Prison and Probation Service

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to all the work he does on this subject. I also welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke about so articulately, the pressures on our Prison and Probation Service are stark. We have already heard that the Government have announced up to £500 million of additional funding for probation and community services, alongside at least 1,300 additional trainee probation officers in 2026-27. However, as we heard from many today, the strain on probation has been building for a long time, and many in the justice system have raised serious concerns about whether even this substantial investment will meet the scale of the challenge.

Finding and retaining workforce is a major challenge, while case loads continue to rise. The latest workforce figures, published in August, show that the Probation Service is almost 2,000 full-time equivalent officers below its target level; that is a significant gap. The changes to early-release arrangements next month will mean that probation has even more on its plate, especially with the increased emphasis on intense supervision, electronic tagging and monitoring, alongside the increased casework. Where does that leave effective and meaningful rehabilitation, especially when reoffending rates remain high? If we are increasing the demands of probation, we must also ask whether we are giving it the capacity to deliver the rehabilitation that reduces reoffending.

Perhaps there are more important lessons that we can learn from the youth justice system. Last Friday saw Second Reading of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. Concerns were raised about the Government’s proposed changes to its functions and responsibilities, and the extra burden placed on the MoJ. I am not certain that the MoJ needs any more responsibilities or work. As a former youth magistrate and former member of the board, I have seen at first hand what the youth justice system has achieved. The marked fall in youth offending and youth custody is an extraordinary achievement. It is not always how you spend the money but where you spend it.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons that can be learned is the holistic approach taken in youth justice. As His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, said of youth justice earlier this year,

“we have all the building blocks of success, and we need to ensure that we carry that across into the adult system”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned, those building blocks could also help us address the challenges faced by young adults as they transition into the adult system. As we know, those aged between 18 and 25 have some of the highest rates of reoffending. Crucially, that is a period in which effective intervention can change the trajectory of young people’s lives. If we get the right interventions, it will mean fewer victims, fewer people returning to prison and, ultimately, a better use of taxpayers’ money. We know that this age group is an important stage of development: education, employment, relationships and independence are still taking shape, while maturity is still developing. Therefore, we should think of the 18 to 25 age group as more of a coherent end-to-end cohort, with much greater continuity between the youth justice services and adult probation—an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has also spoken about today.

However, rehabilitation is not only about what happens after someone leaves prison; it also depends on what happens while they are in prison. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, highlighted, this is where purposeful activity matters. Education, skills, training and physical activity can all contribute to a purposeful prison regime and an effective rehabilitation. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, highlighted, for many people entering prison with existing health needs, access to the right support plays an important part in their rehabilitation, and yet purposeful activity remains a serious weakness in our prisons. As His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, has highlighted, of the 38 men’s and women’s prisons inspected in 2024-25, 28 were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. This matters not only in prison but through the gate too.

Probation needs the resources and time to build partnerships with employers, charities, training providers, families and communities. This is fundamental to the success of rehabilitation. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said:

“By tackling the root causes of offending and giving people the second chance they need, we can help them rebuild their lives and stay on the straight and narrow”.


Therefore, how can we expect the Probation Service to have the capacity to tackle the root causes of offending when there are so many other pressures on the system? We know that the true test of probation is not simply whether it can monitor someone when they leave prison; it is whether it can help them turn their lives around and build a better future. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this excellent debate.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL]

Baroness Sater Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for bringing this Bill before the House and compliment him on his unwavering defence of the YJB. I will focus my remarks on one particular issue at the heart of the Bill: the Government’s proposed changes to the Youth Justice Board. I share the concern we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that the proposed changes risk weakening what is demonstrably working. I say that with some personal experience, having seen our youth justice system from two perspectives—first, as a youth magistrate for over 20 years and, secondly, as a former member of the Youth Justice Board.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally for his unrelenting and passionate work in youth justice. I was fortunate enough to serve on the board while he was chair, and I am sorry that he is unable to be here today. I hope he makes a speedy recovery.

The creation of the youth offending teams, supported by the YJB, changed the landscape of youth justice. The YOTs, now referred to as youth justice services, brought together a team locally, including police, probation, health, education, and social care. This gave us a valuable insight into the child, a much more holistic approach to youth justice and, ultimately, better rehabilitation. The evidence shows that this approach has worked. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has already reminded us of the significant fall in youth offences and youth custody, which is an extraordinary achievement. The YJB has played a hugely important role in supporting that success, and one of its strengths has been bringing together national expertise and independence, with locally delivered multi-agency services alongside its visibility right across the system.

I have often suggested that the adult criminal justice system could learn a great deal from the youth justice approach, and that is not simply my view. Martin Jones, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, told the Justice Committee earlier this year that in youth justice

“we have all the building blocks of success, and we need to ensure that we carry that across into the adult system”.

For me, that is an endorsement of the value of the youth justice model and, surely, a reason to ask what we can learn from what is working before we weaken the structures that help make it work.

My concern is not with the principle of reform itself: I recognise that organisations often need to evolve and build on their successes. Instead, my apprehension is centred on what we might lose by moving these responsibilities from an independent specialist body, the YJB, into the MoJ, which we know already has a lot on its plate. If the Government believe that reform is needed, surely one of the first questions should be: “What does the YJB need?”, not whether some of it should just be brought back into the MoJ. The question is: how can we expect to retain the YJB’s expertise and the value of its independent advice to Ministers, while at the same time removing some of its responsibilities?

Phil Bowen, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, has made an important point here:

“We have said to ministers that putting end-to-end oversight back into the department means that you do have a different tone—a minister could suggest an idea like reforms to the youth court, and we could provide advice as wise experts rather than as civil servants”.


That distinction is extremely important. I am uneasy about any reform which could be perceived as a move away from a child-first approach towards a justice-first approach.

The Government themselves recognise that children remaining in the youth justice system are often more vulnerable and have more complex needs. Surely that makes specialist expertise more important, not less. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has highlighted, these proposed reforms run counter to some of the findings of the government-commissioned review by Steve Crocker. This was an important review, which should be taken seriously into consideration.

Therefore, I ask the Minister: are the Government working on an impact assessment and, if not, will they commit today to doing so? It is imperative that any changes lead to better outcomes for children and young people in youth justice. The combination of local delivery, practical experience, national expertise and the independent advice that follows from that is worth protecting, so my plea to the Government is: reform where reform is needed, but please let us build on what works rather than risk weakening it.

Youth Offending

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am aware of it. We are intending to make sure that everything possible can be done to ensure that children have as many opportunities as possible and therefore do not get drawn into crime.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, as a former youth magistrate and a former board member of the Youth Justice Board, I have seen at first hand the strong leadership at the YJB, particularly through its valuable community-based youth justice services. In the light of the youth justice White Paper, can the Minister please assure the House that the YJB’s role will not be diminished in any way that will undermine these services and that it will retain its capacity and authority so that we do not risk reversing the extremely positive outcomes in youth offending that it has helped deliver over so many years?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her work as a magistrate in the adult and youth systems. We have to be grateful to people like her for helping to keep the system going. I hope I have given sufficient assurance—it is certainly my intention to do so—that we really value the work done by the board. We want to use its skills and to ensure that it remains independent and keeps doing the great job that it does.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Sater]

68: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Dealing with offenders for crimes committed as childrenWhere a court is dealing with an offender for a crime committed before the age of 18 but at the time of the first court appearance the offender is older than 17 but younger than 21, the offender must be dealt with by a youth court and sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines which apply in a youth court.”

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 68 is in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I thank them for their ongoing support.

This amendment revisits an issue I previously raised during the passage of the Sentencing Bill. I return to it because I feel so strongly that this anomaly in our criminal justice system is one that must be resolved and merits further and careful consideration by this Committee. It concerns children who commit offences while under the age of 18 but who, through delay in proceedings entirely outside their control, are first brought before the court only after their 18th birthday. Under the current system, they will be sentenced as adults, losing access to youth-specific disposals, including referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders and the support of youth justice services, even though their offending behaviour occurred during childhood.

As I previously said, this can only be described as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes. If two young people commit the exact same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances, and one happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday and the other does not, the first will get all the support from the youth court process, while the second defendant, not because of the seriousness of the offence or their maturity, will end up in the adult court. The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process and the subsequent treatment of criminal record disclosures can affect a young person well into adulthood, including their future employment prospects. The Bill provides an opportunity to look at this issue, correct an unfair anomaly and ensure consistency in sentencing.

As I have said previously, the youth justice system exists for a reason. Those of us who have worked in youth justice know how the youth court has specifically trained magistrates who emphasise welfare, education and rehabilitation and can turn young lives around and reduce reoffending. Without this support, their future could be bleak. In the passage of the Sentencing Bill, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier spoke in support of addressing this anomaly, and I am grateful once again for their support today. I was encouraged by the support of the Minister. While he stated that youth sentencing lay largely outside the scope of the Sentencing Bill, he made it clear that the Government had a great deal of sympathy with the issue. He also indicated that there may be merit in looking at this issue further, while understandably pointing to the need to consider the wider implications across the justice system. I took that as a constructive response. It is in the same spirit that I bring the matter back today.

This amendment simply seeks to ensure that, where offending behaviour took place during childhood, it is assessed and addressed through the correct lens—one that reflects age, maturity and culpability at the time of the offence, rather than being determined by administrative delay entirely outside an offender’s control. I return to this issue today because I feel so strongly that we must address this clear anomaly. I hope that the Government will be willing to take a second look at this and consider how it might be resolved. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support my noble friend Lady Sater’s amendment. I have heard her express these views before, I heard her express them just now, and there is nothing more to be said. I urge this Committee to get on and agree with her.

--- Later in debate ---

That means that if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order, which is a civil breach rather than a criminal offence, and, let us say, assaults their partner, the presumption would not apply and judges would retain full discretion to impose a short, immediate prison sentence. We are also introducing a new judicial finding of domestic abuse at sentencing, so that it would provide a flag on the system and these offenders are better identified and monitored through the system. For all these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her very positive response. I welcome and appreciate her offer to meet. I know it is difficult and complex, but I appreciate the further conversation with her. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As is my way, I must sound a note of caution for one group of people. I know that many noble Lords have a problem with our very low age of criminal responsibility, but it affords a level of protection to young children being groomed for gangs. We need to bear that in mind.

I have great sympathy for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Spellar, spoke about the Lammy review. I was on the Lammy review. I ran a job club for over 12 years, and many of the young men I dealt with were unable to seek employment because of what we used to call a blip when they were younger that was still appearing on their DBS. That small blip often drove them to much more serious crime, because they were older and needed to raise more money.

We should do a review, because it is a complicated area, but there are two things to focus on. First, returning to my theme, the single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you have got away with it. If we are going to remove some of the consequences, we need to think clearly and carefully about how that will be perceived by people who are involved in criminal activity—particularly if they are young and do not have all the experiences to risk-assess their own behaviour. We must bear that in mind, because, inadvertently we might be encouraging them to approach criminal behaviour. The myth on the street will be that when you are 18, it is wiped out anyway. We might argue about the nuance of what we are prepared to wipe out or not, but that will not be the conversation on a dark night in the park when the boys are planning their next manoeuvre. It is important that we bear that in mind.

Secondly, there are people in gangs whose sole job is to recruit young people. One of the big things they say to those young people is, “You are too young to go to court”. We have to be careful about making that true, or at least appear to be true. Removing these spent convictions would be such a powerful thing to help people move on, and I support it, but let us think very carefully about how we talk about it, where we draw the lines, how we explain it and how it is enacted in reality rather than just in concept as we sit in this Chamber.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to all these amendments, particularly Amendments 476, 477 and 478. These amendments highlight how the system of criminal record disclosure, particularly as it relates to children, is complex and very confusing. I am an advocate for criminal record reform, having been a youth magistrate for over 20 years and having been on the Youth Justice Board. Those roles have consistently demonstrated to me how decisions made in childhood, often in relation to relatively minor offences, can have consequences that extend well into adult life, as we have heard this evening.

As noble Lords will know, I recently tabled an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to address the anomaly in youth sentencing whereby the first court appearance, rather than the date of the offence, determines whether a young person is treated as an adult. I am therefore very conscious of the unfair impact these technicalities beyond a child’s control can have on their future.

Although we have had success in reducing the number of children in custody because we wanted to keep young people out of prison, we have at the same time increased the threshold of seriousness of offending in these disposals of conditional cautions over a number of years.

I know that the Justice Secretary has recently acknowledged publicly that aspects of the criminal records and disclosure system are in need of reform. Rehabilitation is about giving people a chance to change, and, where appropriate, we should work to ensure that childhood mistakes do not turn into lifelong punishments, giving them the opportunity to get on with their lives.

I am also attracted to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier referred. It is very important that the Minister view these amendments on childhood as an opportunity to reflect on a broader review of criminal records and the DBS disclosure system, which might now be appropriate.

These amendments highlight just how complex the system has become. Ensuring that the system is fairer, while keeping in mind the importance of rehabilitation and protection to the public, would, in my view, be a worthwhile objective.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 476, 477 and 478 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which I have added my name. I am also sympathetic to the other amendments in this group and declare, as ever, that I am a schoolteacher in Hackney. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Transform Justice.

I rather innocently assumed that one of the cornerstones of the justice system in this country is rehabilitation, but this does not seem to be the case with our young people. As we have heard, every year in England and Wales there are 13,000 convictions of children aged 10 to 17, who are disproportionately from poor backgrounds, minoritised communities, in care or excluded from school. Those convicted acquire criminal records which only add to their disadvantage.

Some of these criminal records remain through life. A child charged for affray for a playground fight would have to disclose that for ever on a standard and enhanced DBS check. Also, currently, as we have heard, a criminal record is acquired on conviction rather than according to the date of the offence itself. This means that many people commit offences as children but acquire an adult criminal record because, through no fault of their own, the hearing at which they are convicted happens after their 18th birthday. This situation has got worse because of the recent delays in the court system. This is patently absurd.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has said, brains do not mature until people are well into their twenties. Also, research has shown that teenagers take more risks when they have an audience. As I see in the playground every week, children are immature and often reckless, not seeing the consequences of their actions.

Our criminal records should allow for rehabilitation in order to allow young people to move on from childhood mistakes. These amendments would mean that young people should be able to be free of their childhood offences at a specific interval after they have finished their sentence, so they do not have to explain old and no longer relevant childhood offences to potential employers—even if they manage to get as far as an interview. We are not talking about the most serious crimes here.

For everyone else, these amendments would mean that childhood offences should automatically be taken off the records five and a half years after conviction. We also propose that a conditional caution, when accepted by a child, should not appear on the records. We propose that those whose conviction is delayed until after their 18th birthday should not acquire an adult criminal record.

With the number of NEETs approaching 1 million, we should be doing everything we can to remove barriers to employment and let rehabilitation of the young be truly part of the justice system.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Sater]

63: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“Sentencing of offenders for crimes committed as childrenWhere a court is sentencing an offender for a crime committed before the age of 18 but at the time of the first court appearance the offender is older than 17 but younger than 21, the offender must be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines that apply in a youth court.”

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 63 stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. I am very grateful to both distinguished colleagues, who have years of experience in criminal justice, for supporting this amendment.

The amendment seeks to address an anomaly in the criminal justice system. As the law currently stands, the justice system treats a defendant according to their age on the date of their first appearance in court, rather than their age at the time of the offence. The result is that a child who commits an offence at, for example, 15, 16 or 17 years of age may be sentenced as an adult if proceedings are delayed until after their 18th birthday. Young people can lose access to the youth-specific disposals, such as referral orders, and to the comprehensive support of the youth offending teams, even though their offending behaviour occurred while they were children.

The youth justice system exists for a reason. Through my experience as a former youth magistrate for over 20 years and as a member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, I saw first-hand how the approach and disposals given in the youth court can turn lives around and make it more likely that these young people will go on to lead crime-free lives. The range of sentences available in the youth court provides a far greater emphasis on the child’s welfare, education and the prevention of reoffending. The court has specifically trained magistrates and judges, who are required to give priority to rehabilitation.

The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process—not to mention mistakes in the treatment of criminal record disclosures—can affect a young person well into their adulthood. This anomaly can also give rise to what can be described only as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes. For example, two young people may commit the exact same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances. One happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday. The other lives in an area where the backlogs are greater and their first appearance in court is delayed. The first is sentenced under the youth justice guidelines, with access to youth-specific disposals and rehabilitation support. The second, despite being no more culpable, is sentenced as an adult. That difference arises not from the seriousness of the offence nor from the maturity of the offender but simply from geography and the resulting administrative delay. That is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle that like cases should be treated alike.

My amendment seeks to correct that situation by providing that where an offence was committed before the age of 18 and the offender is under the age of 21 at the time of their first court appearance, their case must be heard and sentenced in the youth court where appropriate. I consider this not to be a radical proposal but a widely accepted principle that culpability and sentencing should be assessed by reference to the age and maturity at which the offending behaviour occurred, not by administrative delays which are often entirely outside the control of the defendant and no fault of their own.

This anomaly was recognised in the other place in 2021. When introducing a 10-minute rule Bill, the former Member for Aylesbury, Robert Butler, spoke powerfully about this unfairness. The Bill had cross-party support, as well as support from the then Children’s Commissioner, the Magistrates’ Association—of which I declare that I am a life member—and the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers.

Importantly, this amendment would not prevent courts taking the seriousness of an offence into account or require inappropriate placement in youth custodial sentences for older defendants. It would preserve judicial discretion while ensuring that sentencing decisions are taken through the correct lens—one that reflects that the offending behaviour occurred during childhood. The Sentencing Council already recognises that age at the time of offence remains relevant after the defendant turns 18. This amendment would give clear statutory effect to that principle, ensuring consistency in how it is applied.

I would be grateful if the Minister could consider this amendment, as it is about recognising that childhood offending should be addressed as such. Ultimately, this amendment is not just a matter of procedure but a question of fairness, proportionality and effective justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his very positive and encouraging words. Although, as he says, it is a substantial challenge, I think it is a challenge worth taking. But this is a probing amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, last month, 37 prisoners were mistakenly released from prison under the early release scheme. One was charged with sexually assaulting a woman on the same day that he was released. Can the Minister please explain what evaluation is given and criteria used when deciding whether a prisoner is eligible to be released under the early release scheme?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. All prisoners who were released in error under the first tranche of releases are now back behind bars. I will write to her on her question but, broadly speaking, the criteria includes whether offences were sexual and violent or related to domestic abuse. I will write to her with the specific list; it is in my notes, but I am not sure that I can find it in proper time today.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Your Lordships might observe that my iPad has gone blank, so I am a little bit lost at this stage. Suffice it to say that we need some justification—some research —to find out what has happened in the last 19 months. Why is the policy now being reversed? Is it simply that magistrates are sentencing for too long a period, or what? What the ministry needs to bear in mind is that they may be passing sentences of between six and 12 months —the short sentences, which, unhappily, do not resolve the problems of the individual. There is no way in which he can be rehabilitated in that time; nor do those problems get dealt with. I therefore look forward to an explanation from the Minister, and I apologise that my script has disappeared.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I share the anxieties and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I declare my interests as set out in the register, including as a former magistrate and, at present, a life member of the Magistrates’ Association.

I appreciate that the criminal justice system is currently experiencing—as the noble Lord mentioned—“downstream pressures”, as manifested in Operation Safeguard. Indeed, as has already been said, Ministers have said that this pause gives them time to review this measure, assessing relevant data across the CJS, with a view to reinstating powers should this be supported by the evidence. Ministers, however, have also been clear that the increase to sentencing powers is not the only factor behind this pressure, and that the data on the impact is still limited. In the light of this, therefore, I question whether it can be justified for this change to be made, given the impact it will have on magistrates delivering speedier justice. Surely it would be better to make this change only if the data clearly suggested that it was a significant factor behind the increased pressure we have seen.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has stated, this change has ramifications for slowing down the justice system for victims, witnesses and defendants, not to mention the hours of training by sitting magistrates. I would be grateful to hear from my noble and learned friend the Minister more on this, specifically regarding the process, what evidence and data are needed and when this review will be concluded.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, considering that we deal with a lot of very big Bills here in your Lordships’ House, this is quite a small issue, but for me, it encapsulates the panicky and misguided way in which the Government constantly tackle big problems such as our prison population and the justice system. It is an example of their wanting a quick fix for something that they have damaged over the last 13 years of austerity and incompetence.

I cannot comment on whether six months or 12 months is right—I do not have a magistrate’s training—but I can say that we have too many people in prison and we have to stop sending so many people to prison, particularly women. We also have to be clear, of course, that people coming out of prison need help if they are not going to reoffend. You cannot fix these big problems with tiny little tweaks such as this.

I do not understand why such knee-jerk reactions happen all the time with this Government. Where is the overview or the long-term planning? Where is the coherence for dealing with these big problems? This Government have tried to fix the whole justice system on the cheap. It has not in fact been cheap, of course, because it is very expensive to keep people in prison and train magistrates, while not giving people the support they need when they come out of prison, so they go on to offend again. Why not have a longer-term plan?

This Government have got, one supposes, another year. Please could they get some expert advice on this sort of thing and not keep flailing around? One minute it is six months, the next it is 12 months and then it is back to six months again. This is not good government; it just does not make any sense to do things like this. The court system is at breaking point and the prisons are way over full, so the Government should really now be thinking about how to solve these two problems. This, I would argue, is not the way to do it. The Government have broken our justice system and are now doing tiny little tweaks to try to fix it, which simply will not work.

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill

Baroness Sater Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Sater]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to move the Second Reading of the Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill, which was introduced by my honourable friend Rob Butler MP in the other place. I am pleased that, to date, the Bill has had a successful passage and received support from all sides.

Noble Lords may remember a Bill that was introduced last year by my noble friend Lady Pidding and my dear friend, the late right honourable Dame Cheryl Gillan, which focused on improving substance testing in prisons. It was welcomed in your Lordships’ House and has now received Royal Assent. I hope that this Bill, which has similar aims but for approved premises, will be similarly supported and gain a smooth passage.

I declare a personal interest in that I was a youth magistrate for over 20 years. I have now retired. I saw first-hand the destruction that drugs can cause and the path they can lead people down. It is a sad fact that many of the children who were before me may have ended up in approved premises at some point in their adult lives, so I know how important it is to help make them safer and more supportive environments for rehabilitation.

Approved premises provide temporary accommodation for the highest-risk individuals in the community, subject to supervision or rehabilitation. They exist to ensure that these high-risk individuals with the most complex needs receive additional, targeted residential supervision and rehabilitative support, following release from custody. They also provide supervision and support for a small number of bailees and high-risk offenders serving community sentences.

Patterns of drug misuse in both custody and the community are changing, and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has made repeated recommendations about the urgent need for a comprehensive drugs strategy for the approved premises estate. In recent years, psychoactive substances have become much more prevalent within the illicit economy in approved premises. Prescription medicines are also abused by some residents, sometimes proving lethal. The use of drugs in approved premises can have a significant impact on the physical and mental well-being of individuals in both the short and the long term, and it undermines an offender’s ability to engage in rehabilitation and turn their back on crime.

Currently, to ensure that approved premises are safe and drug-free, residents are drug tested if requested by staff, in accordance with the house rules they are required to accept as a condition of their residence. While this provides a basis for drug testing, it does not set out a comprehensive statutory framework for the testing for illicit substances, the scope of substances that may be tested or the types of samples that may be taken. This Bill is a response to this issue and would enable Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to create a comprehensive framework and bring approved premises in line with the testing regime used in prisons.

I turn to the content of the Bill. First, it extends the range of substances that can be tested for, in order to cover all forms of psychoactive substances, as well as prescription and pharmacy medicines. The Bill will also offer supportive measures that would help probation to combat an issue that we know of, whereby some approved premises residents bully other residents for their genuinely prescribed prescription medication. The Bill will enable offender managers to ensure that only those supposed to be taking such medications are taking them.

The Bill will also introduce urine testing, replacing oral fluid testing which is currently used. There are relatively few drugs that can be reliably detected in oral fluid. This means that the current testing regime has reduced capacity to quickly identify drug use among residents; as a result, residents’ needs are not identified, and care planning cannot be managed effectively. Moving to urine testing will allow probation to test for a wide range of different substances for longer. Although this varies depending on the substance being tested for, as a general rule, substances are detectable for hours in oral fluid, whereas with urine testing they are detectable for days.

Alongside mandatory drug testing, the Bill will provide an express power for the use of prevalence testing in approved premises, using residents’ samples to test for the prevalence of various substances on an anonymised basis. This measure is key in helping HMPPS to understand the ever-changing drug landscape and allow it to tackle the threat of drugs in approved premises. Taking appropriate action will reduce the risks to residents and provide them with appropriate treatment and support, which in turn will help to aid rehabilitation and support the efforts to reduce reoffending.

In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will recognise the importance of implementing these changes. I believe that this Bill will make a tangible difference. It will enable probation to better identify and respond to new and emerging patterns of drug use in approved premises and, in turn, ensure that it can provide the necessary care and treatment for individuals to support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending. I also believe that it will create more opportunities for positive interventions on those individuals who really need our help to become mentally and physically healthier and go on to lead crime-free lives.

I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions and hope that the Bill will receive support across the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support and his comments on the importance of follow-up with treatment and support for the residents in approved premises. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, from the Opposition Front Bench, whom I would also call my friend.

The Bill will enable approved premises better to identify and respond to drug use and, in turn, help provide the appropriate care and treatment for individuals on their path to rehabilitation and efforts to reduce reoffending.

Finally, I thank the clerks and the officials at the MoJ for their excellent guidance and advice on procedure during the preparation of the Bill.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prisons: Releasing Women into Safe and Secure Housing

Baroness Sater Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right, but we have seen a significant reduction in the number of women prisoners in the past three to four years. There will always be some women in prison, but the figures have gone down significantly. In addition, as we are talking about housing, four of the housing specialists that we have put into prisons are specifically in women’s prisons, so they are acutely aware of the particular needs of women prisoners. They are in Styal, Bronzefield, Peterborough and New Hall.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, we know that, sadly, a large number of women in prison were victims of domestic abuse before they started their sentence. This makes leaving to live in safe and secure housing vitally important—but equally important is psychological support. What are the Government doing to ensure that specialist mental health support and mentoring are available for all women leaving prison for as long as they need it?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, this is obviously a very important issue. We have tried to join up the dots between the Prison Service and the NHS. The problem in the past was that women left prison, and the NHS did not know about them; the Prison Service had, so to speak, passed them on to nobody. The GP is the best way in which to access mental health support, in particular, in the community. Therefore, we are working with the Prison Service to make sure that the links between the Prison Service and the NHS are stronger and better.