said when he coined the phrase this was a stain on British justice. He was so right. Surely we cannot delay any longer changing the arrangements for release.

And what my the amendment put forward seeks to do in a way that is as safe as can be devised, while bringing to an end this misconceived sentence and at last doing justice. I very much hope. That the government will realise that action cannot any longer be avoided. This proposal, this amendment seeks to put forward a just and safe solution, and I very much hope at this 11th hour that the government will think again, because otherwise I will seek to test the opinion of the House, because it seems to me that we cannot go on not doing justice and depriving those whom we unjustly sentenced to this terrible form of punishment without making proper amends.

I beg to move.
20:50
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 23. Insert the new clause. The words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I wish to express my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to express my support for the new clause, which has been so ably advocated for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. It is, of course, the one to which the noble Lord Lord Marks and I have set our respective names. And I think, too, that the purpose behind the wall, the new clause achieved very considerable support in debates at Second Reading and in committee. My Lord, for the purposes of this debate, I'm going to focus primarily on the provisions of subsection 60, which I hope meet the primary concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, the Minister, my Lord of the noble Lord.

Lord Thomas has rightly said, it is now widely recognised that the IPP regime is a very serious stain on this country's reputation for justice. We need to address it. It has, in fact been addressed prospectively by legislation, but not retrospectively. And this new clause, my Lord, does give your Lordships House and thus Parliament, the opportunity to do it in a statutory form. Hitherto, governments, this government and the previous government have relied on administrative measures. That is not sufficient.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has set out the essential facts, and in any event they can be read and studied. In the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice, published in in 2022 and more recently in the report published in June of this year by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Garnier and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas were very distinguished contributors to that report. So I'm not going to repeat what has already been said and published what I want to do, as the noble Lord has, in fact done, is to concentrate on the solution.

My Lord, the new clause before your Lordships House, and reflects the principal recommendation of the Howard League, namely, that for a two year conditional release scheme for IPP prisoners, the league's recommendation, which is incorporated in the new clause, is that in IPP cases, the Parole Board should be required to set a date within a two year window when a prisoner should be released together, and this is important with what has been done by way of conditions.

In order to ensure public safety. Now, the government's reaction is not one I'm blind to has been to oppose the recommendation on the grounds that it runs the risk of releasing individuals who, in the opinion of the parole Board, may pose a continuing risk to the public, and that indeed is a risk which needs to be addressed. And I suggest that it is properly and fully addressed by subsection six of the new clause. My Lords, it is never possible wholly to exclude risk.

And I have, if I may say so, some personal experience of this. Nearly 40 years ago, I was a junior Minister in the Home Office. The then Home Secretary was the noble Lord. Lord heard of Westwell. I served him for seven years in the Home Office and in the Foreign Office. And may I say, I think he's one of the most distinguished public servants of the post-war era, subject to his overarching responsibility. I was responsible for determining the release of inmates from special hospitals.

I was also responsible for fixing the tariff in homicide cases. That, happily, is no longer a task for Ministers. But in both instances, a risk of repetition of the offence could not be excluded. But, my Lords, unless you wish to incarcerate an individual for life, which in general I regard as unconscionable, you do have to take a measure of risk and the task before any government, any Minister, is to address and mitigate the risk. And that is what subsection six e seeks to do.

The subsection is designed to make the concern that have been expressed by Ministers most recently, and in particular by the noble Lord Lord Timpson six e enables the Parole Board at any time during the currency of a previously made order to revisit that order, and if the parole board deems it necessary, the board may rescind or vary the provisions of the order or extend its term. Moreover, and this is perhaps the most important point, the subsection obliges the Parole Board to reconsider its previous decision if required by the Home Secretary or his Ministers.

In other words, the Home Secretary or his Ministers can require reconsideration of any relevant Parole board decision in respect of which the Home Secretary has concerns. And I suggest to your Lordships that this addresses very precisely the concerns that have been previously expressed by Ministers, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. So, my Lord, I suggest that the new clause containing, as it does, the important protection afforded by subsection six, addresses what is generally recognised to be a very serious injustice, and it does so in a way that safeguards the public interest.

And I very much hope that it will command the support of your Lordships' House and thereafter in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House of Commons. Yes, sir. I also rise strongly to support the amendment of the noble and the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, this learned Lord, Lord Thomas, this amendment is the safest, best amendment on IPP prisoners we have amendment on IPP prisoners we have seen so far. It will give an IPP prisoner a clear statutory steer as
20:57
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
prisoner a clear statutory steer as to what they have to do in order to secure release on licence. The prisoner will know that if they fulfil the board's directions then they will be released on licence. It will give them a clear goal to aim for, which does not currently exist. If, therefore, the prisoner is serious about being released, then this will be the best opportunity they have had so far. It will be heavily incumbent on the Prison Service to ensure the IPP prisoner has access to any purposeful activity or other requirements set out in the Parole Board's directions.

This must be an absolute priority. Above all, the final decision on whether it is safe to release the prisoner will rest with the parole board, as the noble Viscount Viscount Hailsham has said, its subsection six E that is the key provision which is new and which leaves the decision, the final decision with the parole board. That is what the government have said time and again in resisting resentencing options must be the case. The parole board must have the final say.

Well, here we are with this amendment. So what possible reason can the government have for not accepting it? It's not good enough to say it will give IPP prisoners a false hope. That is tantamount to saying that some IPP prisoners will never be released. This would be completely unacceptable. This government have responsibility for every day an IPP prisoner is detained and the despair that this causes, they must urgently consider every reasonable option for ending this disgraceful situation. This is the most reasonable option yet which is now on the table.

It must be tried.
20:59
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We've had three excellent >> We've had three excellent speeches from in support of this amendment, introduced most powerfully again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Lord Thomas, who as as he did at Committee stage, when I if I recall correctly, he said, we have blood on our hands if we don't do anything about this situation. Article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the government is, I'm glad to say, still committed to, forbids torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

But surely that is what the government, the state, is subjecting these IPP prisoners to. So I would like to hear from the noble Lord, the Minister, why he considers it is not actually a breach of article three in this case, and as as a noble and Lord, Lord, Lord Thomas said, and the noble Viscount, Viscount Hailsham, you do have to take a measure of risk, but the the, the way and the beauty of this amendment is that it builds in the safeguards so as to mitigate the risk as much as possible.

It is not possible to eliminate every possible risk that a released IPP prisoner might commit another crime. It's also impossible that to to eliminate any risk that another non determinate sentence prisoner would commit another crime. But presumably what the government is terrified about is the newspaper headlines. If such a person released IPP prisoner commits another crime. We all fervently hope that that would not happen, but it's not possible to say that it would never happen.

But the government cannot, on that basis, continue to incarcerate people unjustly. That is what the the government and the the noble Lord. The Minister has to tell us this evening that he thinks that it is reasonable to carry on keeping these people in, I would contend, breach of article three of the European Convention, because the government hasn't, and I'm afraid I'm going to say it hasn't got the backbone to take on that relatively slim risk of appalling headlines in the press.

And, and, and it would be a terrible situation and we would all feel dreadfully for any victim or family or friend of a victim. And we all fervently hope that wouldn't happen. And, and, and, and that is why all these safeguards are being built in. But for the noble Lord, the Minister, to tell us on behalf of the government, they they would rather that people continue to be tortured by unjust incarceration than take on what is the responsibility of a government to to manage a reasonable risk and to account for their actions and behaviour to the public, then I'm sorry, but they shouldn't be in government because it is completely unreasonable to carry on as we are.

And so the noble and learned Lords amendment does as he says at the 11th hour. We hope that we are going to hear a, We hope that we are going to hear a, a, a a reasonable and and. Statesmanlike reply from the noble Lord, the Minister.
21:03
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has set out with great Thomas has set out with great clarity the cogency of his new clause, and I entirely support it. And if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, I shall join him in supporting his amendment. Much of the group of amendments that we're dealing with are concern themselves with providing a mechanism. Through the Parole Board. I have introduced a new clause which doesn't use the parole board, but uses a panel of existing or former judges and the protection to deal with the risk that people seem to be fearful of is provided through that route, rather than through a parole board decision.

I'll come to explain, if I may, in a minute, the detail of the proposed new clause that I have tabled. But I'm grateful both to the noble Lady, Lady Jones, and to the noble Lord Lord Woodley, who's not in his place for their support for this particular new clause. What is uncontroversial is as the noble and Leonard Lord, Lord Thomas said a moment ago, what is uncontroversial is that nobody of any humanity or sentience thinks that this IPP regime was a good idea and is an idea who which should be allowed to continue and continue to cause harm.

I asked the Minister, when he comes to wind up, whether he will admit, on behalf of the government, whether he will accept on behalf of the government that the IPP regime as currently administered is causing real harm to people in prison, to those on licence outside prison who are in danger for reasons wholly unconnected with the original offence which gave them the IPP in the first place, and is doing our reputation as a place of fairness and justice, real harm as well.

The there is not an angle that you could come at this problem without feeling dirty and appalled by the way in which it is being continued. Lord Thomas and I looked at 60 sets of papers. I think it was 60 sets of papers, case papers dealing with IPP offenders who had either been recalled, I think they all had been recalled, and a large proportion of them had been recalled for relatively trivial reasons. A large proportion of them had been recalled for reasons which had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the index offence for which they had been originally sentenced.

They had returned to prison. Some of them had been released again after a period and then re recalled. So thus extending the ludicrous nature, the Kafkaesque nature of this type of sentence, and this, as Lord Brown said all those years ago, this stain on our justice system. So it is uncontroversial that where we are now is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it ought to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord Thomas, cited in general terms some of the information provided to us by UNGRIPP.

I'm a patron of UNGRIPP. It is an interest group of families of IPP prisoners seeking to reform the. This regime. There are, as the noble Lord said, 946 people who have never been released from their IPP sentence. Of that 946, 940 of those people are in prison over their tariff. Limit and 689 of those people are incarcerated by between 10 and 20 years beyond their tariff. Now, these are numbers, but these are numbers describing real people and real families who are affected by this disgraceful state of affairs.

And just to underline the point about just to underline the point about real harm, 1476 are currently back in prison on IPP. Those were recalled for some administrative reason. They failed to turn up for a an appointment or they were drunk. But that had nothing whatever to do with what I've said any number of times with the original offence, nor have they committed an additional offence. And one of the things that I learned from the study I did with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was that if you are going to recall somebody by virtue of another form of misconduct and it amounts to a criminal offence, well, they should be prosecuted.

They should not just be pulled back off the street administratively, they should be charged, tried and sentenced on the evidence or acquitted, but not this sneaky little business of just pulling them off the street in a East German or Soviet way. That's enough of those figures. Let me go straight back to my new clause. Where I differ from the the method advanced by the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Lord Hailsham, is that my new clause? Our new clause would require a panel established by the Secretary of State to reconsider the cases of every person subject to a sentence of imprisonment for public protection and in custody within six months of the date on which the.

The bill we're currently discussing is enacted. The panel would consist of 12 available judges or former judges who have sat in the Crown Court under the age of retirement, and they would be nominated to serve on the panel by the Lord justice, the Lord Chancellor. But here, if if I think it was Subclause six is the magic clause in the noble Lords noble and learned Lords new clause. My Subclause three is the one that I would invite your Lordships to concentrate on, because it introduces a degree of thinking about what is proportionate into the the question that has to be discovered.

Subsection three reads. As soon as practicable after the establishment of the panel, a member of that panel. So it will be one judge at a time. Not not all 12 sitting in a group. A member of that panel must reconsider each case and determine whether, having regard to a the nature of the person's offending. Let me say in parentheses. There will be some people who are serving in IPPS sentence who may have been held to be dangerous because they'd committed, for example, a double rape or a vicious violent assault.

But there are some people who are on IPPS who've done no more. I say no more in in inverted commas, but done no more than commit a street robbery and stolen with violence, or with the threat of violence. Somebody's mobile telephone, and they may have done it several times. Yes, that's very bad behaviour. But they are still some of these people are having been given a 12 month or 18 month tariff, are still languishing in prison 20 years later. Is that what we call justice in this country? So let us bring some sense of proportionality back to the assessment of the offender.

Have a look at the period spent in custody. Have a look at the risks of the public. And of course, we all we all worry about what risk is and how to assess it. But we have to make a an attempt to assess the best or least worst way of mitigating that risk. We either do it through the parole board or we do it. It seems to me, through this judicial panel, but it's got to be done. You can't just sit in your house and say it's all too difficult, and it is.

If it's ten years too late, if it's five years too late, if it's five weeks too late, if it's five days too late, if it's five minutes too late, it's too late. And we must do something right now. Yeah, yeah. And then the, the judge on the panel will have regard to the arrangements can be made for supervision, rehabilitation and support in the community. Many of these people have become catastrophically institutionalised as a consequence of being imprisoned all of this time.

Just imagine you've been bunged inside for robbing a person of their telephone. A relatively minor offence in the great canon of criminal affairs. And there you are, 20 years later, possibly being, having, being recalled because you failed to turn up to an appointment at a parole or a probation office, asking yourself, what on earth is the point? I will take my own life, or I will live in this place till the day I die of natural causes. And so let the panel let the judge look at what can be done with regard to supervision, rehabilitation and support outside prison.

And then if you're worried about that, well, the panel judge is not the final decision because his decision her decision is susceptible to judicial review. And if the Secretary of State doesn't like it, he can refuse to accept the recommendation. And the Secretary of State's decision is susceptible to judicial review. So there are different ways of dealing with risk. But whatever way you go at it, you've got to do it. Absolutely. And really, one must stop delaying around and saying, oh, well, it's all too difficult.

The daily whatsit won't won't like it if somebody gets out. We're bigger than that, we're better than that. And we should do something about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I, I have been anxious about this for many, many years, but anxiety doesn't save lives. Anxiety doesn't get justice to these people. Might make me feel good, but what Might make me feel good, but what makes me really angry is government after government after government after government after government flunking it and failing to be brave but rationally brave, not reckless. And the noble Lord and noble Lord, Lord Thomas is presenting the government with a way forward.

So am I. Pick one. Pick your own. But for God's sake, do something.
21:15
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
For this side. >> For this side. >> Forgive me, but I do think it's time that we heard from the. time that we heard from the. Forgive me. I want to be brief, because speeches have been eloquent and passionate and all the bases have been covered. But I do think it's important in the absence, for example, of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, whose amendments I signed that that someone from the Labour Benches can conveys the concern that persists in the Labour Party, including of people who are incredibly loyal to the government and incredibly proud of my noble friend, the Minister.

Lord Timpson this this anxiety, this concern of this profound injustice is very alive and very real. So I support the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and other aspirations and amendments in this group, and agree that administrative mechanisms have not been enough and do not show the signs of being enough to prevent more suicides and self-harm from what the noble and learned Lord put very well as a collective miscarriage of justice. And when there are miscarriages of justice, is justice that are perpetrated by the judiciary.

There are appeal mechanisms and, and, and even executive pardon mechanisms to deal with that. But this was perpetrated by the political class, by the executive and the legislature, to the credit of the coalition government, the the IPP sentence was ended. But but the response in relation to those already incarcerated was inadequate. And so these people frankly rot in prison. And the noble and learned Lord Garnier put very well that some of these people have now been incarcerated, some of them even without any release, for offences that would never have justified life imprisonment and well, well decades beyond tariff.

And this is unconscionable, and something must be done. Now, I know very well from the from the regular meetings and all the engagement and all the work that my noble friend Lord Timpson is, is doing, that he's committed to getting these people out, if at all possible. But administrative mechanisms do not seem to be enough, and I hope he'll forgive me saying that in these meetings and in this engagement, some of us have observed even some institutional intransigence in some parts of the institution about about dealing with this.

But frankly, it was a legislative disaster. And it will require a legislative solution. Now, I hope that I hope that my noble friend, the Minister, will be able to make this 11th hour concession that may that may prove difficult. I don't know, but at the very least, I would hope that he might consider a free standing, a free standing bill that the government could bring forward with cross-party support, that that would provide a mechanism to deal with the remaining relatively small number of people.

But suffering this profound injustice because administrative mechanisms and wait and see are plainly not going to work, not least because of this point about zero risk, which was actually introduced by the noble Lord Moylan earlier, earlier this evening and has and has come up in a number of speeches. There cannot be zero risk. There is not zero risk with the mainstream population that people who've never been convicted of an offence. So of course there isn't zero risk in relation to this cohort, and that any risk that they do pose is probably been exacerbated, as was put by the noble and learned Lord, by this appalling, appalling, state sponsored miscarriage of justice, of collective proportions.

And it's time for all of us to play our part on a cross-party basis, which is why I shall be listening as anxiously to the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Ely opposite, because this is a political problem and an institutional problem, and it will take goodwill from all sides to deal with it, because we spoke earlier about the purposes of imprisonment and the legitimate purposes of imprisonment were never supposed to be political point scoring. And yet that political point scoring has created all sorts of problems that have escalated in the last three decades.

And so I would hope that there could be some olive branch offered from that side of the house as well. But I know that my noble friend, the Minister, is so committed to justice and has proven in his own extra parliamentary life what can be done with genuine courage and commitment to turning people's lives around? This, I know, is on his mind. I'm asking him to consider a legislative response and not just leaving it to the administration, because that has not been sufficient.

So as I say, I, I support Lord Thomas's approach, but there is a lot in what the noble Lord Garnier said, too. It's a shame, perhaps, that we didn't have a single offering, but nonetheless there will have to. I firmly believe that there will have to be a legislative offering, ideally from the government. Otherwise, this stain, in the words of the of my dear friend and former mentor, the late noble and learned Lord Simon Brown of Eaton, under Heywood, will carry on perhaps beyond our own lifetimes, and I, for one, would be seriously ashamed of that.
21:21
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
First of all, say that there. Are amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord Lord name of the noble Lord Lord Blunkett, and he's asked me to say that he's mortified that he can't be here today, and he sends his apologies to the house, that he isn't able to be here to move them. I have my own amendment in this group, which is number 78, which is carried forward from Committee stage. It's a very modest amendment, making it administrative change that relates only to prisoners who are out on licence to make it easier for them, some of them to discharge their licence.

I'm delighted to say that it had a reasonably good welcome in committee from the noble Lords Minister, and that he has brought forward his own amendment, the government amendment in this group, which effectively does what what I was proposing in my amendment number 78. So of course, I've no intention of moving that. And I'd encourage noble Lords to support the minister's, the government amendment in this group. Sorry. Turning to the main question, though, we have the essential problem.

I'm not and I'm not here to beat up the government. I say straight away, there are really difficult issues here for for Ministers, not just Labour Ministers. I've seen very good people as conservative Ministers struggle with just the same issues in the past, and that would be true if there were Ministers from other parties. They are really, genuinely very difficult issues because of the question of public protection. But as the noble Baroness Chakrabarti said, complete protection for the public is not possible.

The way in which we try to maximise protection for the public in this, in these cases, is to having decisions about release made by independent bodies, in particular by the parole board. And it's been very obvious that Ministers of both parties have been been very, very clear that nothing is going to happen. Nobody is going to be released unless it is with the say so of the parole board. Now, the the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has crafted his amendment very much.

With that in mind, the parole board, of course, follows certain procedures, and those procedures are not fixed in stone. It seems to me the procedures, of course, are up for argument. The fact that it is the parole board that must decide is not up for argument, but how the parole board works can legitimately be up for argument. And what the noble and learned Lord Hampton is. Try to change those procedures to change the emphasis so that the prisoner is given an incentive to engage with the parole board, an incentive that if within a certain period, if certain things are complied with within a certain period, then the parole board will say yes rather than the current system where the prisoner goes through hoops and then finds out afterwards whether the parole board is going to say yes or no.

So that's a shift in balance, this change merely in the way in which the parole board works. But just to make 100% certain that the danger to the public is not increased. The noble and learned Lord has, of course, included the measure that he mentions, whereby the parole board can rescind any such conditional offer if it finds it isn't working out. Now, it seems to me that Ministers should really be able to have an open mind about the proposal such as that, because it does not touch the red wires, the red lines that they are so concerned about.

It is merely a change in the way in which the parole board approaches its task, but one which has, I think, a better prospect of success. Now. Similar remarks were made about the proposal made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, where again, in his case, the independent body in this case would be a judge, a panel of judges, or a judge operating from a panel. And again, the Secretary of State would have a final say. The Secretary of State could override it at the end.

And so there would be that fail safe built in either of these mechanisms would have a dramatic effect. I think it's fair to say, in altering the balance. And while there would still be some prisoners, I frankly admit who probably would never even meet those criteria, or at least not not without a great deal of work, it would start to address that residue, which is finding it very difficult to move at the moment, and to do so in a way that doesn't cross the government's red lines.

So I have every sympathy with the Minister, who has, as other noble Lords have said, worked extremely hard on this. But I think I think we're trying to make it as easy as possible for him to be able to embrace some sort of change while protecting the public, the public safety. I hope that he can step forward and say something positive about this that we could carry forward for the future. I do think that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas chooses to divide on this amendment, I would feel obliged to follow him into the lobbies, but I would much rather hear it said by the Minister that he is going to be able to find that compromise, which would allow all of us to work together in this direction.
21:27
21:29
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
It's clearly wonderful to hear from the Labour benches, because I know from private conversations know from private conversations there's a lot of concern about this. It's a morally indefensible position to say that we're not going to do it because of public opinion, or because a newspaper might pick it up and and run a bad story about the government. There's enough bad stories about the government. I'm sure it will get lost in the confusion. But what we have essentially, at the moment in front of us is to clear ideas.

I signed the Noble and Leonard Lord Garnier's amendment, but I equally will support the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd amendment because clearly we need to move forward, and this government has to understand that we're not going to give up. It's it's it's unbelievable. We are still talking about this. It's has it been years I've lost track years that we we here in this house have more or less agreed we have to do something. And yet the government's intransigence has just shocked us all.

And so really, I don't think we have a choice if, if, if either of these, if this amendment doesn't pass we or if it does pass, I think we still persist in this and we still keep raising it, and we still keep pushing the government because they are in the wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord. I was. Schooled in this subject. If I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schooled in this subject. If I was schooled at all by the late learned Simon Brown of Eaton, under learned Simon Brown of Eaton, under Heywood and the noble and learned Lord judge Igor Judge. They both Lord judge Igor Judge. They both took me through this, and they were absolutely certain in what they were saying. You heard Simon
21:31
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
were saying. You heard Simon Brown's verdict that this was possibly the greatest stain on our judicial system. And as a noble Lord knows, I feel very strongly about this and indeed joint enterprise. But the thing that I would like to talk about, just very briefly, is this element of proportionality. I'm very attracted both to the noble and learned Lord Thomas's solution and that of the noble Lord Garnier. Earlier we heard the Minister, noble Lord Timpson, arguing very eloquently and successfully on amendment 74.

And equally we heard the noble Lord Lord Keen of Elie putting a very strong case from his point of view. But the fact is that some of the people that are in prison for this are not in prison for things anywhere near as serious as the things that noble Lord Lord Keen mentioned, and that the noble Lord Timpson said would be OK, that they would be carefully scrutinised. Now there are people who are serving endless sentences who were originally only sentenced to 18 months in prison, but they're still there.

Their families are still concerned. So I think we have to look at the proportionality. What were they originally sentenced for? How long were they sentenced for? And how does that colour the views of whether it's the Parole Board or whether it's judges? Because I think that is an absolutely essential point, which really leads us to feel shame. The fact that people are in prison for very minor offences compared to rape and murder, and they're on an original sentence, which was relatively minor compared to murder and rape.

So we really do have to look at this, and I I'm not going to go on any longer. Just implore the noble Minister to use the mercy and clemency he has shown so clearly in dealing with the prison system in this case, because there's a unanimous feeling around the House. Nobody yet has gone against the point that we're all making that something has to be done.
21:33
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And it. >> To start with, I would just like to point out that the noble Lord Lord Timpson, is undoubtedly personally committed to resolving personally committed to resolving this issue. Nobody, I think, is making any party political points, making any party political points, and nobody's personally having a go at the Minister. But that is not sufficient for us to go home with tonight either. We still have to say, regardless of how honourable and wonderful the Minister might be, IPPS has dragged on and so I will be voting with the the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd amendment.

But what's more is since he spoke so brilliantly to start this debate, all of the speeches have just been as though I've never heard the subject before. I feel like crying. I feel like screaming. I mean, in other words, this is an incredibly important scandal that gets you every time. And actually it gets to members of the public every time when you share it with them, they they are equally as appalled. They can't believe it. So one of the things that I think we need to do is, you know, one of the points that that I noted from Lord Thomas's amendment is, you know, that it will make I wrote down, it will make the indeterminate determinate, you know, there'll be an end in sight, because apart from anything else, I mean, never mind the sentences.

I feel as though this debate is sort of indeterminate and going on forever, because I seem to have repeated it endlessly and endlessly. And when I heard, you know, UNGRIPP making the point that the current decrease in IPP prison population, it will take a minimum of 11 years to release everyone currently on an IPP sentence. That's 31 years since its introduction and 24 years since its official abolition. I mean, you do think it's got to end. It can't we can't just keep this isn't nobody's doing this as a joke or for a game to just make the same kind of speeches.

I would like to say that on amendment 96, the noble Lord Lord Garnier amendment, which particularly appeals to me a couple of things that I wanted to just note about. And I'm not always a fan of judges, it has to be said. But anyway, in this instance, one of the things I like about it is every single prisoner would be looked at, each and every circumstance would be considered. That's what I think is very important, because I do think there have been times when I've spoken, when it made it sound like a one size fits all, you know what I mean? Release them all or what have you.

Right. And I think that this has the advantage of taking into consideration every single circumstance what what the particular prisoners would need. And I think that's very important. I also think that it notes and, and this is something that hasn't, I don't think had enough mentioned tonight that in some instances the the resolution of this is that a prisoner will need to be transferred to a hospital, and it might not be straightforward to just release them from a hospital.

They might be very seriously ill at that point. But the main thing would be that because the end would be in sight, that if they were ever well enough to be released from hospital, they wouldn't then go back to prison on the IPP sentence, which very often is made them ill. In the first instance, I just wanted to quote the psychiatrist who said, how do you motivate somebody to take part in treatment at the hospital if the outcome of that is effectively to facilitate their return to prison? And and I do think that's a terrible tragedy.

Right. I'll just finish with only one anecdote, just because I think it makes the point. Rob Russell, who's on an IPPS sentence, is actually in prison at the moment. We're sentenced in 2009 for making threats to kill his former partner. Now, I hope I've illustrated today when I've spoken, that I'm not a fan of being soft on domestic abuse perpetrators. Right. This is somebody who threatened to kill his former partner, but he was sentenced in 2009. So we're talking and he's never been released, by the way.

He's now in hospital and I don't want him to go back. I want him to get well, but I don't want him to go back to the IPP sentence. But can you imagine if he gets well and he goes back to Pearson? He could be on the same landing as somebody who's been convicted for domestic violence, not threats, but violence of actually having committed violence against their partner. But as that person is on a standard determinate sentence, they could be offered early release.

Earn your way to release. But Rob won't, and he actually just threatened. And I, honest to God, think that is grotesque. But the government Minister today, who I'm a great admirer of, justified the risks of freeing people who are violent, who've been violent early on the basis of freeing up space in prisons, because we have to protect victims and give them space. I would just say that IPPS might well present a risk when they're freed into the community, but it has now been explained.

So will all of those people on early release that we've just discussed all day? There's no doubt about it. Something will happen with some of them. I don't wish it, I just know it. And the fact that the IPP are the ones who have to prove every time that they will never do anything again, is just ludicrous. I was thinking if I was Rob, who's been mentally ill and you had to compare yourself with this person who's getting out early, the sense of frustration and hopelessness on your own part would honestly help make your mental health deteriorate again.

So I just simply think that it has to end and we have to do whatever it requires. I do think the Minister would be helped if it was legislative, and whichever piece of whichever amendment works works for me, I'll vote with it. But something this can't carry on, and I know that it's too melodramatic. I just mean genuinely it needs to end because in the grotesqueness of it, in the context of this sentencing bill, this releasing people for a wide range of reasons, and we can't release people who are in prison decades after their tariff for minor things.

And we won't even look at assessing each of them to see whether they might be safe. Beyond the IPP Parole Board thing is just ridiculous. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I co-signed Thomas's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I co-signed Thomas's Amendment 76 and shall support it. The amendment of Lord Garnier would achieve the same outcome. Either achieve the same outcome. Either amendment would right this injustice. The present position is injustice. The present position is simply cruelty. I have very little to add to all the speeches which have been both principled and have been both principled and humane, but it has been all the speeches across the House. Noble
21:40
21:42
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, these amendments address the most complex and sensitive of legacies in our sentencing framework. Few issues illustrate more clearly the challenge of balancing public protection, fairness to victims, management of risk, and the injustice to individuals who have already served far beyond their original tariff. The noble Lord Berkeley of Knighton correctly pointed out that there is an issue here, proportionality, and we seem to sometimes lose sight of that. Amendment 76 does not provide for automatic or immediate release.

Instead, it would require the parole board, where it does not direct release, to fix a future release date subject to conditions intended to ensure public protection, but also to instil some element of hope. The amendment preserves a central role for the Parole Board, including, of course, powers to issue directions, vary release dates and reconsider decisions where public safety does require it, and the inclusion of time limits seeks to balance progression with caution, though views may differ as to whether these limits are set at the right level, and although these are complex judgements and reasonable views can differ on how best to reconcile rehabilitation and public protection.

These proposals represent a thoughtful attempt to impose coherence and fairness on an area of law that has become impossibly difficult, while attempting to keep public protection firmly in view. I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will engage constructively with the principles underlying these amendments and explain how the government intends to address the long term sustainability of the IPP regime. The Lords, the status quo is untenable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on IPP sentences and their impassioned sentences and their impassioned speeches this evening. And as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley kindly said, I share their commitment to said, I share their commitment to addressing this issue with compassion, evidence and tenacity. I would also like to thank the many noble Lords who have participated in debates, meetings and
21:44
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
in debates, meetings and discussions on this issue. I am grateful for their challenge and support, both in your Lordships' House and in our peers meetings, which I've planned to continue in the future. And as it is with great pleasure that I've been able to table amendment 91, I have seen the impact this sentence has had on those serving it and their families over many years. This amendment delivers on my ambition to offer a faster and safer route to the end of their sentence.

It provides a target for those serving the sentence to aim for. It strikes the right balance between rehabilitation and public protection, and I hope noble Lords will support this carefully considered and constructive step forward. Most importantly, it provides hope to those serving IPP sentence and their families, which my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton rightly said is so important. Changes made in last year's Victims and Prisoners Act have seen over 1700 licences terminated in November 2024, and the number of people on licence falling by around two thirds.

Crucially, I have heard from parole board members and seen for myself that these measures have given much needed hope to those on IPP sentences. Amendment 91 builds on that progress. It allows IPP offenders licences to be terminated after two years in the community rather than three. Early analysis indicates that up to 100 people could be positively impacted by these termination changes. This change provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, whilst ensuring our communities are protected from harm.

Amendment 91 also allows a further application for licence review one year after the qualifying period where the licence has not been terminated and no recall has occurred. I must pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Moylan, whose amendment inspired this change. I must also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his ardent determination to tackle the challenges of the IPP sentence. We agree with his suggestion. An amendment 77 of a two year qualifying period. However, we do not agree that the qualifying period for DPP offenders should be reduced.

DPP DPP offenders who entered custody as teenagers have missed critical life stages such as education, employment, relationships and independent living. The probation service plays a key role in providing the sustained support they need to build the stability and skills necessary for safe reintegration. Shortening the qualifying period would significantly reduce the support mechanisms available to the offender and increase the risk to victims in the public, and it could lead to difficulties for the probation officer in making a comprehensive referral and for the Parole Board in determining whether it is safe to terminate the licence.

It may therefore lead to fewer decisions to do so. I turn now to amendment 84 and 85, proposed by my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Baroness Chakrabarti. IPP offenders can only be recalled for behaviour or breaches of their licence that are causally linked to their offending. In practice, this means where the public is at risk of further sexual or violent offending. This is a higher bar than those serving standard determinate sentences. At the point of recall, the controls available to the probation service are no longer sufficient to manage that risk.

To keep the public safe. Automatic release before offenders have received the required support to reduce their risk would put victims and the public at risk and recalled. IPP prisoners can be released where their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. Many recalled IPP offenders have already been rereleased under the RA power introduced to the Victims and Prisoners Act, when they were due to wait for many months before their scheduled hearing before the Parole Board through the IPP Action Plan, HMPPS are considering all IPP offenders recall for being out of touch or in relation to allegations of further offences for RA.

For cases where RA is not appropriate, it is rightly for the Independent Parole Board to decide whether it is safe to rerelease an individual into the community. I now turn to amendment 76, tabled by the noble and learned Lord Thomas and supported by the noble Lady, Baroness Ludford. We acknowledge the considerable scrutiny given to the issue by the Howard League for Penal Reform, led by the noble and learned Lord, for their June 2025 report. I have carefully considered all the recommendations, one of which was to provide a release date for all IPP prisoners.

Providing IPP prisoners with a release date within two years would include prisoners who the Parole Board has determined, in many cases repeatedly, are too dangerous to be released. This would pose an unacceptable level of risk to victims and the public, and runs counter to the first duty of any government to keep the public safe from harm. The noble Lady, Baroness Ludford, suggests that the government doesn't have the backbone to face adverse newspaper headlines. With respect, this is a travesty. The government's concern is wholly and solely for the safety of victims, and the government does not believe that allowing the Secretary of State or Parole Board to set aside a release date is sufficient, and it remains based on setting a future date for release.

I know it is not what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, nor the noble Lord Lord Carter wants to hear, but the government considers it vital that prisoners are only released if they meet the statutory release test. To reassure the noble Lady Baroness Fox. The Parole Board already review every single individual IPP case at least every two years, and in many cases more regularly. I thank the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for tabling amendment 96.

Noble Lords have contributed greatly to the work on the IPP sentence, and I welcome their expertise and passion in this area, and I share the noble Lords ambition to release IPP prisoners as soon as the risk presented is manageable in the community. However, our view is that the panel proposed by this amendment would replace the Parole Board's remit. The Parole Board is made up of judicial members, as well as members with specific experiences in areas such as psychology and psychiatry. With these backgrounds, and the IPP Task force that the board has set up, there is considerable experience in reviewing and managing IPP prisoner cases.

I am looking forward to inviting the Parole Board to our next IPP Peers Round Table, and the current release test already requires the Parole Board to direct release where it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined. Therefore, the government cannot see how this amendment would result in an increase in IPP prisoner releases. We will implement changes that provide hope and finality where it is safe to do so, but we must resist changes that would intolerably increase risk to victims or the wider public.

Alongside legislative reform, I continue to turbocharge IPP action plan. The Prison Reform Trust recently welcomed the progress that has been made under the IPP Action Plan, while rightly emphasising that there is still more to be done. For the first time, the IPP Action Plan includes measurable targets. We've committed to improving access to release on temporary licence, expanding improved premises for resettlement support and enable swift rerelease following recall through Ras where it is safe to do so. We are not giving up hope to anyone on the IPP sentence.

That is why HMP Aylesbury is in the process of creating a bespoke unit dedicated to supporting IPP prisoners, who are struggling to progress in their sentence. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hastings, who commended this work after his recent visit. All of these measures are contributing to a decline in the unreleased IPP population, down 14% since June 2024. I hope that the government's amendment and our wider work assures noble Lords of our determination to support all those imprisoned to progress towards a safe and sustainable release.

I will continue to work closely with noble Lords towards this goal, but I must urge them to withdraw their amendments.
21:52
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a debate in which the views, save for that of the Minister, have been unanimous across the House. And the unanimous view is that something needs to be done in the interests of justice. And it is justice that lies at the heart of this debate. And one of the cardinal principles of justice is treating everyone equally before the law. So if you stole a mobile phone, robbed someone of it in 2005 or 2014, you ought to be treated in exactly the same way.

If you committed that offence during the period of this misconceived sentence, and failing to do that is to condemn people to injustice and to perpetuate it. It is no excuse to say, well, they were under a sentence passed by the courts when everyone is agreed that sentence was wholly misconceived. Nor is it an excuse to say, well, there is a risk they're more dangerous because the form of sentence, the psychiatric evidence is unanimous in view, has made that danger the greater.

But if you look at the amendment and you look at what it tries to deal with, and I'm very sorry that those who provided the briefing to the Minister did not understand the change that had been made to the proposals put forward, or either my proposal I put forward or Lord Garnier put forward because it did not require and neither required two year release. There was a safeguard put in. And so what we proposed was something that would have protected the public to the extent that it is to be protected and must be protected.

I would hope we could give people hope. I do not believe, from what I have seen, as Baroness Chakrabarti has said, and as Lord Garnier has said from the file be reviewed, that this can be solved administratively. It needs legislation. I would therefore, with deep regret, feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House. But in doing so, I think it's important to bear in mind what Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, Lord, Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick reminded the House in 2014 that Winston Churchill had said many years earlier that one infallible test of any civilised country is the way in which it treats its prisoners.

I hope we will not fail that test. We need to do justice to those in prison. I therefore, would like to seek the opinion of the House on amendment 76. Six. After clause 23. Insert the clause set out on the Marshalled List. Question is that the amendment be agreed to as many that opinion will say. Content. Content to the contrary, not content not matter. The matter will
21:56
22:06
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Marks. Lord Oates. My amendment 79 to 81 would make the amendment 79 to 81 would make the 56 day fixed period of automatic of recall, a maximum period and not a recall, a maximum period and not a fixed period. Well, my my amendment fixed period. Well, my my amendment 87 would make automatic release after a recall subject to an exclusion. Only those cases where it applied, particularly for serious offenders. My Lords recalls can follow and often do follow relatively trivial breaches of licence conditions.

And that's one of the criticisms that is frequently made of recalls from licence. The 56th day, a fixed period of recall, addresses the question of how long a recall should be and prevents it from being indefinite. But 56 days, we suggest, maybe in some circumstances too long, so that we would prefer a flexible period. The 56 day fixed period under the bill would apply, irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise, of the breach that brought about the recall, and it may often therefore be unjust.

Eight weeks is a long time and it may be far too long. It may follow, for example, as we know, a prisoner simply missing a probation appointment. My Lord, as I pointed out in committee recall, is likely to cost an offender who had found employment following a release on licence, and we've heard how important finding a job is for offenders where such an offender had found work. The recall may jeopardise that it might risk a newly released offenders housing.

And again, we know how difficult it is to find housing or participation in educational skills, vocational programs or other rehabilitative programmes. Indeed, seriously, it might affect an offender's mental health, treatment or treatment for addiction or substance abuse or gambling addiction. Now, a shorter recall might also carry those risks, but the likelihood is far less. And in a case where a shorter recall would be appropriate, then those consequences should be avoided, my Lords.

Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of licence conditions would not reduce the prison capacity shortage. Indeed, it would make it worse. A shorter recall might mitigate that, but there are cases where a 56 day recall may be too short, and our amendment 87 would mean that the automatic release provision would take effect, subject to a provision excluding that automatic release for those who had committed more serious offences, and the list of offences.

As the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen pointed out, is a list that his party have adopted in other purposes for other purposes. But in this case we accept it as a list of serious offences. But the point about this part of it is that it only applies to exclude automatic recall. So that recall would be discretionary, that would apply for serious sexual offenders. It would apply for stalkers who'd been recalled for harassing or stalking their victims on a repeat occasion, and so they would not be entitled to automatic release.

My Lord, this suite of amendments and it's short in, introduces an element of flexibility into the recall system. It means that the 56 days would be a maximum period, and where it was too long, it wouldn't be applied. And the case of a serious offender whose recall ought to be much longer would not lead to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

automatic release. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 29,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 29, page 55, line 16. At the beginning, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. To speak to amendments 82, 83

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak to amendments 82, 83 and 86. In my name. And this is a continuation of a discussion we had during Committee stage, which is
22:12
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
during Committee stage, which is particularly focussed on concern about the unintended consequences of domestic abuse perpetrators being released when they still present a potential grave danger to the women that they were abusing, and the women's families and children. My Lords, we welcome. And the Domestic Abuse Commissioner welcomes the measures in this bill to improve the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators and the commitment from government to resource the prison and probation services in order to increase their capacity to to do better.

We also welcome what is in the Vawg strategy. There is much to be to be welcomed in the Vawg strategy. In fact, there's so much in the strategy, you wonder whether it's actually going to be possible to do all of it. The ambition is laudable. The proof, of course, will be in the in the implementation. But what I think we do want to highlight is that in order to achieve this laudable commitment, it does require improvements across the criminal justice system that are embedded to ensure that victims and survivors are kept safer than they have been to date.

I'm particularly grateful to the Minister for the time that he spent with me, and with some of the domestic abuse commissioners, officials, and particularly we had a very interesting meeting with Kim Thornton Edwards, the new head of the probation service, who I find to be very formidable indeed. And whoever chose her, I speak as an ex Head-hunter did an excellent job because I think she will she will really up the game of the probation service and turbocharge it, which is what it much needs.

We also welcome the assurances given around investment in the system and the the improvements to the processes that are that are very necessary. However, what the key concern is, is this cannot and will not be achieved rapidly and certainly not overnight. And the Domestic Abuse Commissioner remains highly concerned that the mistakes may be made and there may be some some mistakes made which have very unfortunate consequences. So her concern is to try and mitigate that to the extent that it is possible.

And at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, the Minister, proposed amendments that would ensure that any offender recalled on the basis of contact with their victim would not be automatically released after 56 days, but would be risk assessed and held in custody until their risk to the victim has reduced and can be safely managed in the community. Now, although we are reassured by the investment into prisons and probation and the commitments to improve improve the risk assessment process, it is absolutely critical that safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible to prevent the release of the wrong people by mistake.

So the amendments that have been made and which I'm talking to, I anticipate and I think I know what the response of the Minister will be, which is essentially that there is a programme in place across the system to improve a whole range of of areas, including the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators on the level of risk they present, and that to try and carve out a particular area for specific oversight separately to, to the to the rest is is unhelpful to the programme as it is conceived.

And I can understand and accept that. So in the event that when the Minister responds, he decides not to accept these amendments, what the domestic abuse Commissioner is particularly keen to try and put in place, and I think the noble Lord, the Minister, has indicated he would be very open to this is a very, very close working relationship to ensure that all of the knowledge and experience that she and her staff have can be put at the disposal of the Minister, of his team and of the probation service to try and upskill the the knowledge that is required in order to effectively risk assess some of these difficult and very devious perpetrators.

In particular, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is keen to suggest to the noble Lord the Minister and his team that while at the moment the training in terms of how to identify and upskill, what is required to assess domestic abuse perpetrators is done in-house. Her suggestion is that there are a variety of external bodies which are highly specialised in this area and which are on the front line and have, you know, day in, day out experience that she would encourage the Minister to think about using their expertise and knowledge in cooperation with what is being done in house to extend and re-engineer.

So it is even more explicit and targeted that not only would give, I think, greater resource in terms of being able to have a bigger bandwidth to upskill the probation service, but it would also bring in the the knowledge from the people who are on the front line. And that would be, for example, organisations such as Advance Respect, the Hibiscus Initiative, Gallup and the End Violence Against Women Coalition. And of course, there are many others and she would be very happy to discuss that in detail and to try and work out how that might be, how that might be possible.

The other area which I think is important is at the moment the the assessment software that is that is used to to buy the service, to identify perpetrators is the Oasis risk assessment tool, my Lords, that has been in operation since 2001. And as you might imagine, it is not exactly state of the art 2025 software. And I'm aware that the Minister and his team are at the moment are bringing in a new version of this which will incorporate artificial intelligence, amongst other things, to to speed up and make the forensic examination of the degree of risk much, much better.

But that is that is sorely needed because at the moment, this system that is still being widely used does not. For example, when one is looking at domestic abuse or stalking, it does not include things like coercive and controlling behaviour or non-fatal strangulation, and to actually not have those key elements which are often involved in domestic abuse, actually, part of the Oasis system is a fairly major flaw, to put it mildly. Also, prompts for practitioners using this system are very heavily weighted towards evidence of physical violence and the information required from third party sources does not often provide a complete picture of risk.

Due to the limitations of this risk assessment and the fear of the management plan possibly being shared with the offender once complete. Which of course might bring some of the people who had given information about some of the perpetrators other activities to the attention of the perpetrator, which might in itself have some potential harm. And so we would welcome a discussion about how to use that knowledge and expertise to help with the re-engineering of the system that will be brought in to to replace Oasis.

Basically, the sooner, the sooner the better. So in summary, the Commissioner is very keen to to work with the Minister and his team and his officials and the probation service to try and upskill and re-engineer the way in which perpetrators are assessed for risk before they are potentially released. And she is keen to do this as quickly as possible.
22:20
Baroness May of Maidenhead Portrait Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, I rise to >> My Lords, my Lords, I rise to support amendments 82, 83 and 86. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. And if I may start by a point which I made earlier in the debate on amendment 25, the government has the strategy on violence against women and girls. It has a clear commitment to reduce violence against women and girls. And it seems to me, therefore, that the government should be looking to make sure that in no way does it inadvertently potentially increase the risk of violence against women and girls.

And I think that this aspect of the sentencing bill, the fact that a perpetrator who has been released has broken their licence by making contact breach their licence by making contact with the victim, is recalled, will then be could automatically be released after 56 days. Is such a potential loophole because that individual is highly likely in those circumstances to go back to that victim and potentially to a further abuse, that victim. The amendments that are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are time limited.

They're time limited because it is recognised that the government is increasing the capacity of the system to make risk assessments of these individuals. But that system is not. Those programmes are not entirely in place at the moment. And it seems to me there is a potential for the government by accepting these amendments to close this loophole down and to further enhance the ability to prevent violence against women and girls. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said about his conversations with the Minister and his expectation or concern that maybe the Minister might not immediately leap to his feet and accept these amendments.

And so I wanted to pick up one of these points about working with those in the field who are experts on these issues. It is only because of the new Domestic Abuse Act that we have a single definition of domestic abuse that is now used across the whole of government. That is a comprehensive definition of domestic abuse, because domestic abuse comes in many different forms. And sadly, many of those in the criminal justice system do not yet fully understand all those forms of domestic abuse.

And it is one of the issues that I know that the government will still be having to deal with in making sure that police and prosecutors and judges and probation officers all understand the panoply of issues that actually constitute domestic abuse. And so it is very important, if the government is not willing to close this loophole by accepting these amendments, that the government does work with those who are experts in this field in order to better make sure that those who are being trained to risk assess these perpetrators are able to do so in the full knowledge and understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse.

Yes, my Lord.
22:23
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Portrait Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I support this >> My Lords, I support this amendment put down by Lord Russell, amendment put down by Lord Russell, Liverpool. And I also want to congratulate Baroness May on her words and also to congratulate her on her fantastic editorship of the today programme on New Year's Day, when she highlighted the problems of domestic abuse. To me, this amendment would make a significant difference to the safety of victims. We're making progress in seeing victims coming forward and when they do protecting them, victims live with fear that their perpetrator will contact them at any time.

And my Lords, the Probation service is doing an excellent job most of the time. But change and training does take time, especially to embed itself, and has been witnessed without proper training, devastating and consequences can occur. My noble friend Lord Garnier said earlier on tonight stated just now that it it is all about risk and how to assess it, and this amendment is easy to incorporate, easy to carry out and could put in place a significant safety valve to the system while the necessary training is put in place.

So I really do ask my noble friend, the Minister, to try and see in his mind that this would be a good thing to do. I know sometimes I know when I was sitting on that bench, every now and again, an amendment would come forward when I was doing a bill. And I think this really is an amendment that could work. But I was always being put off either by the bill team or by this Parliament. And occasionally I did take it into my own head and do something on my own bat, and then was told when I left the chamber, you're making government policy.

That's not what you're meant to do. But I didn't get the sack, so it was worth doing it.
22:26
22:26
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
And. >> And. >> My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lords for tabling these amendments. And whilst we are still convinced that the approach in the convinced that the approach in the Bill is the right one, it is only right that it receives thorough scrutiny. In drafting these measures, we have sought to strike the balance between ensuring offenders can be safely managed in the community, with the need to achieve a sustainable prison system. Nothing would be worse for victims than running out of prison cells.

The new system has been carefully designed to achieve this, and to ensure consistent and proportionate responses to risk and non-compliance across all offence types. The offence based exemptions proposed by amendment 79 and 87 would undermine that consistency. It may not reflect an individual's actual risk level, and the bill already contains significant safeguards so that offenders who pose a greater risk are already excluded from 56 day fixed term recall. This includes those recalled on account of being charged with a further offence and those subject to multi-agency supervision.

Levels two and three. This applies to many sexual violence and domestic abuse offenders. Before any recall offender is rereleased, professionally qualified probation officers will undertake a thorough review of the release plans and licence conditions. They will ensure needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. Furthermore, a prisoner given a fixed term recall can be transferred to a standard recall if certain conditions are met, including if their risk escalates and they are then managed at multi-agency supervision.

Levels two and three offenders will leave prison to probation supervision and can be recalled again if considered a risk. I'll now turn to amendment 80 and 81, which seek to allow release from fixed term recall at an earlier point than 56 days. The Independent Sentencing Review found that the current short duration of fixed term recalls 14 or 28 days does not provide enough time for offenders to address their risky behaviours in custody or for further risk reduction measures to be implemented.

The government agrees with this assessment. This has been carefully considered with operational colleagues, and 56 days is enough time to undertake and put in place risk management plans, and our proposed framework already provides sufficient flexibility. Without any further legislation, any further legislative change needed. The bill already allows the Secretary of State to keep an offender in custody past 56 days by overriding automatic rerelease and converting a fixed term recall to a standard recall. Where this happens. Releases subject to parole board approval or under the existing risk assessed recall review process, allowing offenders to be released at any point before the 56 days where it is assessed safe to do so.

For example, if an offender could be recalled because of an increased risk linked to substance misuse, having received structured support in custody that can be continued in the community, probation staff assess they can now be safely managed in the community. In this situation, they can be rereleased before 56 days. I will now turn to amendment 82, 83 and 86. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I must start by thanking the noble Lord and representatives of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner's Office for meeting with me and officials before Christmas.

I also must thank the noble Baroness May for a number of years ago. I remember sitting in your office in number ten when I was part of your business council, and that was the first time I realised that if you want to get things changed, you've got to get involved in the way government works. And hence I'm here. And that's the noble Lord. Russell's excellent suggestion. The government will work with the noble Lord and the Commissioner to update guidance and training for the staff who work with domestic abuse offenders.

I am extremely grateful that we will be able to call on their expertise. I hope this also reassures the noble Baroness May and the noble Baroness Chisholm of are clear commitment to accepting expertise on this issue and having run a business for many years, I am well aware of how important training is of staff and getting in the expert. When you don't have those skills yourselves. We fully recognise the risk posed by offenders who breach licence conditions, civil orders or criminal orders related to their victims.

However, we are still of the view that introducing the exemption posed by these amendments, even on a time limited basis, would undermine the consistency of the approach contained in this bill. As I said earlier, before any recall defender is rereleased, probation officers review their release plans and licence conditions with a focus on mitigating risk against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour and where risk escalates, an offender can be recalled again to prison. And the improvements we're making in probation, underpinned by up to 700 million of additional funding by 2829, will support staff to do what they do best manage offenders and protect the public.

The bill also allows the Secretary of State to override automatic rerelease and convert a fixed term recall to a standard recall in exceptional circumstances. I thank the noble Lords and the noble Lords and noble Baroness for raising this issue, and I hope they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I don't propose, in the light of that answer to press this to a vote. that answer to press this to a vote. And so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 80 not moved. Amendment Amendment 80 not moved. Amendment 81 not moved. Amendment 82. Lord Russell not moved. Amendment 83 not moved. Amendment 84 Lord Blunkett not moved. Amendment 85 not moved. Amendment 86. Lord Russell not moved. Amendment 87 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 88. In clause 32, Lord Verdirame.
22:33
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to move this amendment on behalf of Lord Verdirame, who unfortunately cannot be present, unfortunately cannot be present, but I wish to express first of all, his appreciation of the time the his appreciation of the time the Minister has taken to speak to him about the particular issue raised about the particular issue raised by this amendment. I can explain it very briefly in the independent review conducted by Mr. David Gauke, he considered whether foreign national offenders should be removed to reduce pressure on capacity and ensure that that punishment was served for crimes committed in the United Kingdom under the then existing law, foreign national offenders had to serve 50% of the sentence, but then could be removed and returned to their own state, where they would get no further punishment.

The review recommended that the 50% rule be reduced to 30%. This was accepted and brought in by a Statutory Instrument, and those who were sentenced to three years or less could be removed without serving any part of their sentence. Here. Gauke 32 of the bill proposes the removal of the three year time limit so that any offender, however serious the offence is, can be removed without serving any part of the sentence whatsoever. The amendment proposed by Lord Verdirame does seeks to do three things.

First, restore the position that was recommended by Mr. David Gauke and that is to to ensure that people who received sentences of more than three years could not be removed without serving part of their sentence. Secondly, to make it clear that it's inapplicable to a person who has been deported and returns, it's to stop the revolving door of committing a crime, being deported, coming back, committing a crime, and going round and round and third, and requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied in the case of serious crimes, that the interests of justice were not defeated by removal, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact on those affected by it, it is it is a change from the amendment in one respect, but forward at the Committee stage, and that it drops the requirement that the offender serve his term overseas.

The most important of the three points raised by this amendment is the first, namely, that restoring the recommendation of the Gauke review. Now, as I understand it, that there are about 3000 such offenders and it costs about £61,000 a year to keep them in prison. Here, I can see no objection to sending them back if they're to serve the remainder of the term in their own country. But it is evident from the figures that only a tiny proportion would serve such a term.

The Bill, as it stands, therefore, will send back at our own cost a very significant number of people who have committed crimes that deserve at least three years imprisonment. It seems that the amendment the government has said they're not prepared to accept, partly because they can't agree to anything that will affect the reduction in the prison capacity. And secondly, they are determined to make sure that the public exchequer is relieved of the burden of sentence, of paying for the imprisonment of foreign national offenders.

And the purpose of this amendment is to try and reverse what can only be described as the interests of short term expediency over the principles of sentencing, because this amendment really infringes three of the principles of sentencing. First, if a person commits a wrong that merits three years or more imprisonment, then that person merits equivalent punishment being sent back to his own country at the taxpayer's expense is not a punishment. Secondly, the purpose of a sentence of sentencing is to deter crime.

What deterrence is there in making it clear that if a person comes to this country to commit a crime, he will be sent home free without punishment. And thirdly, and most importantly, proper punishment retains public confidence in the system. If, for example, someone commits a serious shoplifting offence to take series of shoplifting offences to go to the lower end of the three year limit, or more seriously, comes here deliberately to commit a crime paid for what deterrence is there? If that person knows he can go back, we would hope that the government would think again on this point.

But the second and third points are, that is to say, dealing with the revolving door problem in the first place. And secondly, requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the interests of justice are not defeated by removal, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the impact on those who are affected by it, why cannot the government accept those two points, and I hope the Minister will be able to say, well, we've got to have a framework to deal with those kind of issues and that that he will make it clear that among the issues to be contained in the framework that governs the way in which foreign national offenders are dealt with, that those two points, namely the revolving door point and maintaining and examining each case to ensure that the gravity of the offence and the effect of the offender will not be that which casts doubt on the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The Minister can give an assurance that those matters will be looked at and properly included within the policy framework. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed clause 32,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 32, page 59, line 27. At the end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lord, we're grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, we're grateful to the noble Lord Lord Verdirame for the carefully framed amendment. And to carefully framed amendment. And to the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for the very careful way in which he's presented the amendment. And we agree with all of the points made by Lord Thomas without qualification. When the previous Secretary of State for justice first intimated this policy earlier this year, I referred to it in this chamber as being completely mad.

I haven't deviated from that opinion. I have to confess the idea that someone coming from a safe country in Europe will commit a series of robberies and then, when caught, will be returned to their country of origin at public expense in order to pick up either a different set of identity papers or a different passport, and then return yet again, strikes me as quite absurd. That is the revolving door point that has been touched upon. But the other points are equally important.

Of course, they may not have come from a safe country, in which case we can't deport them. But no accommodation has been made for that either. It's going to be optional. Essentially, you may seek to argue that you haven't come from a safe country and therefore you can't be deported. So you prefer to stay in prison. But it is quite extraordinary proposal that somehow punishment lies in the fact that you've returned to your country of origin after committing a serious offence in this country.

So we have a foreign national who rapes a child, flees back to his country of origin, and presumably we no longer make any efforts at all to extradite them, because as far as this policy is concerned, they have been punished. They've gone home. What is that going to do for public confidence and the justice system? It will damage it. But I can't see any upside. It an impossible proposal. David Gauke proposed, very sensibly that there should be a minimum term of punishment, and that is necessary because it's not just punishment, it is also deterrent.

And without that, we end up in the strange situation in which people commit a crime, leave for their home country of public expense, return as and when they wish to do so. And we've had instances of that already. Of course, I won't go into the detailed cases at this stage in the evening, but it's not uncommon for those who've been arrested and convicted of offences to return to the country of origin and then return to these islands in due course.

And there have been a number of recent instances of that. So we strongly support the idea that there has to be a minimum term of imprisonment in respect of these cases, while understanding the pressure on our prisons, does the noble Lords Minister truly believe that public confidence in the justice system will be improved or even maintained as and when the full implications of this proposed policy become public? My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Verdirame for meeting with my noble
22:43
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
friend, the Minister Lord Timpson, to discuss his and the amendment to discuss his and the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, relating to the early removal scheme and for the early removal scheme and for the for the spirit in which this has been debated. A number of considering the lateness of the considering the lateness of the hour. I shall try and be brief, but and a number of the points that I want to, I want to make, I'll make want to, I want to make, I'll make very quickly.

But there are 1 or 2 points which I don't think have been adequately addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I'll perhaps just dwell on those. To be clear, the government's priority is protecting victims in the UK and ensuring that foreign national offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, they will be barred from ever returning to the UK, protecting victims and the wider public, limiting the early removal scheme to only those in receipt of lesser sentence less than three years would effectively put the brakes on sustaining the removal of foreign national offenders.

As the noble and learned Lord Maude Thomas said, there are currently more than 3000 foreign national offenders with a sentence greater than three years. The impact of this amendment would mean we would continue to hold all these prisoners in prison with, again, as acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord Thomas, with each year of detention costing £61,000 per average prison place, this would cost the taxpayer £183 million a year. And with regard to Lord Keen of Elie point about what the public might think, they may also have some views about that and the impact on our ability to imagine to manage prison capacity would be substantial.

I cannot agree with the characterisation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Lord Thomas with respect that this is simply a policy defined by short term expedience, and it is not only driven by the need to manage the prison capacity or the cost of it. I do agree that there needs to be consequences and a deterrent for foreign national offenders seeking to unlawfully return to the UK after removal, and the stop the clock provision already means that those who re-enter the UK, in breach of their deportation orders, following in the his removal, are liable to serve the remainder of their sentence.

And we will be exploring whether guidance should introduce a stronger presumption that they are not considered for early removal. Again, I do understand the concerns around the removal of foreign national offenders so early in their sentence may not be said to always be consistent with the interests of justice and Lord Verdirame made this point very clearly and very effectively at Committee stage, however, and this point has not been made by any of the Lords, the noble Lords that have spoken in this part of the debate so far.

I want to be clear that this scheme remains a discretionary scheme, that it will not be suitable for all foreign national offenders. The government is not saying to foreign national offenders will be deported immediately. They've been convicted in practice, prison governors or the CEO of HMPPS can and do refuse to authorise some ERS cases. We are developing the noble and learned Lord Hall Thomas asked for the government to develop a framework. We are developing new guidance to underpin the scheme, which will set out factors a governor may consider when authorising a removal and the reasons where it should be refused.

Currently, terrorism offences are excluded. Policy also states that removal should be refused where there is clear evidence a prisoner is planning a further crime, a commitment was also made in the other place to consider specific guidance as to how the scheme considers those convicted of stalking offences. For those that are not eligible for the early removal scheme, or have been refused by HMPPS for the scheme, we remain determined to pursue prisoner transfers where possible, and my noble friend, the Minister recently visited Albania to discuss how we can improve the current transfer agreement with them.

So with those observations about the limits on deportations soon after conviction, I hope the noble and learned Lord Moore will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble noble and learned Lord Lord Keen for his strong support for this, and I'm grateful to Lord Lemos, the grateful to Lord Lemos, the Minister, for his response. It is a pity that the discretionary nature pity that the discretionary nature of this scheme is not more clearly set out. I'm sure a number of the set out. I'm sure a number of the issues which have been dealt with by Lord Lemos could be more clearly dealt with if we were able to see in writing what the parameters are for the exercise of the discretion.

It's not enough just to leave it to individual governors, and in particular, dealing with the revolving door and dealing with crimes which are of gravity, where there is an effect on the victim. These are the kind of things that need to be built into such a scheme. And as I understand from Lord Lemos that there is going to be developed such a scheme on that understanding, I will not press this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further. Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 1889 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 1889 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 89. Lord Hintze the Amendment 89. Lord Hintze the question. The the question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 90 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved.

Amendment 91 Lord Timpson moved formally. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 92 Lord Keen not moved. Amendment 93 Lord Marks not moved. Amendment 94 Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marks not moved. Amendment 95 Lord Foster of Bath. My Lords, can I begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I begin by declaring my interest as the chairman of Peers to gambling reform and as the chairman of reform and as the chairman of Action on Gambling? These amendments, 95 and 99, are based on amendments, 95 and 99, are based on concerns that I've previously expressed during earlier stages of our consideration of the bill. That our consideration of the bill. That is, that at present, gambling disorder, unlike drugs and alcohol addiction, is not adequately addressed within the criminal justice system.

Gambling disorder simply doesn't have parity of
22:51
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
esteem with drug and alcohol addiction, and I believe that it addiction, and I believe that it should. The internationally agreed classification of mental disorders believes that it should and puts drugs, alcohol and gambling in a special subgroup of substance-related and addictive disorders. The Association of disorders. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners believe that there should be parity and our own Nice guidelines also say the same, and state that the screening about gambling should occur at each point of contact with the criminal justice system.

But my Lords, at present there is no parity of esteem and as a result, we are failing to tackle one of the key issues that leads people to offend and to re-offend. And we know from independent research that, for example, there is a far higher percentage, over 25% of the prison population suffering gambling harm than in the general population. And gambling, my Lords, is rife within our prisons. Yet current assessment of offenders rarely identify gambling disorder because there is not adequately referenced.

It's not adequately referenced in current and planned future assessment procedures and support and treatment for gambling disorder is rarely available, either in prisons or to those who are under the supervision of the Probation Service. As a result, My Lords, many individuals enter court or prison or start a non-custodial sentence without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Courts rarely then have access to gambling specific reports, leaving judges without evidence to make an informed sentencing decision.

There is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences and within prisons, or for those under the supervision of the probation Service. Treatment and peer support options are largely absent and on release. Continuity of care is frankly inconsistent, leaving individuals vulnerable to relax and reoffending. My Lords Amendments 95 and 99 seek to overcome these problems in terms of assessment and support for gambling disorder among offenders.

They seek to give parity of esteem for drug, alcohol addiction and gambling disorders. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 95. After clause 40, insert the new clause. The words is printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, I know it's late, but it's important that I cover a it's important that I cover a number of very important points. I must begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord. Lord Foster, the noble Lord has shown extraordinary
22:55
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lord has shown extraordinary tenacity and leadership on tackling gambling addiction and harms in the criminal justice system. I have certainly learned a lot from my conversations with the noble Lord on the subject, and it is no exaggeration to say that without the noble Lords interventions, I would not have fully appreciated the importance and significance of gambling addiction in driving offending. I also reflect back as leading a business where if I was more aware of problems with gambling addiction, I could have supported colleagues in a better way.

And I can assure the noble Lords that the noble Lord, that this is now a personal priority of mine. I accept that there is more to do to ensure that there is a parity of esteem between gambling addiction and more commonly recognised addictions such as drugs and alcohol. This work must be done urgently and I have tasked my officials to get on with ensuring this is taken forward. I am firmly committed to identifying offenders problems, whether they be drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, and to ensure that they can access the support they need to help turn their lives around and reduce reoffending.

But while we agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of amendment 95, we do not believe that legislation is needed. There are already multiple opportunities for offenders needs to be identified, including via pre-sentence reports. Staff are also encouraged to consider gambling related risks in risk assessments and rehabilitation planning, to ensure a consistent approach throughout the criminal justice system. Probation and prison staff use a single tool, the Offender Assessment System, or Oasis for short. I recognise Oasis provides minimal, overt prompts to encourage them to take gambling harms and addiction into account compared to drugs and alcohol addiction.

However, a new tool known as ONS is replacing this. An early version is now operating in four probation regions to ensure we focus on gambling more closely and is already testing updated questions, including is the person affected by gambling? But in the finance section, the if the answer is yes, the tool automatically prompts for further details. Additionally, the new sentence plan, due to be rolled out nationally from March this year, already includes gambling related rehabilitative goals for relevant individuals. However, I do accept that such a question is probably not best placed in the finance section, and we will review this based on advice from experts in the field.

The government is committed to working with experts in the gambling sector as we develop, test and refine our approach. This year, we have therefore invited, and I'm very grateful to noble Lord foster for introducing us to a world renowned expert on gambling addiction, Doctor Matt Gaskell, to advise the ONS project. As a member of its Academic Expert group, we will collaborate with Doctor Gaskell and the practitioners, testing the tool to establish how to make it work based on the evidence they present.

We will take a proportionate and evidence led approach in determining how and when assessments are completed to confirm I am committed to giving gambling addiction parity of esteem. Our approach will continue to evolve, guided by evidence and informed by expert advice to improve outcomes. I'm excited to convene a gambling roundtable in the coming months, bringing together leading voices to share valuable insights. I'm looking forward also to touring the country to speak to probation officers this spring, and will share the importance of gambling addiction with them then.

I also thank the noble Lord for tabling amendment 99. As with amendment 95, I agree entirely with the principle of supporting offenders to reduce reoffending. Many rehabilitative interventions are already available for individuals with gambling addiction or disorder. These include support with thinking and behaviour, debt advice, relationships, homelessness and unemployment. Mutual aid groups such as Gamblers Anonymous also have a very important role to play. I recognise that there is more to do to improve access to mutual aid across the estate, not just for gambling but also for drugs and alcohol.

It is a personal aim of mine to ensure that all prisons have weekly access to Gamblers Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and I want to work closely with these fellowships to achieve this. I am really pleased that Gambling Anonymous is already operating in 11 prisons, and I'm sure many prisoners benefit from their support. HMPPS have established a forum for mutual aid fellowships to help identify and tackle barriers to access. With the support of forum members, HMPPS has developed guidance for prisoners on facilitating access to mutual aid and is co-developing promotional materials.

The forum includes Gamblers Anonymous and I am grateful for their ongoing support and collaboration, recognising there is more we need to do, we are working with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for people in the criminal justice system, and this includes support with thinking and behaviour, debt advice, relationships, homelessness and unemployment. We are working with health partners in the scoping and development of future work undertaken through the treatment strand of the Gambling Levy Programme will be allocated, which will be allocating 50% of funding from the levy.

Funding from the statutory gambling levy will further bolster the support available, and the government has committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of the levy. Pilots are already in place to strengthen treatment provision in criminal justice settings across both NHS and third sector providers. NHS England is committed to building on these pilots to ensure treatment interventions are robust, effective and evidence led. They are working hand in hand with the office, with the office for Health Improvement and Disparities, who lead the prevention strand of the levy to deepen our understanding of prevalence and inform future approaches to screening.

I do not believe further legislation is therefore required. Our focus is on strengthening delivery and transparency. Instead, I commit on the record that before the summer recess, I will write to the noble Lord in partnership with my counterpart and Department of Health and Social Care Minister Dalton, on the joint progress we have made in this area. I am also going to write to stakeholders and experts that the noble Lord is working with to update them on the progress the noble Lord has made in ensuring the government will take this issue forward urgently and to reaffirm our commitment and approach for the reasons I have outlined, I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
23:01
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for what have been very constructive conversations on these issues, both with him and with his issues, both with him and with his officials. And in light of what he said, I hope he'll be willing to sign up. As a member of Pearson sign up. As a member of Pearson Gambling Reform. Can I also thank him for the incredibly generous compliments he made to me at the start of his speech? It was the former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, who said that flattery is the foot soldiers of diplomacy.

But my Lord's feeling as strongly as I do about these issues, I have to admit that flattery alone would not have persuaded me to give up my campaign to see gambling harm, given a far greater priority in the criminal justice system. But beyond flattery, the noble Lord, the Minister, has given a very personal, very strong, very powerful commitment to seek to achieve that which I have been trying to seek as well. And indeed, he's perhaps gone even further.

So I'm enormously grateful for that. And in the light

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of it, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 96 not moved. Amendment Amendment 96 not moved. Amendment 97 Thomas not moved. Amendment 97 a 97 Thomas not moved. Amendment 97 a not moved. Amendment 98 not moved. Amendment 99 Lord Foster of Bath Amendment 99 Lord Foster of Bath not move. Amendment 100 not moved.

Amendment 100 a Lord Balfe not moved. Amendment 101 Lord Timpson moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 102 Lord Timpson. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The amendment 103

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page