Prison and Probation Service

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate and all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon to what has been a sober but very humane debate. Noble Lords will know that not every debate about prisons has those characteristics, so I very much appreciate that.

For many years, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has brought sustained attention to the purpose of imprisonment and to the vital role that families and strong, stable relationships can play in rehabilitation. We are very grateful to him. I declare my own interest: I was the lead non-executive director of HMPPS until 2025. I chaired its agency board and had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting the noble Lord and talking with him, particularly about the work my then colleagues at HMPPS were doing on the relational model, which he was a champion of and is at the heart of what we are all discussing.

I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, on a magnificent maiden speech. I am proud to say that I have read both parts of the noble and learned Lord’s court review, twice. He looks shocked, but I have, and I look forward to working with him very closely, as does everyone at the Ministry of Justice.

I will start with the most immediate pressure on prison capacity. I take the challenge from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, not to indulge in the blame game very seriously, and I will try not to. I will also try not to recite lots of things other people have said before and that your Lordships already know. I am all too conscious that I alone stand between noble Lords and Recess, so I shall be concise but thorough.

On all these comments about prison capacity, I am not, as I say, going to indulge in the blame game. In two regards, the comments many noble Lords have made highlight the heart of this problem and the theme we will return to again and again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned the great increase in sentence length. This is at the heart of the long-running difficulty with prison capacity. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them that, in the context of a prison capacity crisis, many if not all the things noble Lords have said they value in prisons—such as education, regime, healthcare and rehabilitation—are the first to suffer in overcrowded prisons with overstretched staff. So, we have to get the capacity crisis under control.

I am not going to bandy figures around, but we are providing 14,000 additional prison places and we will continue to make a commitment to prison building. On that, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we are not suggesting that the prison numbers will come down or that the prison building programme may, in the end, not prove adequate. We recognise that this is an ongoing thing and will go on for a very long time, perhaps even for a decade. I entirely agree with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we cannot build our way out of this capacity challenge, though build we must.

On sentencing, measures already in force include the presumption to suspend prison sentences of 12 months or less. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked about short sentences, and those are subject to important exceptions. Our view is that short spells in custody disrupt housing arrangements, employment and drug treatment. They are not good for mental health and, crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, the family ties that are at the heart of preventing further offending.

Where offenders can be punished and managed safely in the community—I do not apologise for the use of the word “punishment”—we should use that opportunity to both supervise them effectively and tackle the underlying causes of their offending, reserving prisons for those who most need to be there and from whom the public need to be protected. Over the coming months, we will implement the progression model that was at the heart of David Gauke's recommendations and at the heart of the Sentencing Act. I have had the opportunity to discuss that with many noble Lords before today. This is almost the most important building block to a changed landscape for prisons.

I make this offer to noble Lords in the spirit of my noble friend Lord Timpson; noble Lords can consider me a sort of polyester version of my noble friend. We need to make sure that the whole approach of the Sentencing Act—a third in custody, a third under intensive supervision—is understood much better by the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others have said. I would be very happy to arrange a presentation from our officials on exactly how this is going to work and how we are preparing for it.

It means a tougher probation service. I was very mindful of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who I am working with on youth custody, as well. We are asking the Probation Service to do something really quite difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made clear. We are asking it to improve itself after a long history of troubles that started with the failed privatisation, and to take on many new responsibilities under the intensive supervision model. We know that is challenging.

I have talked about the money. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has asked me again about contingency planning. The question of government funding and the need for more funding is something we talk about all the time in the Ministry of Justice, as noble Lords can imagine. We will approach the spending review in the usual optimistic spirit.

I want to recognise, finally, on this question of the progression model, that we listened to some of the concerns of victims and their families about the changes. As noble Lords know, we changed some of the exemptions, but we recognise that changing release arrangements can cause victims and their families a great deal of uncertainty and distress. That is why stronger supervision and support for victims are so important in the Government’s approach.

I now turn to prison safety and security, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Prisons must be places of safety, security and order, where staff can do their jobs, prisoners can engage in a constructive regime—particularly in education and training for employment—and genuine rehabilitation can take place. As I have said, all this is made much more difficult by serious overcrowding, overstretched staff and inadequate facilities. Drugs, illicit mobile phones and drones fuel violence, criminal activity, debt and intimidation; they undermine staff authority and make turning lives around substantially harder.

At the heart of what we need to do is ensuring effective security. It is essential. That is why we are investing in both the fabric and the security of our prisons, including an additional £35 million this financial year—we get some money out of the Treasury—to strengthen counter-drone security in prisons where there is the greatest threat. We are also working closely with law enforcement partners to disrupt those bringing drugs, weapons and other contraband into prisons.

Our prison officers perform a demanding public service and I take my hat off to them. They need the confidence, training and support to maintain order and build the constructive relationships that help offenders turn their backs on crime for good.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as of June this year, prison officer staffing stood at 92% of our target level and prison officer resignation rates are at their lowest in five years. It is obviously a difficult labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, highlighted. Many pressures remain, particularly in hard-to-staff prisons, but we have made an enormous effort—going back to my days in HMPPS—on recruitment, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would recognise.

Many noble Lords have highlighted that a safe prison must also be a purposeful one. Most people who enter prison, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, highlighted, will eventually return to the community. This is a simple statement of fact that is too readily ignored. Nearly 80% of offenders are reoffenders and therefore we have a responsibility to use the time spent in custody as effectively as we can, as many noble Lords have emphasised. Our approach is to help individuals develop skills and secure employment and stable accommodation, and to provide access to treatment for substance misuse and mental health needs.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, we meet regularly with Dame Carol Black and are working with her on the findings of her report. My colleagues and I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord and his colleagues to discuss the AI tool he was describing. All these efforts in health care and accommodation go to the heart of the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that through all these things we are trying to maintain positive relationships. That is a good and humane thing to do, regardless of anything else: it is a good in itself. Effective rehabilitation nevertheless sits alongside punishment and robust supervision as an essential part of protecting the public. Every offence prevented means one fewer victim.

I recognise the comments made by my noble friend Lord Winston, which were utterly compelling, about the effect on the brain. I have seen research along those lines, and this is a very important area for us to develop. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know that we have discussed previously the whole question of gambling and gambling addiction. My noble friend Lord Timpson made some progress on that, and I hope we can continue that. I have no doubt that I will have many opportunities to discuss that with the noble Lord, Lord Foster.

Purposeful activity can have a transformative effect. We are expanding vocational training and apprenticeships and improving links with employers and access to education. Our track record on getting prisoners into jobs when they leave has improved. My noble friend Lord Timpson put a great deal of emphasis on that. We are seeing progress. The proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release increased to 36.5% in the year to March 2026. We know we have a long way to go, but we are making some progress.

I turn to the question of family and other relationships, which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, described as the golden thread. The evidence bears this out. Research shows that prisoners who received visits were three percentage points less likely to reoffend within one year of release. But as I have said, I regard that as a good thing in itself, whatever the statistics are telling us. I am delighted that they confirm my view. The prison gates should not be a cliff edge, for all the reasons I have set out. Prisons, probation, local authorities, health services and employment support must work as one system. Of course, there are many difficulties and that is why, alongside MHCLG, we have committed to halve the proportion of prison leavers released to no fixed abode and to increase the proportion in settled accommodation by the end of this Parliament.

I want to say a few words about probation. I thank probation staff for the vital work they do every day to protect the public and support rehabilitation. It is easy to be critical, but we also need to recognise their efforts and their achievements. They have been asked to carry too much for too long. We are responding with the investment that a number of noble Lords have referred to. We have already recruited 2,300 new probation officers over the past year and are recruiting at least 1,300 more in 2026-27. We are rebuilding the service and asking it to take on new responsibilities. Probation officers will have more on their plate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said. There is much to be learned from the experience in youth custody—I entirely agree with her about that.

Moving part of a sentence from custody into the community, as we are, does not mean the end of punishment. We are giving probation the toughest range of tools ever to manage offenders, including tough licence conditions, electronic tagging on a scale never seen before, curfews, restriction zones, and recall to prison where those conditions are breached. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, spoke about recalls, and I answered a question yesterday from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on IPPs and recalls. I am very happy to take that away and get back to the noble and learned Lord and everyone who has spoken in this debate about exactly what we are doing to address that trend.

One of the things we are already aware of is that, once someone has been recalled, the time taken to get to a parole decision before they can be released is something we need to address. But I do not at all demur from the general challenge, and I will return to it. Again, as I have said about this progression model, my officials will be very happy to arrange a session on the changes to probation so that noble Lords can feel more confident, at least, of the steps we are taking to build a Probation Service for the future.

I will say something about women offenders and female offenders, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Female offenders often have distinct and complex needs. Many are victims themselves, with histories of trauma, abuse, mental health and addiction, and many are mothers. That is why our long-term aim is to reduce the number of women in prison and, in particular, pregnant women and mothers of young children. That is a particular commitment of ours, to which we shall be addressing ourselves with energy. We have announced—this refers to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was talking about—the expansion of intensive supervision courts for women, which will use a multi-agency approach to address the root causes of offending. This is an important development, which we shall watch very carefully to see if it may help in other areas too. We are also investing in voluntary and community sector provision to help prevent offending and divert women away from the criminal justice system in the first place. The Sentencing Act’s presumption to suspend sentences is expected to reduce the number of women entering prison by about a third. However, custody will, of course, remain necessary when the seriousness of the offence or the protection of the public requires it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and one or two other noble Lords mentioned the Government’s decision on IPPs. I am very proud of that. We are continuing the regular meetings with interested Peers. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor himself is attending the next one—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, looks very impressed. The independent review of the prison system, chaired by Amber Rudd, will examine the long-term reforms needed to build a prison system fit for the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has challenged us to do. She will report later this year, and I and my ministerial colleagues will be working closely with her on that.

We must protect the public, and we must stand with victims. Serious offenders must be punished appropriately. Those released into the community must be robustly supervised, and we must reduce the likelihood of further offending. If we succeed in this, that will mean fewer crimes and fewer victims. I note the comments noble Lords have made on foreign national offenders and on remand. This is all part of the approach we need for getting prison numbers to a more sustainable future.

I hope I have addressed the principal points raised, but I will read Hansard with my officials carefully and write on points I have failed to address. I will say this: in my short time in this job, and indeed before, I have worked with many noble Lords in this House on these issues. I regard this as a collaborative, cross-party venture—I was going to say adventure; it is certainly a venture. I know noble Lords from across the House are working with us on IPPs, but I hope we can continue to work together more widely.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for tabling this Motion and giving us the opportunity to have this debate. None of the problems that noble Lords have highlighted should prevent us paying tribute to those who work tirelessly across our Prison and Probation Service. They undertake, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, noted, difficult and demanding work on behalf of us all. I wish noble Lords a very good Recess. I hope you do not go to too many conferences, but before that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, will respond.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I am the barrier between everyone and Recess.

This has been a good, valuable and collaborative debate. We have worked together. There has not been partisanship. That is important because this is an important and, to be quite frank, depressing subject. The reasons for depression have become apparent from many of the speeches today. I compliment every Member who has contributed today. There have been excellent contributions. I hope that the Hansard of this debate will get some publicity because it needs it. People need to see clearly the problems that are going on in the prison estate, but they also need to see how we can work together and co-operate. I very much liked the emphasis on the prisoner as a human being, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but also came over in many speeches. I concur with everybody that it was an honour to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, make his maiden speech in this debate. It was a hugely valuable contribution.

I am not going to go on and on because we need to get to Recess and it has been a long day. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions. I hope the debate gets widespread impact across Parliament, into the departments of government and out there to the wider public so that they understand the problems in the prison estate at the moment.

Motion agreed.

IPP Prisoners: Recall System

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the recall system for prisoners released on licence serving indeterminate sentences for public protection.

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

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has announced that we will bring forward legislation to end the IPP sentence once and for all by the end of this Parliament. In the meantime, HMPPS has strengthened safeguards around recall decisions, improved quality assurance, streamlined recall processes and expanded the use of risk-assessed recall reviews to support swifter re-releases where it is safe to do so.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, it was interesting to hear what the Minister had to say. Earlier this year, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and I studied about 80 sets of IPP recall papers, provided to us by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Many of the decisions were poorly reasoned or plainly irrational and had nothing to do with public safety. Does the Minister agree that recall should not be used lazily and defensively and only when it is in the interests of justice?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Of course, recall should be used the interests of justice and not lazily, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that recall remains a vital public protection measure and that safeguards and oversight have been strengthened for IPP cases, partly as a result of his work. There has been a 31% decrease in IPP recalls in 2025 compared with 2024. All IPP licence recall decisions are now agreed by senior HMPPS decision-makers precisely to mitigate the point that the noble and learned Lord makes.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fantastic to see that we are now moving along the road of getting justice for IPP prisoners, but, once an IPP prisoner has been deemed safe and released by the Parole Board, that should be the end of the matter: IPP finished. If they are recalled for no further offence, it should be for the normal 56 days, like every other prisoner on a regular sentence, not back to the torturous, indefinite IPP sentence. For the sake of fairness, justice and equality for all prisoners, does the Minister agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for welcoming our decision to bring forward legislation to end IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. A further announcement will be made later this year. We are actively working on the right approach to ending the IPP sentence once and for all, but also to put in place a careful and planned approach to recalls. Of course, we want to do the right thing and our approach is one of principle, not just convenience.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, when an IPP prisoner is recalled to prison, they usually spend at least two years or more in prison—so it is effectively a resentencing exercise, but by a probation officer, not a judge. Should they not at least have been charged with an offence by a police officer, rather than merely exhibiting behaviour which, in the view of a probation officer, might lead to an offence?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

As I have said, we do need recall provisions: there must be some jeopardy if offenders break the conditions of their licence. On the specific point about the time it takes, we have addressed this, partly by what I said earlier, namely that decisions are now agreed by senior decision-makers. We introduced reforms in the Victims and Prisoners Act that reduced the number of IPPs on licence in the community by 936 and—this is the really important point—we are starting to use the risk-assessed recall review, and that has led to the re-release of 61 IPP prisoners many months before their parole hearing would have been scheduled.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in the work that the Government are doing towards final arrangements, will they consult families of IPP prisoners? Many of us have heard so much from the families, who understand what prisoners have gone through and what they may, or may not, be capable of on release.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, we will. I can reassure the noble Baroness about that. Following the Lord Chancellor’s announcement on IPPs, victim liaison officers have started to issue notices to victims, with 375 notices already issued.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, over the last few decades, the use of recall by the Probation Service has moved from being a last resort to something that is much more common. That seems to me a policy and process decision in which Ministers could rightly intervene without getting involved in individual cases. Is the Minister willing to agree that Ministers should look at how frequently recall is used by the Probation Service, with a view to restoring the earlier position?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I agree with all that, except the last phrase about going back to the earlier position. We introduced the risk-assessed recall review because we wanted to put an end to the situation the noble Lord describes in which, once people are recalled, they face a long period before their case is reconsidered. That is what gives rise to the feeling that they are in effect serving a new sentence. This is not what we want, and it is why we tried to mitigate those delays. On the wider point about policy, we are monitoring these trends and will keep looking at them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands that some of the IPP prisoners are so badly damaged by their long incarceration that they would find it extremely difficult to move into mainstream society. Is enough help given to them—for example, housing, financial and medical support, if that is what is needed?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That is precisely the reason why, as we think through how we will end this sentence, we are thinking about what support we need to put in place, both before and after their release. I refer to the work my noble friend Lord Timpson did on the IPP action plan, which sought to ensure that IPP prisoners were in the right sort of prison for them and were getting support while they were still in prison. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the question of support before and after release is top of our list of things to worry about.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, there is a problem with part of the Minister’s Answer—the constant reference, including by the Justice Secretary, to “before the end of this Parliament”. Nobody knows when this Parliament is going to end; it could be 2029 or 2027, in which case, if this issue is not resolved, it will drag on again for a further 30 years. Is it not possible for the Government to bring forward rapid legislation this autumn that deals with the residue of those who have already been released but are recallable at any instant? A simple one-paragraph piece of legislation, similar to what was done for the Post Office workers, could clear the long-term matter up.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble Lord that we do not intend to let this drift, but he will understand that I cannot give specific Dispatch Box commitments on dates. Frankly, that is a pessimistic view of how this will go. We are going to do this in this Parliament and are very actively working on it.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is important in this area, where there is a measure of agreement between the Front Benches and across the House, to make sure that we legislate to make changes in possession of the facts. The proven reoffending rate between July and September 2024 was 29.9%, but there were no equivalent figures for IPP prisoners who had been released. Would the Minister either provide the House with those figures or place the figures in the Library, so that we have the material before us before any changes are made? Will he also undertake to provide that information before making any further changes?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not have that information, but I will seek to get it and I will come back to the noble Lord and others about it.

On the point of principle that he raises about the risks of reoffending, this relates absolutely to the point I was making to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that we need to ensure that, when people are released, they are properly supported. That reduces the risk of being recalled. I think all noble Lords recognise that, when anyone leaves prison, there is always a risk of reoffending, and it is our job to get better at preventing that. The way to do that is to stop having overcrowded prisons and overstretched staff.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of Music in the Ville in Pentonville. My question is very much to do with rehabilitation, which I know the Minister cares about. One of the things that IPP sentences have engendered is total despair. There is a lack of hope. I have spoken to an IPP prisoner about this, and it would help enormously if prison staff could be in touch with not just families but prisoners themselves, to make them see that there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do agree with the noble Lord about the importance of hope, particularly for this group of prisoners. I can hardly imagine what it would be like to be in prison, serving more than 10 years over your tariff offence. We have to instil that hope. I also agree with the noble Lord that the arts, and music in particular, are one way we might do that.

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

Lord Lemos Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I should begin by declaring my interest. Until March 2025, I was the lead non-executive director and chair of the agency board of HMPPS, which was responsible for youth custody services.

I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not with us today. I had hoped that we would be able to hear what he had to say and that I would have the opportunity to pay tribute to his remarkable, ground-breaking work in this area. I hope that he is joining us out in the ether, but if not I certainly pass on my good wishes.

I thank all noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate. This is a really important subject. We may not always agree, but this has been a very well-informed and thought-provoking debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling this Private Member’s Bill and giving us the opportunity to debate this today. I thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for meeting me and Minister Richards before today for what he described—and I very much agree—as a constructive conversation.

I commend the work of the Youth Justice Board. It has played an important, even ground-breaking, role in the formation and development of the youth justice system. Those of us with very long memories remember what the juvenile justice system, as it used to be known, was like. This is a remarkable transformation. The board has transformed the lives of many children and young people. It has also transformed the way the state works with children, overseeing, as noble Lords have said, a significant reduction in the number of children convicted of crime and sent to prison. I know—and I say this with some feeling—that many noble Lords played an important personal role in that. I pay tribute to their work, as well as that of the board and staff of the Youth Justice Board. I put that firmly on the record.

The youth justice system has changed profoundly since the creation of the Youth Justice Board in 1998. Today, although fewer children are entering the system than in the past, which is obviously a good thing, as a number of speakers have noted—including my noble friend Lord Rook and the right reverend Prelate—the children with whom we work are more complex and their needs are more acute, perhaps in part because of the way in which the world is changing in relation to children. Central government must be organised to be able to respond with clarity, focus and impact. I am afraid the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to restore the previous functions does not reflect the Government’s view of the current needs of the system. The board did not want responsibility for the custodial estate in 2017 and it does not seek that now.

The structures put in place nearly three decades ago may not remain the most effective way of delivering the outcomes we need. The noble Baroness, Lady Sater, made that point, and I think we all agree on that. However, the clear position of the Government is that individual arm’s-length body responsibilities and funding should be transferred to local leaders or returned to ministerial departments unless Ministers can make a strong case for their retention. That is the Government’s view across the board, as noble Lords know, and it has been reaffirmed in the comments of the Prime Minister on rewiring the state.

The Government commissioned an independent review of the Youth Justice Board led by Steve Crocker. A number of noble Lords referred to it. This concluded that although—as he pointed out and as has been said by some—the Youth Justice Board has “lost its way”, there remains a clear need for an independent body with technical expertise in the youth justice system. Steve Crocker recommended significant reform to meet the future needs of the system, with a stronger focus on driving efficiency, continuous improvement and providing evidence of what works.

I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others have said, but we are not accepting every recommendation of Steve Crocker’s work. The Government’s position is that we are building on his work. I want to be completely clear that we have no wish to abolish the Youth Justice Board. We want to retain an independent Youth Justice Board that is sharply focused on driving continuous improvement of local practice and capability, while responsibility for system oversight, standards, performance and funding should, in our view, rest with elected Ministers who are accountable to Parliament. Transferring responsibility for digital and IT provision to government will allow us to achieve better outcomes through linking the data on youth justice, which a small organisation such as the Youth Justice Board simply cannot achieve.

The Ministry of Justice will strengthen and support local services and strategic authorities—I will come back to the point about strategic authorities—setting clear standards and an evidence-based, proportionate national oversight framework that enables effective interventions when needed. While I note the comments that many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made about the Ministry of Justice and its limitations, we are committed to that. We want a strong Youth Justice Board. We want professional experts to challenge the department. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I do not mind a challenge or dissenting voices. I have had plenty of them in my short stint at the Ministry of Justice, which I hope will be a long stint. I do not accept the characterisation that we do not have or welcome dissenting voices.

We want the organisation to drive local services to improve and to achieve improved outcomes for children, particularly vulnerable children. Our intention is to allow the Youth Justice Board to focus on what we think it does best, while providing for proper democratic accountability where appropriate. The reforms would see the Youth Justice Board remain an independent, non-departmental body but with a clearer focus on improving youth justice services.

The Youth Justice Board will learn from the best and support the poorer-performing services. This will include interventions or hands-on support for struggling services, facilitating ongoing learning and peer-to-peer sharing of practice, and building the capacity and capability of staff for self-evaluation and improvement. The right reverend Prelate raised the question of restorative justice. That is exactly the kind of thing that we would like to see the sharing of learning on. It has particular application in the youth justice universe. It has much wider applications than that, but that is a good example.

The Youth Justice Board will build the evidence base on innovative new practice and retain the ability to award grants for direct research contracts and to generate evidence. This will be critical for the Youth Justice Board to identify, evaluate and share what works and provide practice-ready guidance for services to use when working with children.

The Youth Justice Board will maintain relationships to understand local variation and identify emerging issues. It will also target issues that are prevalent across the nation—such as violence against women and girls, disproportionality as respects black and minority ethnic people, and online harms—identifying causes and delivering targeted improvement to ensure that shared problems are tackled effectively.

Youth justice is already a largely locally led system. However, there are considerable opportunities to strengthen the role that strategic authorities play in preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children. This is an important part of our agenda on youth justice going forward. The Youth Justice Board will have a pivotal role in building capability in strategic authorities as it takes on a greater role in youth justice and youth crime prevention.

My noble friend Lord Rook gave the example of Manchester, and that is exactly the kind of thing we want to see happening in strategic authorities. I do not say that just because it is Manchester. I really hope, whatever the fate of this Bill, that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and many others in the Chamber, will work with us on the agenda for future work on youth justice in strategic authorities.

The reforms put forward today in the Bill would see an expanded role for the Youth Justice Board, with restored responsibility for youth custody, which it has not exercised, as I have said, since 2017. I want to say a few words about our plans for the Youth Custody Service. The Government have set out their intentions to publish a youth custody transformation plan in the coming months. I think we all know that we need to do something about the Youth Custody Service. The youth secure estate must be managed by the Youth Custody Service, which is a specialist organisation with dedicated staff and a clear focus—I pay tribute to those staff with whom I have worked closely for many years—and which is directly accountable to Ministers. Ascribing responsibility to the Youth Justice Board would dilute its remit and distract from its most important function: supporting youth justice services to improve.

The Bill also proposes significant changes to the governance of youth justice in Wales. The Government recognise the distinct context in Wales, where many of the services that support children, including education, health and social care, are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, devolved. We remain committed to working closely and constructively with the Welsh Government. We are already exploring with the Welsh Government how their role in youth justice could be expanded and we are supportive of arrangements that better reflect the devolved landscape.

In answer to the question about what funds will be devolved to Wales as part of that commitment, from April 2027, funding to reduce the use of remand for children, together with funding for early intervention and prevention services, currently delivered through the Turnaround programme, will be devolved to the Welsh Government. Discussions about the arrangements in Wales continue.

Under the Government’s plans, the Youth Justice Board will remain an independent public body. It will be a strong organisation of experts that offers precisely the practical operational support that today’s system needs for today’s children and today’s challenges. A strong board offering frank, independent and, yes, critical views to the Government is something we welcome. I look forward to debating this further when the Government bring forward their own secondary legislation later this year.

As I have said, I hope your Lordships will work with us as we take forward our work on youth justice. We are not in any sense complacent or passive in our approach to youth justice, particularly with regard to the future of the custodial state and the role of strategic authorities in youth justice, which will be priorities for myself and Minister Richards.

I am afraid the Government’s view is that the Bill in front of us would take us backwards and load up the Youth Justice Board with a broader range of functions that would be a distraction from the core purpose of driving services to improve outcomes for children and keeping our communities safe.

My final comment is on the intersection of the complex needs of children involved in the youth justice service, which a number of your Lordships talked about. For me, the biggest prize in thinking about the way we approach youth justice is in better meeting the needs of those most vulnerable children so that they live thriving and flourishing lives.

Criminal Justice Reform

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we agree with the Statement that the Government clearly inherited a crisis of prison spaces, and a crisis in our criminal justice system as a whole. Frankly, the crisis was clearly attributable to many years of neglect, principally under the last Government. The Sentencing Act was a timely response to that crisis of available prison space. It is unsurprising that, as events have developed, the implementation of the Sentencing Act has changed, and the response of the Government is acceptable in that regard.

We are content to see that a great deal is being done for victims and victim support but concerned to know that public confidence in tagging and the other measures that are proposed to increase confidence and security among the public are matched by an increase in concern for the welfare of victims generally and the availability of services to those victims.

The provision of probation services plays a considerable part in the Statement. Our concern is that the resources available from the welcome allocation of £700 million for probation services by the end of this Parliament will be insufficient given the increased demands of more prisoners released into the community, more tagging, more restrictions and more exclusions, which are designed to increase confidence and security among the public. What are the Government’s plans in the event that the resources for probation prove insufficient? How far are they able to say that there will be an increase in the £700 million allocation?

I turn to prison building. There is in the Statement a pride taken in the fact that more prison spaces are to be made available. However, prison building is not the whole answer. We need to move to a more humane system that prioritises reduction in reoffending, reform and rehabilitation over simply providing more space. We have overcrowded and unhealthy prisons, many of which need replacement, but new prisons take a great deal of time to build. There are delays in planning, in getting planning permission, in design and in building new prisons. Can the Minister give us details of those delays in the prisons that have been recently opened?

The Statement also talks about building more cells within existing prisons. That is well and good, but the problem may be that those new cells in existing prisons will put more pressure and more need for spaces on the rest of the facilities in those prisons. How far have the Government considered ways of mitigating that?

Finally, on a more positive note, we very much welcome the commitment to legislation to end the complete scandal of IPP sentences before the end of this Parliament. It is monstrous that a sentence that was abolished in 2013 should still be keeping prisoners behind bars when those prisoners would have been released years ago had they been given sentences that fitted their crimes.

I hear the concerns about security. Nevertheless, prisoners on determinate sentences are released into the community, and it is welcome to hear that the same is going to happen for IPP prisoners. We accept the invitation to work cross-party with the Government to work out how this can be achieved, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister today the detail of how this is going to be achieved within the timescale and what measures that are not currently in place will be taken to that end.

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

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest. I was the lead non-executive director and chaired the agency board of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service until March 2025. Last week the Lord Chancellor set out in the other place changes to the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026 to strike a better balance between protecting prison capacity and protecting the public from dangerous offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, indicated, the Government recognise the uncertainty that victims have faced over the summer. When they are told that an offender may be released earlier than they expected, I have no doubt at all that it can be extremely distressing. I will say bit more about how we propose to support, and are already supporting, victims in a moment.

Victim liaison officers will be engaging directly with victims opted in to the victim contact scheme, which this Government have expanded in recent legislation, so that they understand how their individual cases are affected. We are also attempting to trace victims who are not in the scheme. This is backed by £18.9 million for victim support, including a dedicated helpline and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. The Government recognise that victims’ concerns are increased by uncertainty. The whole purpose of making these changes to the exemptions is because we have listened to victims. That is the basis on which we are proposing to make these changes. It is why the Government were determined to look again at these changes, which never applied to some of the most serious violent and sexual offences or life sentences.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that of course I remember the debates on the Sentencing Bill. I was here throughout. I suppose I will not be the first or the last Minister to say that we are doing something different from the things I objected to in the past. We have now, rightly, also excluded rape, serious child sex and grooming offences, manslaughter, other unlawful killing offences, and indecent assault, which had been used to prosecute historic child sex abuse. We acknowledge the public concern. That is why the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have initiated these changes and that is why we have made the announcement. We have listened to victims—that is why we are doing these things—and we want to continue to do that.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made about commencement, the Act has already been commenced. Primary legislation is not needed in the short term, but we will pursue it when parliamentary time allows. We must, however, continue to be honest about why these reforms were introduced. When we took office in 2024, prisons were regularly at 99% of their capacity. Running out of places risked paralysing the criminal justice system and we acted to avert that crisis, but prisons continue to operate near their limit.

I have been involved with the subject for many years now. This is not a new problem. This goes back to 2022. I have discussed it—

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

It goes back beyond that.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, it goes back beyond that, but the intensity has not gone away. The answer cannot be a succession of emergency measures. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said the Government had introduced various emergency measures. Well, we needed to, because the previous Government refused to act. Parliament legislated through the Sentencing Act for a sustainable model in which some offenders spend less of their sentence in custody, depending on their behaviour, before continuing to serve their sentence under intensive supervision in the community.

Much of the debate about the changes we are making to the Sentencing Act has simply not taken account of the changes we are making in the supervision arrangements. I am happy to say more if noble Lords want to ask me, but it is a different proposition that is now being proposed for the second third of the earned progression model by probation staff. Probation staff do an extraordinarily difficult job protecting the public, and I want to pay tribute to them. It is easy to be critical of both prison and probation staff, but I regard them as heroic and doing jobs that many of us would find almost unconscionable.

Working closely with the police, we have given them a much more robust range of measures to manage offenders outside prison, and we are building a very different Probation Service. These measures can include curfews, exclusion zones and, for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, new restriction zones, which will tightly constrain their movements, with serious breaches of these conditions potentially resulting in recall to prison. The purpose of probation, as we are now conceiving and structuring it, is about controlling people’s movement, knowing where people are and being able to take action. We are making it possible for probation officers to know where tagged offenders are in real time. That has not been possible before, so it is a really big change.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we recognise the pressure that probation already faces, and now we are asking it to do more. That is why, as he noted, we have invested an additional £700 million in probation and community services by the end of the sentencing review period. We have also hired 2,300 more trainee probation officers. The recruitment of new probation officers has gone well, and we plan to bring on board 1,300 more by March 2027.

We have made substantial progress on productivity in probation through the introduction of Justice Transcribe, and we have reduced probation officer case loads by 25%. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Timpson for his work in this area; he was relentless in his focus on improving probation. I think he is still in his place—yes, he is. I am delighted to have him as my guardian angel on my shoulder.

I said earlier that we cannot allow our prisons to return to the cliff edge that we faced in 2024. Changes to the implementation of the Sentencing Act inevitably have an effect on prison capacity, and we have a duty to ensure that there is enough space in prisons to meet demand. The Lord Chancellor has therefore brought forward £110 million to convert existing prison spaces into cells. We are also accelerating current builds and securing sites for future prisons. This will help us to reach our ambitious target of creating 14,000 additional prison places by 2021, of which 3,200 have already been delivered.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked me about planning difficulties and so on. I am happy to give him more detail later, but we have made a good deal of progress on acquiring land and have speeded up the planning process.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, we are also freeing up capacity by accelerating the removal of foreign national offenders: I am sure I will come back to that. We will shortly commence a power under the Sentencing Act allowing eligible offenders to be removed immediately after sentencing. That will not include dangerous offenders.

My time is up, but I want to address the points that were made about IPP. This is a very significant change. We can talk at greater length on noble Lords’ questions about how we are going to go about this, but taking those sentences off the statute book is an absolute priority and would still be an absolute priority even if the prisons were half empty.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, with regard to excluding those convicted of manslaughter from early release, should we not keep in mind that manslaughter involves varying degrees of culpability, from the very serious to those which are less serious? There are cases involving, for example, a high degree of provocation or diminished responsibility, or, for example, a common assault where a single blow fells the victim who falls, hits his head on a table and dies. These are offences which vary in culpability to a high degree and I suggest that they should not be classed in one single spectrum.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I entirely agree with those comments from the noble Viscount. That is absolutely right. We obviously have to be consistent in the way we apply these exemptions, but the variation he points to is exactly right.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lord, I warmly welcome this Statement. The Government’s commitment to end the IPP scandal, as has been mentioned, is long overdue. A transition with public protection at its heart is the right way forward, but may I suggest that we start straightaway with what I call the low-hanging fruit: the IPP prisoners who have already been found safe for release but have been recalled to custody for no further offence? That is about 80% of the recalls. Around 1,000 IPP prisoners could be released safely under supervision like this, so will the Government consider this option as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done, along with many other noble Lords on all sides of the House, to move us forward on the question of IPPs and how we regularise the situation. I should reinforce this: it goes without saying that we are not going to release people the Government or Parole Board think are dangerous, and we will put in place arrangements to make sure that we do not.

On recall specifically, we are planning to consider whether we can make more use of the risk-assessed recall review. I am happy to discuss this with my noble friend and others to address some of the concerns raised, but the recall powers are there for a reason and we do not propose to get rid of them. We are proposing to make sure that they are used in a way that keeps the public safe, but does not keep people in unnecessarily.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, wants to get up, but I want to respond quickly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about implementation. It is obviously very early days. The Prime Minister has made a commitment to legislate in this Parliament. That is a major step forward and I absolutely undertake to keep the House, and noble Lords who are interested in this, up to date as our thinking develops. But I am sure he understands that I cannot explain precisely how we are going to do it now.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, also on IPPs, we have failed so many people. So many of those prisoners were not able to access the courses that they were supposed to undertake to qualify them to apply for parole and so on. They must have been damaged by what has happened and the length of time they have had to spend in prison which they should not have done. What are we going to do to support that cohort of people?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is exactly what we are thinking about now. As we go forward with these plans on IPPs, we are actively considering how we support them, before release and afterwards. It is absolutely shocking that 80% of the unreleased IPP prisoners—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned this statistic—have served more than 10 years over their tariff. Of course that has had an effect on them and we must make sure that we understand and mitigate that effect, not just from the point of view of public protection but for the welfare and dignity of those people. I still believe in the welfare and dignity of prisoners; I know that is old-fashioned.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this Statement, particularly the highlight on IPP prisoners. However, the approach still feels piecemeal, driven too much by ill-informed public narrative and wrongly focusing the problem on prison capacity. Does the Minister agree that the focus needs to be on reducing offending and reoffending, with the solutions being evidence-led to benefit victims, offenders, families and communities together? Will he say what progress has been made in response to recommendation 5.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review, namely, that we should:

“Launch a public awareness campaign on sentencing”,


because in recent weeks we have seen the consequences of this huge void?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for those observations. I disagree only with the comment about the ill-informed public narrative. There is a need for us to better explain to the public what we are doing and why we are doing it, particularly, as I have said, the intensive community supervision that we are talking about in the second phase of the progression model. The Government are still committed to the progression model; it is in the legislation, and we will take it forward. I absolutely accept the challenge that we need to do better at communicating with the public.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I was Justice Secretary when we abolished IPPs in 2012. Nobody in Parliament then would have believed that, 14 years later, we would still have 2,000 people being held in prison indefinitely without release. It is not the case that they had all been sentenced because they were dangerous; IPPs were beginning to be used by many courts as a routine sentence for comparatively minor criminal offences. If those 2,000 people had been given the normal determinate sentences that we now have, every one of them would have been released some time ago without further process.

It is quite certain that, when the 2,000 are released, several of them will commit quite serious offences and come back before the court. Then, of course, there will be outrage led by campaigners and, understandably, by victims and so on. There is a danger that, to guard against that, the Government will legislate for all kinds of constraints on the release of the IPP prisoners, and I fear that, in a few years’ time, we will find that 1,000 or so are still in prison on indeterminate time. Of course, the Government have to look at legislation, but will the Minister try to ensure that it is not based on ultra caution and trying to avoid some future turmoil, and that it is mainly based on the belief that all these people should be free and only in exceptional circumstances should those that are an obvious danger to the public be kept in custody?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, did as Justice Secretary, particularly in relation to young offenders. On the specific point about IPP, I take his warning very seriously. This will be a very heated debate, and I shall appreciate the support of all noble Lords in taking this forward in the way the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, suggested. The Government do not want to be risk averse, nor guided by ill-informed public opinion, but we want to take victims into account, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. However, his warnings will be ringing in my ears as this goes forward.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, I turn to the cause of the prison problem. In my time in the law, I have seen sentences steadily increasing, so that today they are more than twice as long as when I started at the Bar, and far longer than sentences in most European countries. The cause has generally been a knee-jerk reaction to perceived demand from the public for greater punishment for particularly unpleasant instances of a crime, so sentences have been increased by the legislature. Does the Minister consider that this trend, which shows no signs of abating, ought to be examined very carefully, so that sentences are not increased without due regard to the consequences this will have?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The observation that sentences have doubled at the hands of legislators over a few decades is at the heart of the way we are progressing with the Sentencing Act and creating a different structure for these things. I do not know what the intention was, but if it was to win public confidence in reducing crime by doubling these sentences, it has palpably failed. Of course, there are several objectives—not competing ones—that we need to take into account: seeing that justice is done, taking the views of the victims into account, and making sure the public understand why the sentences imposed are the ones being imposed. But we must proceed with all those objectives in a considered and holistic way. That is what seems to me to have been missing.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, in what appears to be plucking figures out of the air, we are told that between 200 and 900 new cells are going to be created by the conversion of laundries, office spaces and storage areas. Can the Minister at least assure us that every one of those new cells will be fitted with automatic fire-detection equipment? Secondly, can he tell us where the staff are going to come from to supervise the prisoners in those cells?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We will of course take all the standard precautions, including fire safety, in the provision of these new cells. They are not cheap—that is not a secret —and I think the Lord Chancellor said that the numbers will be in the middle of the range the noble Lord suggests. I agree that we need to make sure that these places are properly staffed. On increases in capacity, as noble Lords know, I am not generally one for blaming the previous Government, but they created 500 new places net in 14 years; we have created 374 in two years.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, who I believe is actually interested in this subject, that this is not a zero-sum game and year zero is not 2024. I pointed out to the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw in July 2007 in the other place that, thanks to the Blair-Brown regime creating 3,000 new criminal offences through 65 new Acts of Parliament that affected the criminal law, the prison population increased. What they forgot about was the need to create prison capacity to put all these new prisoners in. When Lord Hurd of Westwell was Home Secretary in 1990, the prison population was 40,000; it is now just short of 88,000. I am not making a party-political point, I promise, but I do find it a bit boring when Ministers in this Government say it was all the fault of the 2010 to 2024 Government and has nothing whatever to do with what happened before.

Let me give the Minister a gentle suggestion. His noble friend Lord Woodley, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I earlier this year put forward Amendment 96 to the then Sentencing Bill, which would have allowed a panel of judges to reconsider the imprisonment of those prisoners on IPP sentences. Could he have a look at it and see if he can bring it back? It would take a one-clause Bill, which we could get through this House in 20 minutes—and through the other House in God only knows how long. But we could pass that law to improve the condition of the people my noble friend Lord Clarke has mentioned, and to some small extent reduce the overcrowding of our prisons, which cannot function if they are overcrowded. We just churn people round and round and round. It is an expensive waste of human life.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord. I am interested. I hope I sound interested. I have been interested in all this for a very long time. In fact, I am starting to bore even myself, not just the noble and learned Lord. But I take what he said seriously. As I say, in general I am not one for blaming the previous Government. I absolutely recognise that this has been going on for a long time now and we have not managed to expand the prison estate. There have been successive announcements, but I think we are making some progress in that regard. We are not going to get down to the sorts of numbers that the noble and learned Lord is talking about—he knows that—but we have to make those commitments on prison building.

On IPPs, I will absolutely look at the amendment that the noble and learned Lord proposed. Obviously, at this stage, we are working our way through exactly how we do this, and I am sure I will be back before your Lordships at the Dispatch Box before long to set that out.

There is one other thing, which I should have mentioned when the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was speaking. My noble friend Lord Blunkett, who cannot be in his place today, said to me that these sentences had not worked in the way they intended, which is a kind of confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the removal of foreign national offenders and how that was to be a priority. I am sure that the House welcomes that, but I did not hear an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about the changes in the application of the relevant provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights, which would potentially make it much easier to remove foreign national offenders. Can he tell us when we can expect these changes? Also in terms of changes, one of the problems that we heard a great deal about from his predecessor was the backlog of cases, which of course meant that people were in prison for longer than necessary, often awaiting trial. Can he tell the House whether the proposed changes to trial by jury are still part of the Government’s plans or not?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Foreign national offenders have the right to appeal their removal, but this Government are already tightening how the right to family life in the ECHR is applied to our Immigration Rules so that it is no longer abused, as part of our immigration White Paper. The Government’s view is that we do not have to withdraw from the ECHR to deliver meaningful change. On the question of trial by jury, we will be discussing the Courts and Tribunals Bill before long, I am sure.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, we have more of our population in prison than most other countries. Will that situation not continue and get even worse, and promote even more crises, until the Government explain to the public that enormous resources are spent building and staffing prisons and that those resources are not being used in the way most likely to reduce reoffending?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I need to be straightforward with the noble Lord. Prison numbers are not going to come down quickly; in fact, they are going to rise. That is why we are building new prisons. A number of noble Lords have asked about reducing reoffending. The Government have done a great deal about reducing reoffending. Indeed, HMPPS had a great deal of support from the previous Government, financially, to build up our capacity for housing and for drug treatment, and my noble friend Lord Timpson did a great deal on the employment front. But I should say that what will not reduce reoffending, in any circumstances, is overcrowded prisons with overstretched staff operating in an environment that is extremely disruptive. If we want people not to reoffend, the way to achieve it is to have highly motivated staff working in a reasonable way, with the support and the facilities that are available, in the way that my noble friend Lord Timpson sought to achieve.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s early release scheme has clearly created a lot of concern among the wider public, so can the Minister provide any data on how many offenders who have been released under this scheme have since been returned to prison? Can he also commit to providing regular data updates on any prisoners who have to be returned to prison after being released early?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Well, these arrangements are not coming in until the beginning of October.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

There have been prisoners released.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There have been prisoners released at the end of their sentences for a long time. We do publish data on prisoner releases and will continue to do so.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have the privilege of serving on the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Domestic Abuse Act, and I am reassured by the Minister’s focus on victims. Obviously, we are liaising closely with both the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, and I can assure him that there continues to be a very high level of concern among victims, not least because of the failures of communication in making clear to them, and, quite often, their children, what degree of harm they may be in the way of. I will ask one specific question about the response to breaches of either exclusion zones or restriction zones. Those will be only as effective as the monitoring of, and the responses to, any breaches. If an offender wants to breach, they will breach. What processes are in place to ensure that probation receives timely notification of any breach, and that the police can react swiftly? Will responses to breaches actually keep the victims safe in the moment, or will they simply be identified and acted on retrospectively?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work he has done on this; we have discussed it many times. On his specific question, I think I have already indicated that, under the way we will be managing probation data, probation officers will know the whereabouts of offenders on tags in as close as possible to real time. At the moment, that is not the case.

The key thing in relation to domestic abuse victims is, as I have said, that the way in which they feel safe, and are safe, is if the system—the Probation Service—knows where people are and what they are up to, and can keep victims safe from access by those people. The noble Lord knows that what we have rolled out in DAPOL—domestic abuse perpetrators on licence—has been very successful. We have introduced 2,000 of these and will roll them out across the country by the end of the year.

With domestic abuse, it is one thing ensuring that justice is done and getting a trial and so on, but in my experience of talking to domestic abuse victims, the primary thing is that they want to feel safe, and they want their families and their children to feel safe. The way in which we can achieve that is, in large measure, in the short term, partly through the intensive community supervision provisions that we are making.

I am out of time—I find it difficult to shut up on this subject—but may I make one final offer to your Lordships? Because we have had a number of questions about probation, I will arrange for an all-Peers presentation on the changes we are making, in particular the intensive supervision model, including in relation to domestic abuse. I want noble Lords to really feel they have understood those things, and then I will be happy to take any further questions.

Opt-out Collective Court Actions and Connected Litigation Funding

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare the interest of having some professional involvement in collective actions.

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

The Government recognise the critical role litigation funding plays in supporting access to justice and the need for such arrangements to be fair, transparent and commercially viable for funders. To support these aims, the Government have accepted the Civil Justice Council’s two key recommendations. First, we will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. We will implement these changes when parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He is aware, and the House will be aware, that collective actions give consumers the power to pursue legal actions for which they cannot obtain legal aid, however egregious the wrongs that have been committed against them. Why is it that the Government have broken a promise made before the last election, in 2024, that a Bill of about two or three pages would be produced to reverse the unintended effects of the PACCAR case, so that such actions can be brought and the legal funding industry, which is making a great contribution to the British legal world, can proceed with such cases?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We are committed to legislating. I hear the noble Lord’s concern about that, but I want to reassure the House that we are committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows. We are working urgently to identify a new legislative vehicle to take this forward. Legislation will clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, and this will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that without litigation funding, Alan Bates would never have been able to bring his fantastic legal action against the Post Office, and does he recognise that this is an urgent matter?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do recognise that, and I know the history of Sir Alan Bates’ involvement in this. Sir Alan Bates has spoken openly about how, without a litigation funding agreement, he and the sub-postmasters would not have had their day in court. We agree with Sir Alan that third-party funding is crucial for enabling ordinary people to access justice. The access to justice point is the centre of why we think this is important, and I know that is what noble Lords feel too. With group and consumer claims, third-party funding under a litigation funding agreement is often the only option people have to bring a claim. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about access to legal aid as well. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that we understand the importance of it in relation to the sub-postmasters and to Sir Alan Bates.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, said in her Written Statement in December last year that legislation would be an absolute priority, and she quoted Sir Alan Bates earlier in the Statement. It is vital that any regulation ensures that claimants and victims, especially of the Post Office Horizon scandal, are given full information before they make decisions about whether it is worth continuing with the scheme. Can the Minister say whether there will be such help for claimants and victims?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That is why we think light-touch regulation is important here. Transparency is important for consumers in these situations. I see the noble Baroness smile. I know the phrase “light touch” receives a hollow laugh—I used to be a financial services regulator myself. The Government do feel that there is a need to get this on to a proper regulatory footing. I can say a lot more about this; I promise not to be boring. I suspect a lot of the questions I am going to be asked are about urgency and getting on with it. As well as what I have said about finding the appropriate legislative vehicle, I will go back to Minister Sackman to have a discussion about this. As the noble Baroness knows, I have had rather a busy week. It is above my pay grade to give a commitment, but I will press the case. If I get anywhere, I will buy the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a cup of tea, and if he likes the answer, he can buy me a glass of champagne.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords everyone agrees that the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR should be reversed by legislation. Until it is, satellite litigation will proliferate. The last Conservative Government introduced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in 2024, so the necessary legislation is ready and waiting. The Starmer Government were notorious for doing nothing very slowly. I ask the Minister: will the present Government deal with one simple and uncontroversial matter very quickly and thus avoid the bottomless quicksands of parliamentary time?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Bottomless quicksands are best avoided. I know the history of all this and the legislation the previous Government proposed. As I have made clear, we will legislate. The noble and learned Lord knows I cannot give him a date, but I will do my best to move this forward with Minister Sackman.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

May I ask the Minister: does he know what is holding this up?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I do. I can tell the noble and learned Baroness what is holding this up: it is people like me and other Ministers competing for legislative time. I am sorry to say I am going to be arguing with myself, but I promise to take noble Lords’ side on this. I understand the issues about access to justice. I take them very seriously and I will do my best.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister has made it quite clear that he wants to see this on the statute book. Is it being blocked by the Treasury?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, it is not being blocked by the Treasury. Sorry, I must not be too bold and assertive—I appreciate that that is not my role. But no, it is not blocked by the Treasury. The Treasury has no say in this. We are looking for an appropriate legislative vehicle. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, told me last night at dinner that it is more fun if I am rambunctious at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does not everyone have their own favourite piece of legislation that they want introduced, and as quickly as possible? It is for the Government to set the agenda, and once they have promised to do something, they will do it within the timeframe of that Government. As far as the Starmer argument goes, we had very little legislation coming from the Opposition when they were in government, and the legislation we did have did a lot of damage to the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I almost always agree with my noble friend, but on this occasion, I would suggest a tentative correction. Actually, the previous Government did put forward legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned. But we are committed to doing that, and as my noble friend says, there are some competitive pressures. I know something about competition for legislation. I know a lot less about competition law, but I am learning fast.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I hope all noble Lords had a good break over the summer. As your Lordships might perhaps have noticed, we have been beavering away at the Ministry of Justice. If you get a call from No. 10, as I did on the last day before Recess, be careful what you wish for. I thank the many noble Lords who interrupted their summers to meet me; I appreciate their time and commitment enormously.

It is a privilege to open the debate on this Bill. It is a long-overdue piece of legislation, one that will deliver one of the biggest constitutional changes in the relationship between the public and the state for generations. We should not underestimate its importance or the impact it could have.

I start, as I should, by paying tribute to those who have fought to get us here. The Hillsborough families experienced the most awful injustice. The state turned on them exactly when it should have been on their side. They never gave up on the truth and, ultimately, getting the justice they deserved. They insisted that no one should ever have to go through what they went through. It is their courage and determination that have brought us to your Lordships’ House today with this legislation in front of us.

I also pay tribute to Members of your Lordships’ House for their determined and courageous work over many years—indeed, decades. Many Peers here today have stood by the families and supported them. Please forgive me: I do not have time to mention everyone as time is short.

I am also mindful that it is not just the Hillsborough families whose work has brought us to this point. There has been a coalition of families and campaign groups who have fought for the truth, and I thank all of them on behalf of the Government for the Bill being debated today. I am pleased to note that some of them are in the Public Gallery today and many others will be watching our proceedings, and I am sure that all speakers in this debate will keep that in mind. I warmly welcome them to your Lordships’ House today.

We have seen time and again why the Bill is so vital. The Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, Grenfell and, most recently, the shocking Nottingham maternity scandal all involved a lack of candour and efforts to conceal the truth. In some cases, attempts were even made to create false narratives against the victims. As well as these well-known examples, we must also bear in mind the many individual cases where the state has not just failed in its duty but actively worked against the people it has wronged. That is disgraceful.

The public should be able to expect that our public institutions will do everything reasonably possible to prevent serious failures happening. They should also be able to expect that, when something does go wrong, those institutions will tell the truth and—this is a key point to which we will return in the debate—tell the truth quickly. That requires more than candour when someone is called to an inquiry, inquest or investigation. Public servants must know that, when something has gone wrong, there is an obligation to come forward and say so. They should be able to do so without fear of professional consequences, and it should be clear what is required of them. If they believe there is wrongdoing or behaviour that falls below what is expected, there should be routes for them to report that. The aim of the Bill—I stress this point—is to change the culture of public bodies once and for all. No family should have to fight for the truth about what happened to their loved ones, no family should face a profound disparity in legal representation and no public official should be in fear that they will be asked to lie, conceal the truth or stay silent. That is our intention for the Bill.

I will set out the measures in the Bill, starting with the two duties of candour that it creates. The first is a statutory duty of candour and assistance, requiring all public servants and officials to come forward proactively, as I have said, and act with candour, transparency and frankness in all inquiries and investigations seeking to establish the truth. Failure to comply, with the intention of impeding the investigation, or being reckless in doing so, will be a criminal offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment.

The duty will apply to statutory and non-statutory inquiries, coroners’ investigations and inquiries called by local authorities, with a power for Ministers to extend it to other types of investigation through secondary legislation. While principally focused on the public sector, it will also apply to private sector bodies such as those delivering public functions, those with health and safety responsibilities and relevant public sector contractors. These measures will apply across the United Kingdom and I thank the devolved Governments for their close work with officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office.

I know there has been particular interest in how the duty will apply to the intelligence services. The Government have always been clear that the intelligence services are within scope, but we have listened to concerns about the application of the duty to individuals and the handling of sensitive information. Amendments made in the other place ensure that the duty applies fully to all current and former intelligence services personnel, while using established procedures to protect national security information.

What this means in practice is that, where an individual employee of a national security body receives a request under the duty for protected information, they must pass that information to the head of the relevant authority, rather than directly to the inquiry or investigation. The head of the authority is then responsible for providing that information, subject to existing legal and practical safeguards on disclosure. Where necessary, restrictions on disclosure can be sought through existing legal routes including, in exceptional cases, converting proceedings into a secure statutory inquiry.

The amendments also make it clear that responsibility for notifying an inquiry, inquest or investigation about sensitive material rests with the national security body to which that information belongs. Where another public authority holds a copy, it must inform the relevant national security body, allowing that body to assess the material in its wider context and ensure that the appropriate safeguards are applied. This means that the duty applies in full to the intelligence services, while providing confidence to the public and our international partners that sensitive national security information will continue to be protected. I particularly thank the chair and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their constructive work with the Government in reaching this clear and balanced position.

This Bill also establishes a legal duty for public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct, including having a code containing a professional duty of candour for all public servants. These codes will be rooted in the seven Nolan principles and must set out clear expectations for conduct, consequences for breaching them and routes for reporting misconduct, making protected disclosures and raising complaints. Public authorities will, in turn, have a duty to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct among their employees. This is a cornerstone of the Government’s approach. While codifying good practice is important, the purpose here is to go further: it is prevention. We want to create a culture in which wrongdoing is identified and confronted early, before institutional defensiveness takes hold and failures are compounded by attempts to conceal them.

Hillsborough demonstrated the terrible consequences when public servants deliberately mislead the public and the media in order to spread a false narrative. The families were denied the truth and that injustice persisted for decades. This law should provide a powerful deterrent against such conduct ever happening again. This Bill therefore creates a new offence of misleading the public. It will apply where a public authority or official intends to mislead the public, or is reckless as to that possibility, and knows or ought to know that their conduct is seriously improper. That is a deliberately high threshold. The conduct must involve significant or repeated dishonesty on matters of significant concern to the public. The act must cause or risk causing harm—whether economic, physical or psychological—and must represent a significant departure from what would have been expected of that person in carrying out their functions.

These safeguards ensure that minor or inconsequential matters are not criminalised. Likewise, legitimate activity such as undercover policing will not be affected. The offence is targeted at serious misconduct of the kind we witnessed at Hillsborough. Those convicted will face up to two years in prison and an unlimited fine.

The Bill also replaces the common-law offence of misconduct in public office with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts and breach of the duty to prevent death or serious injury. This will bring greater clarity to the law, defining who is covered, the conduct that is captured and the consequences of abusing public office. It will ensure that officials who abuse their position or fall short of the behaviour expected of those in public office will continue to face serious consequences, including up to 10 years in prison for the offence of seriously improper acts and up to 14 years for breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury.

Let me turn to the Bill’s measures in respect of legal aid. Too many bereaved families go to inquests seeking answers about the death of a loved one, only to find themselves facing the full weight of the state. Public bodies arrive with experienced lawyers, while families without access to publicly funded support are left to represent themselves, meet the costs personally or turn to crowdfunding. This is a massive and indefensible asymmetry.

This Bill will address that profound imbalance. It will ensure greater parity by providing bereaved families with access to help and advocacy, regardless of their financial circumstances, while removing burdensome bureaucracy at one of the most difficult moments of their lives. The cost will, rightly, fall to the relevant public authorities, or their responsible government departments, where they are interested persons at an inquest. The Bill will place a duty on them to consider whether their own legal representation is necessary and proportionate, taking account of the support available to families and their obligations to support the investigation and establish the facts of what happened; but effective participation is about more than representation.

The experience of families in this situation has informed our approach, and the Bill will require guidance setting clear principles for how public authorities should participate in inquests. It will also empower coroners and inquiry chairs to raise concerns about the conduct of public authorities or their legal representatives at an inquiry or inquest. The principle is simple: an inquest or inquiry is not a contest to be won. Those representing the state should approach it not as adversaries but with sensitivity and respect, and with the proper purpose of helping to establish the truth, learn lessons and provide bereaved families with the answers they deserve.

The measures I have set out today are substantial but the principles behind them are simple: first, that we should create a culture in our public institutions that prevents failures happening in the first place; and, secondly, that where something does go wrong, the truth must come out—fully, candidly and without delay, because delay has a cost. Every year spent fighting for answers is another year in which families live with uncertainty, their grief prolonged by unanswered questions. Difficult truths are always painful, but concealing them, or allowing them to emerge only after years of struggle, prolongs and significantly compounds that pain.

This House brings formidable experience to the issues addressed by the Bill, and I know noble Lords will want to scrutinise it closely. I can say on behalf of the Government that we will approach that scrutiny constructively. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House today and to working closely with noble Lords as the Bill proceeds to the later stages.

We cannot undo the injustices that brought us here, or the pain and anguish endured by those who, through no fault of their own, were forced to fight for the truth, but we can learn from all this. We can seek to prevent the failures of the past happening again. We can ensure that when public institutions do fail, the instinct of the state is not to close ranks or to wait to be challenged but to come forward, tell the truth, account for what went wrong and put it right. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate today. I think all noble Lords will agree with me that it has been an immensely powerful debate, with a deep sense of reflection and consideration, and I greatly welcome the sense of consensus and collaboration that has prevailed throughout the discussion today. That demonstrates—as does the whole genesis of the Bill—a phrase that my noble friend Lord Blunkett used: there is strength in adversity, and it is that strength and the spirit of that which we seek to draw on in taking the Bill forward. I particularly thank the noble Lords who drew on their personal experiences—I was very moved by that.

I have to say that it is a humbling privilege for me to be responsible for progressing the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I am very proud to be doing that and to be following my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has done such a distinguished job to get us to where we are today.

I will seek to address as many of the issues as I can, but I know I will fail. I have not a hope in hell of addressing all the issues that were raised in 45 speeches, and I am not terribly good at namechecking everyone who spoke, but I will try my best. On the detailed comments about scopes made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for letting me off the hook of having to reply to them all this evening, but I will respond to them in detail, both in writing and in Committee. I have already written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on some of these matters, and we will continue to engage in that way.

I promise to write in detail to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate because I know, as I say, that I will get as far as I can but I will not be able to deal with everything. I look forward to continuing to meet with all noble Lords who are interested. Some noble Lords have specifically mentioned that they would like to meet me. I would be delighted to do that, and I will meet with others too. Between now and the debates in Committee, I will also meet with campaigners and family members, including, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Devine family—I would be delighted to do that. We shall continue these discussions in Committee.

I will now turn to some specific items that have been raised. My rough rule of thumb is to try to deal with the issues raised by the largest number of Peers, if I can, but I will see how I do. Every one of your Lordships who has spoken in this debate made the point that this is about culture change. If we do not achieve that, we have seriously failed in our duty. I do not have time to namecheck all noble Lords, but I will just mention the noble Lord, Lord Wills, whom I have had the pleasure of speaking to several times, and the work he has done over a long time on all this, and the work that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has done through the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I was very struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, to which I will return in a moment.

I will first set out the Government’s position on the ways in which we can ensure this is effective at the cultural level as a prevention mechanism. I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Cavendish, that there are strong interdependencies here, and the Bill comes as a package rather than as a series. The Government will publish statutory guidance to support public authorities to establish the codes that the Bill requires, to ensure they meet the requirements of the Bill. We have had a number of important and interesting observations about how we can do that effectively, and I am very happy to continue those discussions. I am very interested to continue discussing how we can, through the Bill, begin to drive ethical behaviour throughout the organisation. A number of noble Lords have made the point about the junior ranks, and I take that very seriously.

I was very struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, made the same point. We all know that that is the centre of what we are discussing here. The Government, under the former Prime Minister, commissioned the new Ethics and Integrity Commission to work towards becoming a centre for excellence for codes of conduct. That is an independent body and the Cabinet Office duty of candour team is working closely with the officials of the Ethics and Integrity Commission on how we take this forward. As part of that, the Ethics and Integrity Commission will research and develop guidance on codes of ethics that will be published on its website, so all public authorities will have access. But I am not seeking to argue that through those traditional means we can bring about the culture change that we seek.

The observations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, on the social and psychological aspects of the changes we are seeking seemed to me very pertinent. This is not just a legal exercise. I was very struck by the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish: we cannot delegate our conscience to regulators. I know that to be true, having worked in private sector and public sector regulation myself, including in the financial services. Regulators can help, but it is our job as legislators and as the Government to set the tone. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that I always welcome a cricketing metaphor: to follow through on that, I know that is the way to the boundary.

A number of noble Lords made the point about resources and the displacement effect of resources. I want to come back to that in Committee. But my main point is to say that the Government take this very seriously. We have no investment in these codes of ethical guidance being ineffectual or failing, or undermining the whole purpose of the Bill. We want to get this right and we will work closely with your Lordships to do so. We are all on the same side. I was going to say we all share the same scepticism. Scepticism is the wrong word, but we share many of the same concerns that this may not achieve either what we want or as much as we want. We will certainly come back to that.

I turn now to the national security services. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her observations and I want to reassure her, and the security services generally, that the Government take very seriously the points that she raises about the sensitivity and the vulnerability of this and how significant it is for national security. But I am pleased that she said she thought the arrangements we have set out are adequate. I also want to thank my noble friend Lord Beamish, who I know, with the Intelligence and Security Committee, has done a lot of work on this to get us to where we are. The Government believe we are in a stable place from which to go forward in a way that both protects national security, including protected information about national security, and ensures that the security and other services are within the scope of the Bill.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his comments and drawing on his enormous experience, and also my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, who has played an important role and spoke with great force about the need to protect national security. I note the observation from the noble Baroness, Lady May, on the possibility that these arrangements may be cumbersome. I take that very seriously, particularly as it comes from, if I may say, someone with her experience and distinction. But the Government think that, as far as the national security services are concerned, we have reached a stable and balanced place.

I will say a word or two about the NHS and the duty of candour, because that has been referred to by a number of people. The intention of the NHS duty of candour is to ensure that providers are open and transparent with people who use their services. This duty of candour is different, as noble Lords know, so we hope it will work in a different way.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Blunkett that the duty of candour will apply to all officials, former and current, even if they have new jobs. I was very interested in the comments made by a number of noble Lords about the no-blame culture, which raise some philosophical questions about our whole approach to this and the efforts of Jeremy Hunt in the NHS.

I absolutely assure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that the Bill covers the Post Office. A number of noble Lords have spoken about aspects of the Horizon scandal, and I will certainly write specifically about all the questions that surround Horizon.

A number of Lords also raised the Independent Public Advocate. I am very clear that the Government support—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was very politely questioning this—and welcome the role of the IPA as an extremely important early intervention for victim support. I discussed it with my Commons colleague, Minister Davies-Jones, this morning, and I am meeting Cindy Butts tomorrow. We are very committed to this and we absolutely recognise—as I think I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson—that a role for the IPA in these situations will be enormously helpful in achieving what I regard as one of the most important goals: to help the families to get to the truth quickly. We are not resistant to all that. I look forward to discussing how that will work in practice with many noble Lords.

A number of issues were raised about legal aid. I do not have the time to go through them all. I will just say that the principle we are working with is to try to correct the asymmetry that exists at inquests between public bodies and families and survivors. That is what we will seek to achieve, not just through the provisions for legal aid, which I am happy to discuss in more detail—I am very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to talk about it further—but through the constraints on public bodies to use legal representation in a proportionate and responsible way that does not place onerous duties on families, the bereaved and survivors.

I turn quickly, in the two or three minutes left to me, to two or three more important issues. On whistleblowing, the prediction that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made of how I would respond was correct: we are about to launch a consultation very soon—not “in due course” but very soon. I want to defend where we stand on this. We are talking here about whistleblowing in the public sector, but all noble Lords know that there are many concerns about whistleblowing in the private sector. They may not be quite the same, but the Government are concerned about protecting whistleblowers across the board. That is what we hope to achieve through the work of my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade and a number of other things. I am afraid that we want to wait for that, but I am very happy to continue to discuss it.

The principle of the role of whistleblowers is already mentioned in the way the Bill is crafted and how the code of ethics is set out—I will not set it out now, in the interest of time. We believe that we have addressed the question of whistleblowing in the way we have drafted the Bill, but we will take it forward for both the public and private sectors. That is our intention and what I hope we will do.

The Hicks campaign was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. My noble friend Lady Levitt met with my noble friend Lady Kennedy; I would be delighted also to meet with my noble friend Lady Kennedy. The Hicks campaign goes to what I think is one of the hearts of the matter: if families cannot get to the truth quickly, accountability and consequences will not follow. The truth is the foundation stone on which accountability and consequences follow.

I have run out of time. I will just say one or two other things. In relation to Northern Ireland, I want to reassure my noble friend Lady Ritchie that the duty will automatically apply in the limited number of inquests that will resume as a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I can reassure her that we are working closely in discussion on how this duty of candour work will be taken up through the legacy commission.

I really am out of time now, but I promise to write on a number of other issues, including misleading Ministers and the destruction of documents and police records. On the extension of this duty to subcontractors, the Government are very open to thinking about that further. We will talk about self-incrimination and the interaction with FOI, which we feel we are in a good place on but are very happy to discuss. We will come back to some of the issues that my noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, raised around the harm threshold. I will also write about historic injustices, command responsibilities and the obligations on parliamentarians.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is in an unusual place. I looked up and saw that her seat was empty.

I will write about how we arrive at our views on public bodies in scope, including universities and financial services. I am sorry that it has been a bit rushed, but I hope that I have dealt with some of the issues, and I promise to deal with the others in writing. I look forward to engaging with all noble Lords at Committee stage. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 11, Schedule 2, Clause 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 16, Schedule 4, Clauses 17 to 19, Schedule 5, Clause 20, Schedule 6, Clauses 21 to 28, Title.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to put myself in the doghouse, so I will only be a few minutes. This form of amendment was the only way I could raise the issue that I want to raise, which is, of course, to call on the Government to give us a list of the issues the Commons did not have time to consider. I want to talk about why it did not have time to consider them.

I listened to every speech today, and it is absolutely clear to me that there will be lots of amendments from this House going to the Commons. The purpose of raising the issue in this way is to strengthen the role of the elected Members of the Commons at the expense of the Government. I will make two or three general points, and then I will relate these points to the Bill.

In the Commons on Second Reading, every Bill is guillotined. It calls it a programme Motion. It covers up, and all the Bills are dealt with that way. We started that in 1997, and I freely admit that, on reflection, it was one of the mistakes we made. Governments always want to boast about the number of Bills they pass, which is done at the expense of scrutiny, because they make the programme Motion so tight. It is so tight that areas of Bills are left unscrutinised. So, the Bills arrive in our House with inadequate scrutiny. We end up sending more amendments back to the Commons than would otherwise be the case. Then, when they get to the Commons, the Government in the Commons—not here, of course—blame the Lords for MPs having to do more work on what we have sent back, leading them to call for reform of this House. When we return amendments to the elected Members, they are limited by the programme Motion on the time they can spend on what we send back. By the way, the programme Motion has been changed for the Bill; it is now back to January.

Elected Members need more time for scrutiny. The Government have to return to Parliament some of the power they have taken away with programme Motions designed to fit in more Bills, rather than better Bills. All I am asking for is a list from the Government of what they have not allowed to be scrutinised, and to put back the buck where it belongs: with the Government. I am not complaining about the Commons here.

I first raised this issue about a decade ago, but I accepted, on the information I got, that it was too complicated. On 16 July, I attended the Lord Speaker’s lecture in the River Room and I raised again the fact that we should have a note of what has not been discussed when a Bill arrives in this House that was in the previous House. There was support on that evening, so I decided I had better do something about this. This Bill is the first opportunity, but it can be done on every Bill, as I have informed my noble friend.

On 5 August, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who regrets he cannot be here today, made exactly the same point in a letter to the Times, based on his former experience as the clerk to the Commons. On 14 July, right towards the end of the Session, when the Commons got to Report, which it had been waiting for from November last year, it was allowed a four-hour debate. There were three Divisions during that debate on issues that the time allowed. Then at 6.10 pm, Hansard records:

“Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 3 November 2025).


The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; col. 872.]


What was that business after four hours? That programme Motion, forthwith, meant that 10 new clauses, six schedules and over 70 amendments went into this Bill on the nod. We are not talking about how the Commons did not have time to do the odd clause; 10 new clauses, six schedules and over 70 amendments were approved on the nod because of the guillotine Motion. Now it is over to us.

All I am saying is we should have a list. The buck stops with the Government; it is the Government, not the Members. It is quite simple to have, so that we know what has not been debated, because the incentive, therefore, down the other end is to demand more time on the Bills so that there is less work to come back to after we have done our job. I beg to move.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, you are not quite done with me yet. This is quite an unusual Motion and, as I understand it, it is about not only this Bill but the general scrutiny of legislation in the House of Commons. The entirety of the Bill was considered in a Commons Public Bill Committee in the usual way and again by the whole House on Report. In the Commons, the selection of proposed amendments for debate and for decision is not a matter for the Government, but all selected amendments were debated in that House in that House’s usual way.

Both Houses work differently and they have their own procedures and practices. It is not for this House nor the Government to criticise those proceedings in the other place, as I am sure noble Lords would not want them to comment on the way we conduct our business. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My noble friend was not listening to what I said. The Government do the programme Motion, not the Members. It is the Government who propose the guillotine. It is the government Motion that puts the dates down and the times allowed—the Government, not the Members. The Members agree it because it is on a three-line Whip, and the Government decide whether to make a long Motion with more time or a short one with less time. It is the Government who do it—and every Bill is covered, by the way. Look at Commons Hansard.

I am not criticising the Commons; we are not allowed to do that. The point is that the Members need to be strengthened against the Government. Do not forget that the Government are in charge of both Houses. The programme Motion still applies; when we have made our amendments to this Bill they will go back to the Commons to be delivered under the programme Motion. The Commons will have maybe an hour or 90 minutes to look at what we said, and there will be complaints such as, “Oh, it’s the Lords again. We need to reform them”. The Government Whips will be saying that to Labour Members who will be complaining about the work we are sending them.

It is about time we got a bit of candour, openness and transparency on this issue. It is true that I tabled this amendment before the end of July, and the Government saw the amendment and withdrew the Motion. That is why it has only just appeared. I was asked whether I would do it on another Bill; I said that I proposed to do it on every Bill, simply because it has got to that point, with the pressure on us and the deliberations in the other place about this place, because we are following the rules to do scrutiny, and do not have guillotines or programme Motions, and have to look at what we need to concentrate on. What we need to concentrate on is what the Commons have not been allowed to, because the Government have taken the time away for them to do the job properly.

At this time, I am tempted to divide the House, but I will not. I would ask the Minister to go and look at Commons Hansard and get better briefed. The Government have had at least five weeks’ warning of the amendment, because they saw it on the Order Paper, and the commitment Motion was withdrawn in late July. I have not done anything about it. The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, was complete news to me. He regrets that he cannot be here this evening; otherwise, he would be speaking in support. I am coming back on this, but I beg leave to withdraw.

Youth Justice

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I am sorry, the debate has timed out.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I urge the Minister—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The time is up, I am afraid.

King’s Speech

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I will restrict my remarks to the Government’s proposals for policing. At the start of the last Session, many of us hoped for a serious reforming agenda after too many years in which our public services stagnated and, in too many respects, went backwards. Nowhere is this truer than in policing. We therefore await details of the police reform Bill with great interest.

These Benches agree with much of the direction set out in the recent White Paper, particularly the ambition to strengthen neighbourhood policing and address the workforce, skills and training issues that are central to a successful, modern police service. This Bill provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for long-overdue structural change, but will this ambition be matched by the necessary political will? I sincerely hope so.

We are on our sixth Home Secretary in six years. Reshaping policing requires sustained commitment, not a revolving door of leadership. Do the Government have the focus to carry through bold reform when the Home Office is consumed by so many other priorities?

The real test of the Bill is whether it will improve investigations, deter lawbreaking, and give witnesses and victims a better response when they turn to the police for help. It must also remain faithful to the core principles that have underpinned British policing for generations: policing by consent, local accountability, impartiality, and restraint. That is the standard against which it will be measured.

Much attention is focused on plans to merge forces and create a national police service, but structural reorganisation will mean little if we ignore the reality that front-line policing demand routinely exceeds capacity, and policing is permanently struggling to cope. For too long, politicians have colluded in the fiction that all demand can be met, when everyone on the front line knows that it cannot. The burden is pushed downwards, to be absorbed by officers and staff who must find their own ways to ration resources, while Ministers avoid confronting those trade-offs openly.

This has to stop. We need an honest, public conversation about what we are asking the police to do and what we are prepared to fund. Innumerable chief constables have told me that their key ask is greater clarity about the role and mission of the police. New responsibilities must come with the funding to match, and when difficult choices are made, they must be owned collectively, not pushed down, as now, on to local forces.

The Government want a more active Home Office setting national priorities. But the question remains: who will decide what is to be deprioritised? What politician will admit that without significant extra investment, some tasks can no longer be done to the same standard? If everything is prioritised, nothing will be. Can the Minister tell us how much of the investment for these new national structures is expected to come from savings within policing itself?

The Liberal Democrats’ priority is to protect local policing. We want every community to have guaranteed access to a police counter, not in buildings resembling Fort Knox that alienate the public. We want hubs in familiar places, such as supermarkets and post offices, so that people can report a crime, get advice, or pass on their concerns as they go about their daily lives. In too many areas, policing is verging on irrelevance, called upon only in the direst of emergencies. We must restore the Peelite principle of the police as part of the community, not a distant ancillary service.

We welcome the end of the failed police and crime commissioner experiment, but its replacement must be better, not just different. Shifting powers from one underscrutinised politician to another is no answer. Policing must be accountable to the communities it serves, and day-to-day operations must be protected from political interference. We must not drift towards a model where the police answer more to Whitehall than to local residents, even as we sensibly reduce duplication and improve the sharing of data and intelligence.

In relation to police use of AI, the belated promise of a world­leading regulatory framework is very welcome, but in one of the most heavily surveilled democracies, it is surely the minimum the public should expect. Regulation is still lagging far behind the technology, even as the Home Secretary urges forces to adopt AI at pace and scale. Public anxiety about a drift towards a surveillance society is real, and international experience shows how easily such tools can be misused. Troubling early signs of misuse here at home only reinforce that risk. We will therefore press hard to ensure that any new legislation is genuinely robust and enforceable.

Finally, I share the concern about the increasing amount of ping-pong—but when the only way to have sensible ideas properly considered is to press them repeatedly, those of us who want to contribute constructively are left with little choice. In the debates on the last policing Bill, we repeatedly argued for proper safeguards on facial recognition, only to be told, time and again, that it was premature. Weeks later, the Home Office proposed those very safeguards. I am delighted the case was finally accepted, but I hope it does not become the pattern. The public want us to work across party lines to improve public services, especially in the fight against crime. They do not want point-scoring; they want visible improvements in policing and public safety. If the Government are serious about reform, they must show it not only in what they say and how they legislate but, crucially, in how they listen.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, before the full debate begins—I know your Lordships are looking forward to a full and fascinating debate—I note that we have 77 speakers today, and therefore the advisory speaking time has been set at four minutes. I therefore encourage your Lordships to stick to that, to give the later speakers a fair crack of the whip and so that we can achieve a reasonable rising time. I know that being a Whip is not a path to popularity, but I hope your Lordships will forgive the Whips if we feel the need to intervene if people exceed the advisory time beyond what the House thinks is reasonable.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

We are now on Report on this Bill. It is relatively short but there are some important topics for discussion, so I thought it might be helpful to draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 8.151 of the Companion which says:

“Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report”.


Clause 3: Restricting parental responsibility of certain sex offenders

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to disclose that I am being supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has been kind enough to sign my amendment.

I think it would be helpful if I began by telling your Lordships the major features of modern slavery. It affects principally those in the agricultural industry, domestic employment and the provision of sexual services. It impacts mainly on immigrant labour. Immigrants are brought to this country by their exploiter; in the case of sexual offences, it will be by their pimp. When here, they continue to be controlled by their exploiter, having to give, for example, a portion of their earnings to the exploiter.

I think it would also be helpful if I explained the role of the victim navigator. Their role is to protect the victim, particularly in the prosecution process. They are often former police officers who understand the processes to which the victim is subject. In gaining the confidence of the victim, they gain most valuable information that can lead to the prosecution of the exploiter. In the provision of sexual services, this will be the prosecution of the pimp.

We must understand the scale of the problem relating to sexual services and the current increase in sexual exploitation. The figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated that in the years 2020 to 2025 there was an 86% increase in the sexual exploitation of women, from 1,114 victims to 2,076. It has also been estimated that there has been a 61% increase in the exploitation of girls, and I understand that to be women who are under the age of 18.

Sex provides, and this is very alarming, a very big market on the internet. For those accessing ASWs, as they are called, there can currently be found 63,000 listings for women. These sites attract—this is another awful figure—no fewer than 41.7 million visitors.

I do not see her present, but my noble friend Lady Goudie spoke to this amendment in Committee. I was not able to be in Committee. It is important to remind your Lordships of the major points that my noble friend made.

She referred to the report of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. I do not see her, either, in the Chamber. My noble friend Lady Goudie cited paragraph 46 on page 77, which was the conclusion of our committee report, which reads:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


She also drew attention to the economic benefit provided by the use of victim navigators. It was estimated that the financial gain for each victim who benefited from this process came to £150,000. She cited the chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, who stated in reference to the victims:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


The other compliment came from a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, who commented as follows:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.


I am citing my noble friend Lady Goudie because it is very important that we understand this.

The government response to our committee report, from the Home Office, reads as follows:

“The Government recognises the importance of supporting victims to engage with the criminal justice system and the positive impact an independent support worker, working alongside law enforcement, can have on securing this engagement”.


It goes on to refer to research on victim navigators:

“The Government is keen to build on this research, working in partnership with NGOs and law enforcement, to identify how to best support victims to engage with the criminal justice system”.


So the Home Office certainly responded positively to our report.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Ms Eleanor Lyons, supports this amendment. My noble friend the Minister kindly met her last week, on Thursday, so she has heard directly the views of no less a person than the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on this amendment.

I refer to the first annual report of the commissioner, which came out only a few days ago, because its foreword states that

“modern slavery is still with us. It lurks in the shadows, hidden in industries, supply chains, and even in our neighbourhoods. The victims, in rural communities as well as big cities, continue to suffer in silence”.

In short, this continues to be a major matter of concern. The report, from a very small office, is remarkable. Its 58 pages identify the commissioner’s strategic plan of prevention, protection and prosecution. To summarise the importance of victim navigators, I refer to the most recent survey—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I invite my noble friend to move his amendment as he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I think I am allowed 15 minutes.

The commissioner summarised her strategy in this excellent report. It is the protection of victims, and 724 have been supported. As a result of the activities of the victim navigators, 1,420 police investigations have taken place, and 74 convictions have resulted in a total period of imprisonment of all those convicted of 522 years.

I recognise that modern slavery is under the remit of the Home Office, not the Department of Justice. This inevitably restricts the Minister and what help she can provide. If she cannot accept this amendment, could she kindly convey to her colleagues in the Home Office the strong views that I have expressed and that I hope others will express in this short debate? The Home Office did very well in introducing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which put us at the forefront internationally of anti-slavery legislation, but it did slip up rather badly. This was identified in the Independent in, I think, January 2024, which had a headline:

“Commissioner: Modern slavery no longer Home Office priority”.


There was also a very serious failure by the Home Office in leaving the post of the anti-slavery commissioner vacant for, in the words of Ms Lyons, “a staggering 20 months”. This was taken up as a point of criticism in our Select Committee report. So can the Minister, if nothing else, get the Home Office to start paying attention again to modern slavery and its problems? I beg to move.

Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Redwood. I welcome him to your Lordships’ House and congratulate him on his excellent and, may I say, pithy maiden speech. My noble friend brings a wealth of in-depth and current political and business experience, coupled with a record of long and lasting commitment to his constituents and his country. He is renowned for his razor-sharp mind and ability to cut to the quick, together with standing up for his beliefs and being resolutely unafraid to speak to truth. His arrival with us is timely, particularly given his economic and business expertise and, as we have already heard, his in-depth knowledge of how we might achieve effective productivity. Because of our need to focus on economic growth, we look forward to his many contributions. I also look forward to listening to all the other maiden speeches today.

As a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I support all that we stated in our report. Therefore, to avoid repeating the speech by our excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I decided to check our report against a speech I once made in your Lordships’ House on education and health in prisons as shadow Education Minister—and previously a shadow Home Office Minister and a barrister—to see if there had been any progress over 20 years. I will read some extracts from that speech:

“The primary roles of prisons in the criminal justice system are punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and the protection of the public, but this must incorporate the development of learning and skills. … We must not underestimate the potential role that good prison education can provide to prevent reoffending. … I recently visited Brixton Prison and saw first-hand the excellent work being carried out by the governor and the head of learning and skills. There is real commitment among the staff I spoke to. They want to get results and see the system actually enhance progress, not hinder it”.


In addition, I stated:

“There is a high turnover of staff across the prison system. Governors are moved from prison to prison. This is massively disruptive. … Will the Government seriously consider developing a solid career structure allowing progression within the Prison Service and imposing a fixed minimum term for a prison governor to remain in each post? Heads of learning and skills must be integrated into the system. … They must be given the opportunity to plan for the long term, and not to meet the latest Whitehall target. … We must focus on outcomes rather than outputs if we are to see less reoffending. … The layers of bureaucracy that exist are seriously hindering innovative development in offender education”.


I will read a couple more relevant extracts:

“Even providing an individual with qualifications alone is not enough in the fight to reduce reoffending. This must be coupled with structured learning so that prisoners can develop their ability to communicate and interact. … Like governors, prisoners are moved from prison to prison. … There is a severe knock-on effect from this disruptive approach for the prisoners and the community. … Support and provision must be provided in the community. Forging links with local employers is difficult, but essential. … Offenders need to be equipped with skill trades … in which they can make an honest living with a salary which stands a chance of rivalling an income from drug crime”.


Finally,

“prison education … must start at the beginning. It must deal with the emotional and social problems facing offenders and then move on to qualifications and employable skills”.—[Official Report, 8/12/05; cols. 835-38.]

I made that speech in December 2005, eight years into a Labour Government. The most damning fact was exposed in a reply to a Written Question I had asked Her Majesty’s Government that same week on how many civil servants from the Home Office, broken down by grade, had visited prisons in the last eight years. The answer was none. Since then, the challenges have grown; there is violence and religious extremism in our prisons, with young men—I know some—told to convert to Islam for an easier life behind bars. And how can prison staff be recruited online? This is insanity writ large. In addition, I now have Written Answers confirming that some foreign criminals, who are to be deported at the end of their prison term, are being released from HMP Huntercombe in Oxfordshire because the Home Office paperwork does not keep up with the prisoner release system.

One of the most revealing evidence sessions during our inquiry was with two former Members of the other place: former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and former Justice Secretary Michael Gove, now my noble friend Lord Gove. I was struck—indeed, I think the whole committee was struck—by the degree to which they were in tune with their collective paths and desire to achieve lasting and demonstrably better outcomes for prisoners and prisons to reduce reoffending. As usual, both efforts were cut short by our frankly broken political system shuffling the cards.

Rereading the speech that I made all those years ago, or extracts from it, has been for me quite depressing. I often think of the noble and late Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He would be making the same speech today, I fear, that he made time and again years and years ago. However, I look to the Minister, who I know will understand more than most that the key solutions are, in principle, quite simple—as he set out to teach shoe-repairing following a visit to HMP Thorn Cross in Warrington in 2002. The Minister must be, as I am, an optimist, as he is determined to find and implement solutions to give a real and practical lifeline to prisoners to reduce reoffending.

We recognise this in our committee, and as some of us have been Ministers, we are very aware of how incredibly difficult it is to get things done within our current Civil Service system. It is uphill in treacle, and the pressures are relentless and immense. What we need now is a Government who have the courage to change that system, root out obfuscation—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

May I ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close?

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

They need to root out obfuscation and denial, fear of making decisions and preferment to work from home, and understand just how vital it is to make the Home Office and Ministry of Justice fit for purpose, so that better prisons really will lead to less crime.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing this debate so admirably and highly commend his chairmanship of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I was a member until the end of January. The noble Lord steered the Select Committee with deep commitment and skill, and it was a pleasure to work with him and other members of the Select Committee. I also want to thank the clerk of the committee, his team and the special advisers for this support. I congratulate those who have made the two maiden speeches, and I look forward to three more.

As we heard, our prisons are in a state of crisis, and there is urgent need for a strategic and focused reform of the system if we want to reduce re-offending and protect the public. The Government are attempting to address some of the most urgent problems. Some steps have been taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons, bolster the Probation Service and reform the sentencing regime, all of which I welcome. As I have said before, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and reducing re-offending was an inspired choice, and it is reassuring to have a Minister who understands what is required—within, if I may say so, the constraints of the current system. I know that he is working tirelessly to make a difference.

Reducing the prison population is essential to ensure a well-functioning and effective service. Systemic change and culture shifts require time, but urgent and meaningful action should be taken now if we are to avert the crisis facing our prisons. These actions are not just about resources and capacity. Our report focused on practical changes that can be adopted now to make a difference, and highlighted the inadequacy of some of the changes, given the scale of the problem.

Regrettably, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the Government’s response to our report does not appear to grasp the essence of our recommendations. The response, if I may say so, is rather too official, as the noble Lord spelt out. The assurances given in the response sound hollow, given that education provision in prisons will be cut by 50%, and the impact of these cuts has been graphically described by the Prisoners’ Education Trust. Our report focused on leadership, governance, management and staffing of prisons. However, leadership qualities, style of leadership, governance arrangements, management, levels and types of staffing, and training and recruitment would become self-evident if there was clarity about the purpose of prison, and if that purpose was backed by policies and practices and effective communication aligned to that purpose.

The purpose of prisons is not clear. There is confusion within government and the HMPPS about the purpose of prisons, because policy and practice are fundamentally misaligned. Prison sentences, incarceration and loss of liberty are the punishment, and the purpose of prisons is to prepare those in custody for life after prison in order to reduce reoffending and help them integrate back into the community, and, ultimately, to protect the public. The first priority, therefore, in my view, is to have absolute clarity on and understanding of the purpose of prisons. If that is properly understood, it would clarify what qualities, skills and experience are needed for those running prisons, be they prison governors or prison officers. What level of autonomy should be given to prisons, and what should be the balance of responsibility between the centre and local prisons?

What relationship should there be between prison and probation services, and the third sector and employers? The relationship between the prison and probation services needs to be clarified and understood. Very poorly thought-through reforms over several years have demoralised the Probation Service and confused its identity. There is, in my view, a shared purpose between the prison and probation services, which is to reduce reoffending and prepare people for life outside the criminal justice system. This needs to be reinforced, and it is encouraging that the Minister is giving support to the Probation Service, although the investment to bring the service up to speed is not adequate.

Secondly, there is a need for clear and effective communication to explain to the public the purpose of prisons. Government has a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons, and an appreciation that those in custody eventually have to be integrated into the community.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

I know that I am running over time, but it is an advisory time limit and I will finish in two minutes.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, I am sorry, that will not be fair to all the other speakers. It is an advisory time limit, but I must invite the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

I have another couple of minutes—this is advisory.

The Government have a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons and an appreciation that those in custody will eventually have to be integrated into the community. We cannot defend what is not understood.

My third point is about much more focused and tailored opportunities for purposeful activity—that is, educational opportunities for prisoners to learn skills which equip them to lead a purposeful life when released. I will make two points here. First, the Open University provides very good digital learning, which needs to be extended. The other point about education is having some joined-up thinking to make sure that employers actually work with prisons—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sorry to get to my feet again, but I think the House is on my side and the noble Baroness should now conclude her remarks.