Sentencing Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of Leicester law centre, and I am privileged to serve on your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

My first speech in your Lordships’ House was on sentencing. It was a pretty standard maiden speech, I am afraid, although the late Lord Longford was nice enough to say a few kind words. That was 27 years ago. Now, in November 2025, I am speaking on sentencing again.

I have to admit that although there have been many changes to sentencing policy, some good and some not so good, it is not until now that the approach that prevailed in 1998 has really changed. At long last, we now have a Bill that thoughtfully and sensibly tackles the fundamental problems of an almost broken system, one that can fairly be said to have failed. As examples, one fault is that there are just too many people in prison, women as well as men. Another is that they are there for far too long; and a third, even more depressing in some ways than the first two, is that rehabilitation is too often an aspiration rather than a reality. The results are all around us: our prisons are absolutely full, while too many ex-prisoners reoffend and find themselves straight back in jail.

The House will therefore probably not be surprised to hear that I warmly welcome the Bill, the principles behind it and the tone that it sets. I am also proud of the Government who have brought it forward. I want it to become a new chapter in our sentencing policy, one which is of our time and up to date and is not a victim of a long-standing and often phoney war between the political parties, as has already been said in the House today. How much time have we lost in the last 30 years by putting up the ante between Governments and Oppositions, as if to say, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the toughest of us all”?

The irony is that, until 30 years ago, there was not this battle to be the hard man. There were, of course, different opinions and debates, but basically, and at heart, there was an agreement and understanding that going for the lowest common denominator was not in anybody’s interests. The Bill seems to be a serious attempt to find an approach that can be supported by all people of good will and intelligence. Is that too much to ask? Of course, I accept that the Bill is not perfect. The implementation of its proposals will not come close to success unless it is given the backing, including the financial backing, that it needs. For that success to happen, the Probation Service is absolutely key, as many speakers from around the House have already said.

Probation has been to hell and back again over the last 15 years or so; experiments that Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of have been tried on it. In a way, it is a bit of a miracle that it is still with us—but it is, and its role is essential to the success or failure of the new sentencing policy as set out in the Bill. We are asking the Probation Service to play the leading role in changing people’s lives around, while satisfying the public that they are being protected. The service needs sustaining and strengthening, in numbers and in funding if more is to be maintained. My concern is that the money pledged until 2029, which is generous, will frankly not be enough if we are to make a success of the Bill and the excellent independent review that was its parent. Government must recognise this as early as possible.

Before finishing, I will mention one aspect of the Bill in a tiny bit more detail. I refer here to an amendment tabled in the other place by my honourable friend Linsey Farnsworth, the Member of Parliament for Amber Valley. She argued that as far as the earned model is concerned, there should be reward for positive behaviour by prisoners, as well as reward for behaving yourself in prison and obeying the rules and other criteria. As I understand it, the Texas model contains some reward for positive behaviour in prison, as well as merely neutral behaviour. The Minister’s reply in the other place was not discouraging, and I look forward—if an amendment is tabled on this matter—to the issue being debated and discussed here, and to what the Minister will say.

I end by emphasising once again my support for the Bill. The fact that it is here today, so soon, is a huge compliment to David Gauke and the independent inquiry that he completed so quickly, and of course to the Minister himself, who with his experience and commitment has been responsible for this legislation. I hope it is in order to say that the Minister has been a breath of fresh air in this area and has given us the chance to be proud, once again, of our sentencing system. Let us make sure that we pass this Bill and take that chance.