Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 in my name, I begin with an apology. I have not previously intervened in the debates on the Bill. Unfortunately, long-standing commitments, including professional commitments, prevented me from participating both at Second Reading and in Committee. That, in fact, is one of the disadvantages, albeit a minor one, of so-called emergency legislation introduced at short notice. More serious disadvantages are, of course, the curtailment of time for reflection and a reduction in the time for consultation. However, I have had the opportunity of studying the Hansard reports of what was said in this House on both occasions, and what was said in the House of Commons.

My main purpose today is to speak briefly to Amendment 1. I begin by commending the admirable speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, at col. 1614, to those of your Lordships who, like me, were not present at the Second Reading debate. His speech was a model of brevity and conciseness, and I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord said. He said that he did not believe that the guidelines introduced two-tier justice. I agree with that view. He said that he did not believe that the introduction of the guidelines would severely damage confidence in our criminal justice system. I share that view.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, considered that there was no need for this Bill. I am of the same opinion. In my view, this legislation has been triggered by an unhappy combination of political point-scoring and political back-guarding—personal characteristics of an unwelcome kind, albeit not falling within the statutory definition in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord concluded by saying that we should reluctantly accept this Bill but seek to improve it by way of amendment, and that is what I seek to do.

My amendment is in substance a statement of principle—in fact, one that reflects policy, albeit, because of resource constraints, not the current practice. But given the fact that we have this Bill, I suggest that there is merit in framing the policy in explicit statutory and positive language.

I suspect that everyone who has experience in this field would agree that in the great majority of cases where an offender is facing the possibility of a custodial or a community sentence, it is highly desirable that the sentencer should have available a properly considered pre-sentence report—but not one which is the product of a few minutes of discussion in the cells. What is required is a considered and researched pre-sentence report by a qualified member of the Probation Service. That implies a Probation Service which is properly staffed and properly financed to address the required workload.

I deeply regret that, in recent years, there has been a serious decline in the number of pre-sentence reports, and I have in mind the decline of 42%, from 160,000 to 90,000, between 2015 and 2022, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in the Second Reading debate, and by others too. I acknowledge, with very great regret, that one of the immediate causes of this decline in the availability of proper reports was the policy of the Government whom I supported. I will add too, if I may, that the existence of a properly financed and staffed Probation Service is fundamental to the success of the sentencing reforms proposed by Mr David Gauke.

It should be self-evident that the pre-sentence report addresses all the relevant considerations that may help the sentencer to determine the appropriate sentence. That is what my amendment states explicitly. Such considerations may include the individual circumstances and the personal characteristics of an offender. I accept that, as became apparent in the debate, especially in Committee, there is a distinction between the two concepts, although there is a very high degree of overlap, so both criteria should be included. My amendment does that, with a definition to be found in Amendment 7. Guidelines are there to ensure uniformity in the practice of the courts.

Obviously, there is concern about the availability of resources: hence, the impossibility of making reports mandatory. It was the council’s concern about the inadequacy of resources that caused the guidelines to identify specific cohorts as having priority. But drafting the guidance in the positive language of my amendment meets the expressed concern of the critics of the guidelines. My amendment provides for the guidelines to be general in their application, and might encourage the Government to ensure that additional resources are made available to the Probation Service, so that pre-sentence reports become the norm in all appropriate cases. Amending the Bill in the modest way that I have proposed will, I hope, make a small contribution to the proper administration of criminal justice in this country. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Viscount has said. His amendment, like others in this group, would give some helpful clarity to an extremely unclear piece of legislation. I think we are about to make bad law, because the Government have been unable or unwilling to define what “personal characteristics” are. We do not know what will fall within the range of prohibitions placed on the Sentencing Council. It will be left with an undefined scope and an undefined extent. Race, religion and belief, or cultural background, whatever that is, are listed, but after that it becomes a matter for speculation as to what might be included.

The Government insist that the list that appears in the Bill is non-exhaustive. In a letter sent to several of us, the Minister states, but without citing any authority, that “personal characteristics” include sex, gender identity, age, physical disability and pregnancy or “other similar conditions”. What is similar to pregnancy? I have been puzzling over that for some time and I am not quite sure.

The Minister did not mention autism, a background of local authority care or experience of sexual abuse, although in the latter case the Government said, in a different letter, that it is not a personal characteristic to have been a victim, perhaps a repeated victim, of sexual abuse. What is included in the list appears to be in the minds of Ministers, or whatever may appear in the minds of Ministers at some later date, leaving the Sentencing Council and, indirectly, judges and magistrates in some confusion as to what the Government intended.

I think and hope that, in making decisions about whether to call for a pre-sentence report, courts will not be influenced by this whole row—it would be very unfortunate if they were—but there is just a slight risk that this may become an area in which courts start to think, “This is a bit political, we’d better not go there”. That must not happen. The still-existing freedom of courts to decide to have a pre-sentence report is not directly affected by the Bill. My worry is that it might have an indirect effect.

Law can have consequences. I foresee the day when a non-exhaustive list of prohibitions will appear in some other Bill on some other subject. What will happen then? We will be told that non-exhaustive lists of prohibited actions are an established practice and appeared in the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025. It will become a precedent that will certainly get used on some future occasion, and I think that is a dangerous thing to be happening.

My noble friend’s Amendment 2 restores the Sentencing Council’s freedom, if there is good cause, to issue guidelines that refer to personal characteristics. I urge support for it and, if he presses it to a vote, which I hope he will, he will certainly have my vote and, I hope, those of others who are concerned to protect the ability of the Sentencing Council, a body of some distinction, to do its job in the light of sensible judgment, following discussion with the Government wherever that is necessary or appropriate.

I turn finally to Amendment 9, which is in my name. The Minister has asserted that pregnancy is a personal characteristic, falling within the restrictions imposed by Section 2 of the Bill. But there is case law accepting pregnancy as a reason to order a pre-sentence report, in R v Thompson 2024. Modern slavery was similarly referred to as grounds for a pre-sentencing report in R v Kurmekaj 2024, and being a young offender is dealt with in R v Meanley 2022.

It is difficult to accept that the case law should be overridden by the Bill if it becomes an Act. The Minister has asserted that it is overridden, asserting in his letter that the Bill would make

“such direction about obtaining PSRs across existing guidelines unlawful”.

“Unlawful” is the word used in the Minister’s letter. Nevertheless, he claimed that

“it will not prevent guidelines from reminding sentencers in more general terms that PSRs will be necessary”

when

“an assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial”.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us in a tangle of legal uncertainty, and there is no excuse for that. I suggest that the Minister should accept my amendment, leaving the Sentencing Council free to issue guidelines that reflect and draw attention to well-established case law on the value and importance of pre-sentence reports in cases of the kinds I referred to.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I confess that I am still struggling to understand this Bill, despite it having only one clause. The Minister was as helpful as he could be in Committee, and we all know his pedigree, but he has been dealt a very difficult hand. I think this is a bad Bill and, as my noble friend has just said, it is going to be bad law. We all know the political background to it. On Monday, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, one noble Lord used the delicate word, which I will repeat, “presentational”. I think that is quite a good synonym. The Constitution Committee has commented on the Bill, picking up very much the points that the noble Viscount and my noble friend made and the response from the Ministry of Justice has not, I think, taken us any further.

In Committee, I asked what was meant by the words “framed by reference to”. I still do not really understand them. This has caused me to table Amendment 3, although I realise it is a bit risky pursuing this, because we may be told from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is more restrictive than we would actually want to see, and it is arguable that as it stands, the guidelines can refer to characteristics depending on the law which is being shaped.

The legislation should be clear and certain—points which were made very clearly by the Constitution Committee—especially in this sort of situation. It is curious that the Bill seeks to pit the state against a body such as the Sentencing Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued and careful consideration of this Bill. Before I turn to each amendment in this group, I want to briefly recap why we have brought the Bill forward.

In revising its imposition guideline, the Sentencing Council included text that suggests that a pre-sentence report will

“normally be considered necessary”

if an offender belongs to certain cohorts, including some that specifically refer to offenders’ personal characteristics, such as those

“from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.

We believe that the approach taken through this guidance risks offenders receiving differential access to pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. It also means that the Sentencing Council is making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report, when this is properly a matter for Ministers and Parliament to decide. For these reasons, we have introduced this Bill to stop this guidance coming into force and prevent the Sentencing Council making similar guidance in the future.

I turn to the amendments in this group. First, there are those amendments which seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion to include some factors that are based on offenders’ different personal characteristics. Amendments 1 and 7, from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion. The Sentencing Council could still make guidelines with reference to personal characteristics but only if the guidelines also said that those personal characteristics had to be relevant to the ultimate sentencing decision.

Amendments 2 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would give the Sentencing Council discretion to include factors based on offenders’ different personal characteristics within relevant guidelines, if it felt that doing so would avoid inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is intended to provide that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council including provision within relevant guidelines that reflects existing case law about pre-sentence reports.

During Committee, I committed to take away the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the Bill’s current approach. I have carefully reflected on where there are alternative ways of meeting the Bill’s fundamental objective—to ensure equality before the law. However, ultimately, I remain confident that the current approach taken within the Bill is the best and clearest way to meet this objective. This is because, if these amendments were accepted, the Sentencing Council would be able to continue to produce guidelines that could risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. In doing so, the Sentencing Council would be making policy on a matter that is within the proper remit of Ministers and Parliament. Therefore, we do not believe that these amendments are beneficial, as they would undermine the Bill’s objectives.

I turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 3 would change some of the drafting used in Clause 1. The Bill states that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include

“provision framed by reference to”

offenders’ personal characteristics. Instead, if the noble Baroness’s amendment were to be accepted, the Bill would state that any provision which is “solely based on” offenders’ personal characteristics cannot be included in relevant guidelines. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 6 seeks to add text to the Bill that confirms that it does not prevent the Sentencing Council producing relevant guidelines. This suggests that a pre-sentence report would be ordered where an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has suggested these amendments in the spirit of attempting to make the Bill as clear as possible, and I am grateful for the constructive challenge. I have carefully considered both amendments and we ultimately believe that they would not improve the Bill’s drafting.

For Amendment 3, this is because the Bill is already sufficiently clear. The drafting, which would prevent the Sentencing Council making sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports

“framed by reference to different personal characteristics”,

means that the council cannot include any text within relevant guidelines that refers to offenders’ personal characteristics. This effectively captures our intent, which is to ensure equality before the law. For Amendment 6, the Bill as drafted does not prevent the Sentencing Council including text within relevant guidelines that suggests to sentencers, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. We have been clear throughout the debates and in supporting material of the benefits of pre-sentence reports. We believe our intention is clear from the language we have used in the Bill. In the spirit of keeping the Bill short and simple, we do not consider it necessary to explicitly state within the Bill things that it does not do. The Bill does not prevent sentencing guidelines encouraging pre-sentence reports based on an offenders’ personal circumstances.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, seeks to ensure sentencing guidelines can continue to advise sentencers to seek pre-sentence reports in cases involving offenders who are pregnant or who are primary carers of young children. I should like to start by thanking the right reverend Prelate for raising this point. I have long been an advocate for better support for pregnant women in prison and for those women who are primary carers of young children, ever since I first sat outside HMP Styal with my mother, taking foster children to see their mums on visits. I know all too well that so many of the foster children who I lived with had mothers in prison who were often victims of considerable trauma and abuse, and they were often vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many found imprisonment had life-changing impacts, for not only them but their children.

Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which was set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. The sentencing review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.

However, in the context of this specific Bill, following the Committee debate, I have further considered whether it would be appropriate to add an exclusion. Amendment 8 would allow the Sentencing Council to retain existing wording across relevant guidelines that suggests sentencers request pre-sentence reports for pregnant and post-natal offenders. We remain satisfied that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. It ensures sentencing guidelines do not risk preferential access to pre-sentence reports based on offenders’ personal characteristics. In doing so, it prevents the Sentencing Council making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report.

To be absolutely clear, this does not mean we think pregnant or post-natal women should not be receiving pre-sentence reports. We fully support the ability of sentencers to make their own judgment on whether to order a pre-sentence report, based on their consideration of the unique circumstances of individual cases. That is why nothing in the Bill stops courts requesting pre-sentence reports in any case where they ordinarily would do so. This includes appropriate cases involving pregnant or post-natal women, as well as other individuals who may be vulnerable for a number of reasons.

The key distinction here is that we cannot support any suggestion within sentencing guidelines that access to pre-sentence reports should be based on offenders’ personal characteristics. It is for this reason that we have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it does not affect the existing obligation on courts, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, to obtain a pre-sentence report, unless considered unnecessary.

I want to re-emphasise that, following the Bill’s passage, the Sentencing Council can still remind sentencers in general terms that pre-sentence reports are necessary when, among other things, a full assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial. I would like to clarify that, even without a pre-sentence report, alternatives to custody can be considered by a sentencing court. Pre-sentence reports are by no means the only route through which alternatives to custody are considered, and women are diverted away from custody.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords about the Government’s sentiment with regard to better support for pregnant women and primary carers currently in prison and about our clear policy intention to reduce the number of women in prison. I therefore encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, could he clarify something for me, because he has made two apparently conflicting statements in the course of the correspondence? One is that it would be unlawful—and that is his word—for the Sentencing Council to frame guidelines in a way that reflected the existing case law that pregnant women should be the subject of pre-sentence reports. But he has just said, and has said on other occasions also, that the Sentencing Council can issue guidelines or statements of some kind which draw attention to that pre-existing case law. The purpose of my amendment was to leave the Sentencing Council free to do so. How can he, at one and the same time, say that this would be unlawful and then describe this way of carrying it out?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

These are different things and we do not want to link them. The Bill intentionally deals with the Sentencing Council, not the Court of Appeal. The Bill as drafted achieves its aims simply, and we do not want to overcomplicate things.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

I remember on this subject that we talked about the impact on children caught up in the criminal justice system because a mother is impacted by it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did some work that alluded to that, and we heard some extremely moving evidence from the grandmother of children whose mother was detained. I hope that, working together, we can find our way through this—otherwise, we are just going to impose by legislation what is, frankly, a really difficult mess.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Amendment 14 in this group, like all the others, seeks to probe and challenge the uncertainty surrounding the definition on which the whole Bill depends. I welcome the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in that respect. I am particularly attracted by Amendment 5, which goes to the fundamentals of the problem. I hope that will get discussed in the course of our proceedings.

I am a member of the Constitution Committee, like several noble Lords present today, and I share the committee’s concerns about the legislative uncertainty and unhelpful precedent set by the inclusion and non-definition of personal characteristics. The committee said that this clause was insufficiently clear and introduced legislative uncertainty. The list of personal characteristics is, as the Government indicate in their Explanatory Note, non-exhaustive, which leaves a legislative hole. The Sentencing Council is placed under a prohibition: it must not frame guidelines by reference to different personal characteristics. But because the list is non-exhaustive, the council has no way of knowing what other personal characteristics fall within the prohibition.

It is a pretty basic principle of the rule of law that, in order that people should obey the law, they should be able to find out what the law is—but there is no way to find out what are acceptable other personal characteristics, and correspondence with Select Committees is in no way definitive in that respect. You create a body, in the form of the Sentencing Council, that is placed under a prohibition and cannot know the full extent of that prohibition. It is pretty weird—and, I think, very bad—legislative practice.

In his letter to the committee, the Minister indicates a number of things that, in his view, are not personal characteristics, including being a sole or primary carer or a victim of domestic violence. Where is the authority in the Bill to exclude those characteristics but not others, such as autism, neurodiversity or having a background of being brought up in local authority care? There is a whole number of things that might be considered personal characteristics or might not. What is the council intended to do about that?

My Amendment 14 addresses an even more confusing aspect of the personal characteristics problem. Several cases taken to appeal have set out where circumstances or characteristics should have been taken into account in deciding whether to seek a pre-sentence report: pregnancy in Thompson, 2024; modern slavery in Kurmekaj, 2024; and young offenders in Meanley, 2022—I think. A sentencing judge is expected to take account of those cases when deciding whether to seek a pre-sentence report. Of course, as the Minister will point out, the Bill does not directly impact on the court, or on the judge who is passing sentence. In any formal sense it does not change the criteria that the judge will consider while sentencing. But that is a very formal view of that matter—it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this discussion and the passing of this legislation might not have some influence on how judges view their freedom to seek pre-sentencing reports.

What can the Sentencing Council do about this? It appears to me that the effect of the Bill is that the Sentencing Council would be in trouble if it drew attention to the cases to which I have referred and sought to make judges aware that they are relevant to those particular circumstances—autism, a background of local authority care, and all sorts of other circumstances, such as being brought up on a particularly rough estate where there is known to be gangland activity and much likelihood of falling under the influence of violence if they had not carried out the offence. There are all sorts of circumstances like that which might be treated as personal characteristics, but to refer to existing cases that define circumstances in which pre-sentence reports should be used appears to be something that the Sentencing Council is precluded from doing. That does not make any sense to me at all, which is why I have drafted the amendment in that form.

I believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, damage has been done to the authority of the Sentencing Council, particularly if we do not amend the Bill to make it legally coherent. The Sentencing Council sought to address a recognised and widely admitted problem about the disproportionate levels of custody sentences imposed on some sections of the community from particular backgrounds. In doing so, it unintentionally created what turned out to be a political problem, and the consequence of that is a disproportionate response from the Government and legislation, which, frankly, does not make sense and will result in legal confusion.

We ought to remember that the sentencing legislation already in existence, the Sentencing Act 2020, makes pre-sentence reports something courts should seek unless they deem it unnecessary to do so. Here we are, creating an aura of doubt around what judges should do when those very circumstances arise, which may be contributing to the disproportionate presence in our jails of people from certain backgrounds. That is careless and shows a lack of awareness of the unintended effects legislation can have. Therefore, we should amend the Bill, make it clearer and try to avoid some of those consequences.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, before I come to the substance of the debate, may I make one more plea to the Government? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others in their trenchant criticisms of the Bill. I conclude—and I invite the Government now, even at this late stage, to conclude—that the Bill ought not to proceed before the publication of David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review, expected as early as this week. It could and should be withdrawn, or at least paused, to await that report and to allow time for reflection, both on the report and on the Bill in the light of it.

The Government’s own website, in describing the terms of reference for the Gauke review, says:

“The review will provide long term solutions for our justice system by”,


and then the sixth bullet point says,

“considering whether the sentencing framework should be amended to take into account the specific needs or vulnerabilities of specific cohorts, such as young adult offenders, older offenders, and women”,

which is precisely what the in-position guideline, approved by the Sentencing Council and now largely to be prohibited by the Bill, concluded should happen.

The Bill contains a number of difficulties which are addressed in a number of the amendments proposed by noble Lords from around the Committee, all of which are well within the terms of reference of the Gauke review. The first is highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and is presented by the shortage of resources, about which we all know, which has resulted in a failure to meet the clear and uncontroversial need for judges to have the benefit of full and well-prepared pre-sentence reports for all defendants—certainly for all defendants at risk of custodial sentences. Then there is the central difficulty of the Bill’s ruling out prioritising pre-sentence reports for particular cohorts, such as black defendants, in the face of very strong evidence—cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—such as that produced by the Lammy review, that black defendants are more likely to be sent to prison than their white counterparts, and more likely to be sentenced to longer terms.

--- Later in debate ---

We know that the risks to a woman’s pregnancy are increased if she is in custody. That is one reason why we asked the independent sentencing review to look at the needs of vulnerable groups, such as women, and we await its report. More widely, the Lord Chancellor and I have established a Women’s Justice Board, which has met twice this year. Its objective is clear and ambitious: to reduce the number of women going to prison and increase the number supported in the community. One of the initial key areas of focus for the board is improving outcomes for pregnant women and mothers of young children across the criminal justice system. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her contribution and the professional and academic expertise she brings to this debate. I hope that this has reassured the right reverend Prelate and that she will not press her amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something he has not covered? It is how we deal with things that perhaps the Government regard as personal characteristics but that are not listed in the Bill, although they could fall within the non-exhaustive character of that provision in the Bill. Is it the Government’s view that the Sentencing Council has some way of knowing what such characteristics are? Various examples have been mentioned, such as autism or having been brought up in local authority care, which I mentioned. Would the council be acting illegally if it added further personal characteristics to those it was issuing guidance about when the Government did not agree with it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. So I get the answer technically correct, I will write to him and other Members here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make one or two observations on this group. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, but, before anyone considers this additional process, it is important to have in mind what already exists. All guidelines that the Sentencing Council eventually issues are subject to extensive consultation—with the public consultation and with interested bodies—but, more importantly, they are subject to political consultation. That arises in two quite different contexts.

The first is that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice are consulted. Of course, that happened in connection with this guideline, which became controversial although it was not seen as controversial by Ministers who were then in the Ministry of Justice. That is not the end of the political involvement, though, because a statutory consultee for all sentencing guidelines is the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. Again, in this particular instance, the Justice Committee was consulted. As all here know, that committee comprises Members of Parliament from a broad cross-section of parties, and, as it happens, they, too, thought it uncontroversial. So there are those two political consultees. However, that is not the end of the matter because the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor have on the Sentencing Council itself an observer who is able, on behalf of the ministry, to raise any matters of concern.

So, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and this amendment, it seems to me that upsetting the extremely carefully calibrated scheme enacted by the 2009 Act is unnecessary.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I do not recollect a regulation-making power that requires the Secretary of State to bring forward the regulations. Normally, such powers are permissive—the Secretary of State “may” bring forward regulations—or indicate an area where there must be regulations but the precise ones are brought forward at a decision by the Secretary of State.

More generally, I worry that, per the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this looks a bit like clipping the wings of the Sentencing Council rather than recognising that it is a valuable arm’s-length body with processes—they have just been helpfully described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett—that ought to serve the purpose of ensuring that the Government are not blindsided by things that come from the Sentencing Council; indeed, they need not have been in this case. Going much further and introducing this fairly complex mechanism runs the risk of making the Sentencing Council appear less authoritative to those who have to take account of what it does.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I do not regard the decision of the Government to try to resolve a difference of view about the contents of the guidelines in bringing legislation before this House as improper, or as an assault on the constitution or on the judiciary, but I think it is extremely ill-advised. It is ill-advised because of the fast-tracking, because of the impression it gives about pre-sentencing reports and because the Bill is so incoherent. I want to deal with each of those things.

It seems to me that the Government have encouraged a practice, to be deplored among Governments, of finding a political problem, getting out the legislative shotgun and firing the trigger immediately, before any serious thought has been given to how a problem can be dealt with properly and effectively.

The Bill is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is undesirable because it gives the impression that pre-sentence reports are in some way conferring a privilege, whereas they are in fact assisting the judge. If in some cases they lead to someone being given a non-custodial sentence, that may well be because a non-custodial sentence is more likely to reduce re-offending on the part of that person. They are to assist the judge to make important considerations in sentencing practice which need to be made—and increasingly need to be made in a situation where our prisons are desperately overcrowded and their record in reducing reoffending, as the Minister knows all too well, is very weak indeed.

I come to the contents of the Bill. The Bill says that guidelines about pre-sentence reports

“may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender … in particular … race … religion”

or

“cultural background”.

The phrase “in particular” implies that other personal characteristics, unspecified, could fall within the prohibition. The Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill confirm at paragraph 15 that the list in the Bill is “non-exhaustive”. That has been further confirmed by various statements that Ministers have made.

How does the Sentencing Council know if a category or cohort of offenders, other than those named in the Bill, is covered by the prohibition? It is a very bad practice to impose on a body—in this case a single body, the Sentencing Council—a law whose extent it cannot know. There is no known method of deciding what the status in relation to this law is of a characteristic which is not specified in it and which does not fall within some generally described category.

We are all aware of numerous categories to which this applies. There are pregnant women, who are already covered, of course, by R v Thompson in 2024. It is not clear to me whether, if the sentencing guidelines included a phrase drawing attention to recent case law on the subject of pregnant women being given custodial sentences, the Sentencing Council would be acting illegally. What is to happen in those circumstances?

One can think of a number of other circumstances where there is already provision in statute and which the Government appear to be saying are unaffected by the Bill, but it is not clear whether the Sentencing Council can lawfully draw attention to those features, which fall within personal characteristics. The example that I took is not named in the Bill, but it applies to the named and the unnamed characteristics. There are many of them—victims of modern slavery; victims of domestic violence; offenders brought up in local authority care; victims of sexual abuse in childhood; residents of a notorious gang-ridden housing estate characterised by intimidation; children. Nearly all those categories do not fall within those specified in the Bill but obviously ought to be in a pre-sentence report. What happens if the Sentencing Council draws attention to any of those in any future version of the guidelines which emerges from this process? The Bill is a mess.

We have a crisis of re-offending, a crisis in our prisons and a sentencing review led by David Gauke. Those are the sorts of things that we need to be talking about. There is no crisis in the Sentencing Council; there is a disagreement about the form of words to be used to give guidance to courts on sentencing. However, that does not justify fast-tracking of Bills, which attenuates proper debate and discussion and could lead to the situation described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, of the Government being reluctant to accept an amendment because the fast-tracking would be upset by the Bill going back to the Commons. That is nonsense, because it would be done in a day. The noble and learned Lord’s guidance was very wise. I hope that we are not deterred from amending the Bill by the need for it to go back to the other House. That would make a nonsense of what we are here to do and the responsibilities that we have. In the Constitution Committee report, which is now technically published but not yet widely seen, it makes clear its objections to that fast-tracking process.

We have all these crises and problems in relation to our prison system and sentencing policy, yet here we have a Bill which does nothing to address any of them and is an ill-advised move in circumstances which could be resolved in a much better way.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we are concerned here with the Statement made and also with the Written Statement delivered the day before by the Secretary of State for Justice. Both refer to the 10-year prison capacity strategy; indeed, it is described by the present Government as “their” 10-year prison capacity strategy.

What we have heard and what we have read might be described as good and original. Unfortunately, what is good is not original and what is original is not good. The first apparent innovation that we are referred to is the annual statement on prison capacity. In the Written Statement on 11 December, the Secretary of State for Justice referred to the

“first Annual Statement on prison capacity”,

describing it as fulfilling a “transparency commitment for 2024” and a necessary step in “our plan”.

The Oral Statement given by the Secretary of State’s junior Minister in the Commons repeated news of this innovation: that the Government were to publish an annual statement on prison capacity, which would be a “critical” step. It is all about transparency, clarity and public confidence. But let us wait: 16 October 2023 was before the election. We had a Conservative Government and a Conservative Secretary of State for Justice, the right honourable Alex Chalk. What had he to say in the other place? He said:

“To ensure public confidence, a new annual statement of prison capacity will be laid before both Houses. It will include a clear statement of current prison capacity, future demand, the range of system costs that will be incurred under different scenarios and our forward pipeline of prison build. That will bring greater transparency to the plans and will set out the progress that is being made”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/23; col. 59.]


I do not believe the Minister or his officials will require the column reference as the Statement made by the then Secretary of State for Justice is, in effect, repeated verbatim in this novel and innovative Statement that we have received in the last few days.

There is a difference. The right honourable Alex Chalk referred to a new annual statement “of” prison capacity. The new Government repeatedly refer to a new annual statement “on” prison capacity. Are we to infer that the innovation lies in the change of preposition? I can discern no further distinction between the two. What we are in receipt of is the cut and paste of the Conservative Government’s policy announced more than a year ago.

Then there is a second innovation in this new prisons programme, as reflected in the policy paper. We are told of new prisons in Yorkshire, Leicestershire and Buckinghamshire. The Secretary of State for Justice referred in her Statement on 11 December to “rapid deployment cells”. In the foreword to the prison capacity strategy document itself, the now Secretary of State for Justice tells us that this document is our 10-year prison capacity strategy.

“It sets out how this Government will build the 14,000 prison places … It is a detailed plan setting out where these places will be built … As such, it is a realistic but ambitious plan for prison building—a far sight from the empty rhetoric and disappointing reality of my predecessors’ previous efforts”.


Paragraph 8 of the document, under the heading “New prisons”, says:

“We will deliver … new places through new prisons”.

It explains that these are to include new prisons in Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Buckinghamshire, and Lancashire; and there will be “rapid deployment cells”, which are defined as “modular self-contained units”.

More innovation—but let us wait a moment. The construction of the rapid deployment cells at His Majesty’s Prison Millsike was announced by the then Secretary of State for Justice, the right honourable Alex Chalk, on 12 February 2024. With respect to the new prisons programme, His Majesty’s Prison Five Wells and His Majesty’s Prison Fosse Way opened before the election.

The construction of His Majesty’s Prison Grendon in Buckinghamshire was approved by the Conservative Government before the election. The plan for a third prison in Buckinghamshire was approved in January 2024. Construction of the new prison next to His Majesty’s Prison Gartree in Leicestershire was approved at about the same time.

The so-called “innovation” of the new prison programme is yet another case of cut and paste. There is reference to “empty rhetoric”, but whose? If the Minister were to submit this paper to his tutor, it would be marked in bold red, “Wretched plagiarism”, and down-marked again for failure to acknowledge his sources. It is a third-class effort.

There is one example of innovation by the present Secretary of State for Justice and her department. We know that something like 73,000 cases are pending in the Crown Courts. We know that, on any day, 10% to 30% of Crown Courts are shut. The number of prisoners on remand is still set to increase. Only recently, the Lady Chief Justice called for an additional 6,500 judicial sitting days in order that, in the face of such increase, the Crown Court could operate at maximum capacity.

What innovation did this Government bring to bear? They agreed not to 6,500 additional sitting days but to 500. Then, I believe today, there has been a suggestion that a further 2,000 sitting days will be found. Whether they are freed up in light of the move for an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers from six months to 12 months or otherwise is not clear. But that still leaves a further 4,000 judicial sitting dates which are not going to be utilised in the face of this backlog.

Yet, at the same time, there seems to be consideration of such innovations as judges sitting with magistrates and not with juries. Will the noble Lord please enlighten us as to why the Chief Justice’s suggestion, nay request, for 6,500 additional sitting days that are available has not been met.

I have the highest regard for the Minister and his commitment to prison and sentencing reform, but over a long and successful business career he will have been face to face with a lot of cobblers. This 10-year strategy is simply a cut and paste of existing policy projects, and we need more from this Government than empty rhetoric.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the need to address the remand prisoner situation with more sitting days, but on other parts of what he said, I hope he is wrong. If there is that much continuity between the policies of the previous Government and this Government, we are not going to get out of the difficulties that we face.

There is no doubt about the appalling state of our prison system which the Government have inherited. They took over a system which was supposed to provide 20,000 extra prison places while coping with massive overcrowding, a shortage of experienced staff and a penal philosophy which called for even longer sentences. There is a desperate shortage of the resources needed to reduce reoffending, either by programmes during custody or by supporting ex-prisoners on the difficult route to leading a better life and keeping the law.

We do not want to see this Government repeat the failures of their predecessor. Given his practical and personal experience in resettling and employing ex-offenders, we believe that the Prisons Minister understands the problems and is personally committed to changing the way we address them. But the Statement does not really inspire confidence and nor does the strategy. It rests on two assumptions, the first of which is that the increase in prison places will be achieved. I have to say that I am doubtful about that on the basis of experience, and even if achieved, it is recognised that it is not enough. That will not solve the problem. We cannot build our way out of this situation.

The other key assumption is that the sentencing review—which we welcome—will reduce the pressure for yet more places to be provided, even on the numbers the Government have given. That depends on whether there is political leadership to implement the radical ideas the commission will have to come up with if it is going to change the situation. We want to know whether that leadership is there. The public and media debate has to be taken forward. Tough talk leads to bad decisions. Excessive use of custody, which is hugely expensive, ensures that neither the prisons nor the probation system can devote the effort to the rehabilitation needed to cut crime.

It is time to be straight with the public. It is time to tell them that the Government are spending their taxes on a system which we know leads to prisoners reoffending. We know it leads to more prisoners and less rehabilitation, as well as to more reoffending, and it has got to change. When a crime is committed, victims and the public want the offender to be caught, tried, made to face the consequences of the hurt and damage they have caused and set up to lead a better life in the hope that they will not repeat their offences either towards the victims or towards anybody else.

In some cases, prison is essential for public protection; in others, there are more effective community sentences which, for many offenders, are more challenging than a spell in jail. It is not sensible to use the length of a custodial sentence, as we do these days, as the index of how seriously we take a crime. That way lies wasted money and more reoffending on release. Is the political leadership prepared to say that kind of thing? With a former DPP as the Prime Minister, it ought to be possible.

I put to the Minister a simple question: why does this country lock up more criminals for longer than most other west European countries?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for their comments. We are all aware that we have a problem. The problem is that the prison population increases by 4,500 people a year. In the summer, when I was six weeks into this job, we were 99.9% full: in fact, we had fewer than 100 spaces in our prisons. It was clear that this was not just a problem, it was a very dangerous problem. We are now running at 97% or 96% in the male estate and can already see the benefits of that. But we need to keep building new prisons, and we got planning permission for HMP Garth earlier this month. We do not just need new prisons; we need new house blocks and to ensure that we do not lose cells.

We cannot build our way out of the difficulties we have; we also need sentencing reform. As noble Lords are aware, David Gauke is leading a sentencing review, which will be concluded by the spring. We need to make sure that demand and supply are in balance, because we always need to have space for the police to arrest and charge people and put them in prison. Interestingly, last week I went to Spain to visit the prisons over there. It has 15,000 spare cells, which we can only dream of here. Unsurprisingly, when I went round the prisons there, things were much calmer than they are here.

How will we get more capacity? We have to create these 14,000 prison places. The cost is very high, and much higher because of the delays in the previous Government’s building. But the other real problem is that we have had a net increase of only 500 prison cells because so many have been lost and prisons have been sold. One of the things that is really important is to make sure that we do not lose prison places and prison wings. I am looking forward to visiting HMP Millsike before Christmas and seeing what a good, environmentally state-of-the-art prison looks like. But I have also been recently to HMP Manchester and HMP Winchester, both of which had urgent notifications, to see the other side of the coin, where prisons need serious investment. I am pleased that we have managed to find £500 million to invest.

We have many great prisons as well. We need to future-proof things and to keep buying land on top. In my old job, every day I was looking at the sales figures of our retail chain; now I am looking every day at the prison population and seeing how much capacity we have. I am pleased to say that, so far, our numbers are slightly under the projection we have been looking at.

I have seen a number of rapid deployment cells and the issue with them is that, even though we do not have a choice—we need to do them—the extra cost is not just in the cells but in the extra visitor centre space, extra kitchen space and so on. That is why it is not just a cheap temporary option; it is an expensive temporary option.

On Crown Court backlog days, I am very pleased that colleagues have found more headroom and we have managed to get 2,500 extra sitting days; and the magistrates’ courts going from six to 12 months will free up 2,000 extra days. It will help with the remand population—17,000 is a significant issue—but it is still not enough.

Yes, we need to build prisons. Yes, we need the sentencing review, and to wait and see what the conclusions are. We always need prison cells for dangerous people. We need to incentivise prisoners to turn their lives around. But we also need to punish people outside of prison as well. We need to work hard when we see the conclusions of that review.

We need to focus also on reducing reoffending, because 80% of offending is reoffending. As noble Lords challenged me to do, I need to focus on delivering these new prison places so we do not run out of space, but I also need to really focus on delivering reduced reoffending, so over time our prisons are less full because people are reoffending less.

As we all know, there is a very complex job to do. We are dealing with the most complex people in the country and a system that is the most complex. It is a privilege for me; it is my dream job to do this. I am looking forward in the new year to starting to deliver on my plans. We are now in a position where we have overcome the immediate capacity problems. We can use the headroom, even though we have only minuscule capacity space compared to the Spanish. It is important that we use that time to focus on education, purposeful activity, people addressing their drug and mental health problems, and helping them so that when they get out, they stay out.

Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Of course, I am sympathetic to the point the noble and learned Baroness makes. As she said, I have substantial experience of dealing with litigants in person in family courts. The debate about early legal advice is also being considered as part of the allocation arrangements as a result of the Budget, but I am sympathetic to the point she makes.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the combined effect of the restrictions on scope for legal aid, the enormous complexity of trying to get an exceptional circumstances funding application through, and the creation of advice deserts in many parts of the country? These are severe barriers. The Minister has been strongly in support of legal aid over many years, as I know well, but does he have any hope of making progress on this matter?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question, specifically on the point of advice deserts. There is no doubt we are facing substantial challenges in that respect. The previous Government allowed the number of duty solicitors available to drop by 26% between 2017 and 2023. The MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency are working with providers where there are specific issues; for example, setting up a list of providers available to provide immigration advice to clients in the south-west.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill has now benefited from the scrutiny of two parliamentary Sessions, following its introduction in the last Parliament and examination by a Special Public Bill Committee. It has undergone further scrutiny since its reintroduction by this Government.

I take this opportunity to thank some of the noble Lords who have engaged with and supported the Bill over the past year. I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in chairing the former Special Public Bill Committee. He marshalled and managed truly expert feedback on these reforms from across the arbitration sector and the judiciary. The committee process resulted in several technical improvements to the Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also extend my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his commitment to driving forward these reforms, while always recognising the importance of getting the details right.

The Bill has been improved during this Session’s Committee stage too, thanks in no small part to the considered and well-informed input from the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who advised that the previous Clause 13 did not adequately reflect the case law on arbitral appeals that it sought to codify. We remedied this issue through my amendments in Committee, fixing a long-standing error in what is otherwise considered a supremely well-drafted framework. Based on sector feedback, the Government also made an improvement to Clause 1 ahead of introducing the Bill a second time, ensuring that its default rule on governing law did not apply inappropriately to certain investor-state arbitrations.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for his contributions, both as a member of the former Special Public Bill Committee and as an active participant throughout the Bill’s passage. I appreciate his continued interest in full and proper arbitration law reform, after witnessing at first hand so much of its development over many years.

The legislative scrutiny provided by this House has served only to give optimal effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations, made after two extensive consultations. I record my thanks to Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission, Nathan Tamblyn and Laura Burgoyne, for their brilliant work. I also thank the Bill managers, Iona Bonaventura and Harry McNeill Adams, along with the government lawyer, Wan Fan, the parliamentary counsel, Helen Hall and Neil Shah, and my policy lead, Lee Pedder. I also thank my private secretary, Paul Young.

The measures within the Bill have been much sought after by our arbitral community. I am hugely grateful for its support and engagement with these reforms since the Law Commission’s first consultation.

I conclude by reminding noble Lords of the Bill’s benefits. By reforming and modernising our arbitral framework, it will make dispute resolution more efficient, attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth. We pass the Bill to the Commons in excellent condition, and I hope its passage can be completed swiftly. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I share the distinction of being the only people participating in the proceedings on the Bill who have neither presided over arbitration nor appeared before arbitrators. We have had a panoply of very expert noble Lords taking part in proceedings, none more so than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the Public Bill Committee.

This is an important—although small—Bill, because it will effectively underpin an important export earner and an important opportunity for this country to assist in many issues across the world, because of the popularity of London as a centre for resolving disputes. It has had two Law Commission consultations, a very well-argued Law Commission report, excellent drafting and two processes through the full proceedings of this House. Not much legislation gets all that. As a consequence, we can be pleased about what has been achieved and wish it well in the Commons.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for engaging with me in correspondence last week, in which he calmly set out his reasoning for the present policy proposal. I express my deep sympathy to him for having to respond to questions on a Statement from the other place that is heavy in hyperbole and very weak on reasoning.

What is particularly surprising is that by this morning, the Justice Secretary, who made the original Statement in the other place, was conceding in an interview that this is not a problem you can build yourself out of.

Where did this policy originate? The last Labour Government, while recognising the obvious link between sentencing and prison capacity, decided to advance a policy that relied on prison capacity being predicted and adjusted to accommodate sentencing policy, rather than sentencing policy taking account of prison capacity. The Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford described this “predict and provide” policy as flawed. The then president of the Prison Governors Association described the then Labour Government’s policy as

“an out-of-control demand met by the provision of little more than penal warehousing”.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, then chair of the prison policy group, described the policy as “simplistic”.

What did the then Labour Government do? They announced plans for the building of three titan prisons with massive capacity. What did they do next? They announced the abandonment of plans for three titan prisons with massive capacity and announced plans for the building of five new prisons. If we could find them all, we might utilise their capacity, but the fundamental issue here is not prison cells but penal policy. It is not only obvious but well established that if you increase sentencing powers, sentences increase. Magistrates, like science, cannot resist a vacuum. They will fill it. Increasing sentencing in the magistrates’ court may well relieve some pressure on the Crown Court, but it is liable to increase pressure on reception prisons and category C prisons.

What will that impact be? We have no impact assessment, but the means to carry out such an assessment are potentially available. During the pandemic, the sentencing powers of magistrates were temporarily increased from six to 12 months. It should be possible to correlate this with the impact on reception prisons and category C prisons. Why has that not been done?

I note the Government’s most recent decision, which is to appoint the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke to carry out a review. I applaud their decision to call on his expertise and ability to properly inform them as to what they should do next.

I come on to the question of early release, which is connected to this proposal over sentencing. If the Government are to release more prisoners in the next few days, will they please try to release the right ones? Last time, they released dozens of prisoners who did not qualify for release and dozens of prisoners who had breached restraining orders and should never have qualified for early release. Of those who did qualify for early release, some were let out on licence without an electronic tag, which might have made it a little difficult to work out where they had gone.

In coming to a conclusion, I observe that the marrying up of social policy, penal policy, sentencing policy and prison capacity in the context of recidivism, extensive substance abuse, mental health issues and the requirements for care in the community and family support raises complex issues, particularly when the Treasury will rarely, if ever, invite the Ministry of Justice to the front of the spending queue. Those issues have to be addressed as a whole and, in my respectful view, they are not well served by a simplistic statement of blame, which was essentially what was delivered in the other place.

I conclude by thanking the Minister once again for his reasoned and calm engagement on this topic and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave us some interesting historical context, but I had expected an apology—or at least a guilty plea, with the plea in mitigation that he chose to leave the previous Government before the ceiling really started to fall in. They left an appalling situation: overflowing prisons, a huge backlog of untried cases, record numbers of remand prisoners, and victims seeing no outcome or closure to what they had suffered. This Government now have to deal with that, and they are running out of their few options to do so. I welcome their decision to have a fundamental review of sentencing policy and to invite David Gauke to carry it out. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord on that; he is a good choice and I wish him well in the task.

Why are we filling prisons with more offenders than any other western European country? Why are we failing to recognise that we are putting resources into a prison system that is institutionally ill equipped to do the kind of rehabilitative work that is clearly necessary? Unless we see a significant reduction in prisoner numbers, what hope is there that rehabilitation programmes can work in prisons?

With so few options available to them, it seems logical and sensible for the Government to make use of the available time of magistrates who are willing to sit on more serious cases, freeing up time in Crown Courts. However, last time, this was not found to be very effective; it led to an increase in the demand for prison places. The Lord Chancellor conceded in the Commons:

“That is what happened and what I expect to happen again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/24; col. 1011.]


It is not even a temporary solution. Do these plans overlook the possibility that some defendants will opt for a jury trial when they no longer have the incentive that magistrates can sentence them only to six months? That means longer sentences and larger prisoner numbers. Will special training be provided to magistrates to try to ensure that good use is made of them in cases dealing with more serious offences that require a longer sentence, but that the new powers do not simply inflate sentences that would otherwise have been given to potentially shorter-sentence prisoners?

The Lord Chancellor has said, and I agree with her, that

“people have to know and believe there are consequences to breaking our laws”.

This is not achieved when prisoners are released without completing their sentences or any serious regard to why they were imprisoned for a long period. Neither is it achieved by using a significant part of our resources in a prison system which is ill equipped, ill resourced and ill prepared to rehabilitate offenders. If this announcement buys the Government some time, can we have some reassurance that it will be used for fundamental change?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I will first address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and then turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

On the noble Lord’s final point about buying time, that is the Government’s objective with SDS40; the standard determinate sentencing going from 50% down to 40% is indeed to buy time. As he will know, there was a Statement in the House of Commons today on a sentencing review, which we are very grateful that David Gauke has agreed to chair. That Statement will be repeated in this House in due course, so we can debate the issues raised in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked some specific questions, including whether increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months will incentivise defendants to opt for jury trial. In the brief interlude when that happened before, there was no statistical data to say that might be the case, so on that particular example we are confident that there will not be any appreciable increase in the number of defendants opting for a jury trial.

As far as training goes, there will be refresher training available to magistrates. When I was in opposition, I personally did the training for the increase in sentences. It was not that long ago, but if some magistrates feel they want the refresher training then it will be available to them.

The central point that the noble Lord made was about filling up prisons. As my noble friend Lord Timpson often reminds me, if you do nothing then the prison population will go up by 80 a week. That is the reason we are initiating this review of sentencing, which will get under way very quickly.

The closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, were much more acceptable than his opening remarks. In his closing remarks, he acknowledged the complexity of the situation, that there are many interacting factors in the situation we have arrived at today, and that there needs to be a multifaceted approach to try to turn the tide on the ever-increasing number of people we find in our prisons. I agree with the point he made in his closing remarks.

I think the noble and learned Lord might have been tweaking my nose with his other point. He said that magistrates cannot resist a vacuum, but he knows that that is absolutely not true. Magistrates sentence within the sentencing guidelines, as do district judges. The problem with magistrates and district judges is that they sentence quicker than Crown Courts, not that they sentence more harshly. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, is nodding her head, because she knows that what I have said is correct.

The overall objective of this announcement is to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers back from six to 12 months. I look forward to answering more questions from other noble Lords on that matter.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Hoffmann, that this amendment ought not to be accepted. However, it seems to me, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, that everyone agrees with the sentiment behind what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has proposed.

I had thought that we had agreed how to deal with this matter when the then Minister dealt with it at a hearing of the Special Public Bill Committee. I raised this point by way of an amendment to the old Arbitration Act. The Minister agreed, in response to that, that he would write to the arbitral institutions and we would see what the best practice was. I had assumed that all that would be made public, and I am entirely at a loss to understand why the letters that were written and the responses have not been made public. It would be extremely helpful to have all this information put into the public domain to show, for the benefit of London, what was being done to address this point. As I understand it, these were documents written by the Minister in his capacity of trying to deal with a problem that had arisen and was discussed in this House. It would be very helpful to have a discussion and look into the matter in detail. If something needs to be done—more than is being done—we can return to it. Certainly, we ought not to delay the Bill by this amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, in our Second Reading debate on 30 July, I asked the Minister to respond about these consultations that had taken place, which he did in a letter on, I think, 15 August. He set out in some detail the various ways in which the existing system deals with corruption.

It would be beneficial, as the noble and learned Lord has just pointed out, if the documents which the Minister was summarising were themselves made public, with the consent of the relevant organisations, because there is a lot of detail here that needs to be discussed. Indeed, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, illustrate that we cannot proceed on the matter of this amendment without some pretty extensive discussion about how it could work and how it affects the role of the arbitrator. Although I am very sympathetic to the amendment, to try to introduce it at this stage would be an unnecessary delay to a Bill that has had quite a lot of delays already, not least because of the general election. That would be an unfortunate consequence.

The most reassuring thing in the Minister’s letter is the reminder that the case to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, referred, and in which he was directly involved, was of course dealt with in the High Court. The High Court set aside the results of the arbitration, having discovered the corruption that had occurred. This is a demonstration that, even without new statutory provision, our system can deal with corruption of this kind. It is still there, however. There is a lot of corruption about and it is quite likely that it will emerge or be present in matters that are the subject of arbitration, particularly between states and very large commercial undertakings.

I therefore do not think that we should be content simply to set aside the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has introduced, but I do not think that we should attempt to insert it into the Bill at this stage. We should seek to establish whether both the substance of the law and our ability to enforce it would be improved by new statutory provision, and I am not yet persuaded that that is so. We strongly support the Bill and do not want to see its progress delayed.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name.

It has come to light that Clause 13 does not adequately codify the case law on appeals under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. I have tabled Amendment 3 to replace Clause 13 and correct the root cause of this issue: a drafting error in the 1996 Act that provided for an incorrect approach to appeals under Part 1 of the Act. Allow me to explain both the underlying issue and the approach I am taking to resolve it.

Clause 13 of this Bill as introduced seeks to codify case law regarding leave to appeal decisions on staying legal proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, namely the House of Lords decision from 2000 in Inco and First Choice Distribution. As such, the current Clause 13 inserts into Section 9 provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”.

During the passage of this Bill, certain noble and learned Lords raised the point that Clause 13 as drafted would permit leave for appeal to be sought only from the High Court—the High Court being what is meant by “the court” in the provision. However, the current situation established by case law provides that leave to appeal can be sought directly also from the Court of Appeal. It seems that Clause 13 as drafted would have the effect of inadvertently narrowing the existing position, which was never the intention.

The root cause of this issue is that the 1996 Act made an incorrect consequential amendment to Section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Section 35(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. In Inco and First Choice Distribution, the late Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead identified that this provision in the Senior Courts Act was originally meant to give effect to restrictions on the right to appeal contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Act 1979. The Senior Courts Act then needed updating to reflect additional appeal restrictions in the 1996 Act. But, as Lord Nicholls put it,

“for once, the draftsmen slipped up”.

The provision in the Senior Courts Act, when read literally, suggests that no appeals against decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act are allowed, except where expressly provided for in the 1996 Act. However, the intended and correct position is that appeals are indeed permitted unless expressly restricted by the 1996 Act. Due to this misunderstanding, Clause 13, in inserting its express language on appeals into Section 9 of the 1996 Act, establishes restrictions on those appeals. Accordingly, the provision that

“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”,

as used in other sections of the 1996 Act, is intended as a restriction providing that leave under those sections can be sought only from the High Court. As it was not the intention of the Law Commission or the Government to add such a restriction on Section 9 appeals, we must correct it.

Simply amending Clause 13 to permit direct appeals to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 could raise questions about other sections of the 1996 Act and whether similar provision should also be made elsewhere. Deleting Clause 13 would maintain the current appeal process but miss the opportunity to fix the issue properly. This seems remiss, given that the clear objective of this Bill is to refine and clarify our arbitral framework.

Amendment 3 therefore rectifies the underlying issue. It replaces the current Clause 13 with amendments to the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These clarify that appeals against High Court decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act, including under Section 9, may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. This will establish beyond doubt the current position on appeals.

Amendment 3 also necessitates a change to the Bill’s Long Title, which is currently:

“A Bill to amend the Arbitration Act 1996”.


However, under Amendment 3, it will now also amend the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. This will not practically widen the scope of the Bill, given that it modifies that other legislation only to the extent that it relates to the 1996 Act. Nevertheless, Amendment 4 is required and updates the Long Title, adding “and for connected purposes”. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment and are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward. The Minister’s remarks could usefully be framed and provided as an object lesson in the fact that drafting really does matter and that, when it goes wrong, the consequences mount up in subsequent legislation. He illustrated that well.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am personally grateful to the Minister for engaging with me and others on this. These are technical matters, but it is important to get them right. I acknowledge the assistance I have had from my colleague Toby Landau KC, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on the previous group, did a lot of work on the original DAC report. I also acknowledge members of the Law Commission team with whom the Minister and I have both engaged, especially Nathan Tamblyn.

As the Minister said in moving his amendment, in Inco Europe, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, with whom the rest of the Appellate Committee agreed, said:

“I am left in no doubt that, for once, the draftsman slipped up”.


He put it in those terms because, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on the previous group, this is an extremely well-drafted Act. It is probably one of the best-drafted Acts on our on our statute book. To pick up the other phrase that Lord Nicholls used in that case, for once, Homer had nodded. This amendment rectifies the position—I am not sure what the opposite of nodding is, but, whatever it is, it puts Homer’s head back upright. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, which we support.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has raised the corruption issue, and I will refer to it in a moment. First, I thank him for his contribution and for the insights he gave on Second Reading, in the life before the Arbitration Act 1996, which were illuminating.

The Bill is extremely important. Arbitration is important; it is a major earner for this country. We need to keep our arbitration system up to date, and its legal framework needs to be reliable and able to deal with circumstances that can arise. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has set out the Bill for us and will respond at the end, and I am grateful for his close interest in it. It is an amazing Bill in that it has been through so many processes that it seems almost inconceivable that improvements could still be made to it. They could, actually, but it might be contrary to the public good if we in any way delayed the Bill, which is now somewhat overdue.

The Law Commission did the work. There were consultations arising out of it. The Special Public Bill Committee did extremely good work on it under the able chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was much engaged with it and will no doubt refer to it in a moment. Since the original consideration of that Bill in the previous Parliament, Clause 1 has been amended to deal with the state party issue, which was referred to at the later stages of the Special Public Bill Committee. It was very disappointing that the Bill did not get dealt with in the wash-up, but I welcome the Government having moved quickly to bring it back again. I genuinely believe that we could proceed with it expeditiously. I do not usually argue for shortcutting parliamentary procedures, but the Bill has had a lot of parliamentary procedures and a lot of attention, and I think it is in a fit state to be made statute.

On the corruption issue, which was raised at a relatively late stage in the Public Bill Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, in responding, agreed to write to arbitral institutions to see what they were doing to ensure that the arbitration frameworks that we have are not used as a device for money laundering and other forms of corruption to be pursued. I would be interested to know what response he got while he was still in office. To the extent that responses came later, perhaps the Minister can assist us and tell us what indications were given that institutions and organisations were alive to this problem and were looking for ways to ensure that it did not feature largely in arbitrations that were conducted under the terms of the Bill.

We have a very good reputation for arbitration and some of those most experienced in it took part in the Bill’s proceedings. The work they put into it means that this worthwhile Bill deserves an expeditious passage.