Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Timpson

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Timpson

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Debate between Lord Beith and Lord Timpson

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.