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.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

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

My Lords, I do not want to jump the gun, but I have just spoken to my fellow Whips, and our plan is to try to get to target before the dinner break. I thought it would be useful to let everybody know.

Clause 13: Reviews of sentencing: time limits

Amendment 64

Moved by

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord but I am sure that it will be useful for him to know that the Minister will respond on the question of resources when the time comes.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That is very good. I am glad that the noble Lord has confirmed that the Minister will respond; I look forward to her doing so.

My final point concerns whether the Bill’s sponsors have carried out the modelling and costings that their proposals will require. Have those been put before this House so that we can make the appropriate decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

With the grace of the Committee, the final thing I will say is that there is something here about statistics. It will be very important to make sure that we get an understanding of what is happening—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I ask the noble Baroness to draw her comments to a close. The time indicator is flashing.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Yes, I will. I am just saying that it is really important that we get statistics, and that this becomes the premise of the Lord Chancellor. This will be critical to making sure that we have confidence going forward and I will have to work out a way to reassess these amendments in future groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, I am sorry; the Minister has made it clear that she will try to take any interventions at the end if there is time.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Lord can respond to the noble Baroness’s point.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am not sure, particularly given the way in which the noble Baroness addressed the issue at the very end, that this is a point about panel versus judge. I would expect a judge to be experienced and able to deal with somebody who is deaf, and if they are not able to, they should be. Equally, I would expect a panel to deal with that in the same way. In all honesty, that was not a factor in determining whether panel or judge was better. Both would have to deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, that group took more than three hours, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. It is a very important group, and we knew it would be a long one, and it does deal with one of the issues at the heart of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the speakers who did not take all their allotted time, and I know many did not. We did all agree last night that the Bill would need more time. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said then that we might make more progress if people could avoid repetition. I realise that I am at risk of being accused of repetition myself, but could I reinforce the noble and learned Baroness’s message about avoiding repetition, without repeating it?

Amendment 26

Moved by

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for the carefully framed amendment and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the very careful way in which he presented the amendment. We agree with all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, without qualification.

When the previous Secretary of State for Justice first intimated this policy last year, I referred to it in this Chamber as being “completely mad”. I have not deviated from that opinion, I have to confess. The idea that someone coming from a safe country in Europe will commit a series of robberies and then, when caught, will be returned to their country of origin at public expense in order to pick up a different set of identity papers or a different passport and then return yet again strikes me as quite absurd. That is the revolving door point that has been touched upon, but the other points are equally important.

Of course, they may not have come from a safe country, in which case we cannot deport them, but no accommodation has been made for that either. It is going to be optional, essentially. You may seek to argue that you have not come from a safe country and therefore you cannot be deported, so you prefer to stay in prison. It is a quite extraordinary proposal that somehow punishment lies in the fact that you have been returned to your country of origin after committing a serious offence in this country. We have a foreign national who rapes a child and flees back to his country of origin, and presumably we no longer make any efforts to extradite him because as far as this policy is concerned, he has been punished. He has gone home. What is that going to do for public confidence in the justice system? It will damage it, but I cannot see any upside. It is an impossible proposal.

David Gauke proposed, very sensibly, that there should be a minimum term of punishment, and that is necessary because it is not just punishment; it is also deterrence. Without that, we end up in the strange situation in which people commit a crime, leave for their home country at public expense and return as and when they wish to do so. We have had instances of that already. I will not go into the detailed cases at this stage in the evening, but it is not uncommon for those who have been arrested and convicted of offences to return to their country of origin and then return to these islands in due course. There have recent instances of that. We strongly support the idea that there has to be a minimum term of imprisonment in these cases, while understanding the pressure on our prisons. Does the Minister truly believe that public confidence in the justice system will be improved or even maintained as and when the full implications of this proposed policy become public?

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for meeting with my noble friend Lord Timpson to discuss the amendment proposed by him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, relating to the early removal scheme and for the spirit in which this has been debated. Considering the lateness of the hour, I shall try to be brief. A number of the points I want to make, I will make very quickly, but there are one or two points that I do not think have been adequately addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I will perhaps just dwell on those.

To be clear, the Government’s priority is protecting victims in the UK and ensuring that foreign national offenders can never again offend here. Once deported, they will be barred from ever returning to the UK, protecting victims and the wider public. Limiting the early removal scheme to only those in receipt of a sentence of less than three years would effectively put the brakes on sustaining the removal of foreign national offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

91: Before Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where—(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter (whether or not the prisoner has subsequently been recalled to prison under section 32),(b) the qualifying period has expired,(c) the prisoner’s licence has remained in force for a continuous period of one year beginning not before the qualifying period expired, and(d) the prisoner requests that the Secretary of State refer their case to the Parole Board,the Secretary of State must refer the prisoner’s case to the Board under this subsection.(3B) Only one request may be made under subsection (3A)(d) in any continuous period during which the prisoner’s licence remains in force.”;(b) in subsection (4), after “(3)” insert “or (3A)”; (c) in subsection (4D), for the words from “The reference under” to “that subsection” substitute “A reference under subsection (3) or (3A) must not be made, and a reference under either of those subsections”;(d) in subsection (4E)(a), after “(3)” insert “or (3A)”;(e) in subsection (5), in the definition of “the qualifying period”, for the words from “means—” to the end of the definition substitute “means the period of two years beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release.”;(f) in subsection (6)—(i) omit “paragraph (a) or (b) of”;(ii) after “the definition of “the qualifying period”” insert “in relation to—(a) a prisoner who was not at any time, in the period specified in the regulations beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release, serving any preventive sentence in respect of an offence for which the prisoner was convicted when aged 18 or over;(b) any other prisoner.”(3) In section 32 (recall of life prisoners while on licence), in subsection (5C), after “for the purposes of” insert “paragraph (c) of section 31A(3A) (referral to Parole Board) or”.(4) In section 32ZZA (imprisonment or detention for public protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners), in subsection (4), after “for the purposes of” insert “paragraph (c) of section 31A(3A) (referral to Parole Board) or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a further referral to the Parole Board of the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection who has been released on licence and shortens the existing period that certain persons must spend on licence before a referral is made or a licence terminated.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

54: Clause 18, page 36, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) As soon as practicable after receiving a business plan submitted under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor must consider the plan and decide whether to approve it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to respond as soon as practicable to the Sentencing Council’s request for approval of the Council’s business plan for a financial year.

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

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I begin by thanking noble Lords for their careful and detailed scrutiny of Clauses 18 and 19. I and my noble friend the Minister are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keen, Lord Thomas and Lord Burnett, for their further engagement in the meetings we have had since Committee.

In Committee, I promised your Lordships that the Government would reflect carefully on our current approach. Amendments 54 to 57, in the name of my noble friend the Minister, are the product of those considerations and reconsiderations. I must first note for the record that we shared the amendments in draft with the Lady Chief Justice and the Sentencing Council before tabling. I stress that, in keeping with convention, they were not invited to express a view on the merits of our proposed approach, nor did they do so.

The Government remain of the view that providing for approval of the Sentencing Council’s business plans and guidelines is the best way of maintaining public confidence in the council and its work. That said, we recognise that it would help to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when considering any requests from the council. Our amendments seek to add important safeguards to both processes and to increase their transparency. We are particularly grateful to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee for the recommendation concerning Clause 18, which has informed and inspired the Government’s approach through these amendments.

I first turn to the concerns raised about the consequences for the council if the Lord Chancellor were to reject a request to approve a proposed business plan. As I explained in Committee, Clause 18 provides the Lord Chancellor with the opportunity to review a business plan before it is finalised. This ensures that the council has appropriately considered priorities from the Government and Parliament in developing the business plan. This should help to give the council a greater understanding of the Lord Chancellor’s priorities and help minimise the risk of disagreement later on during guideline development. If the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, Amendment 55 requires them to notify the council and, as soon as practicable, lay a document before Parliament stating their reasons for that decision. Amendments 56 and 57 make similar provision in respect of sentencing guidelines.

Taken together, the Government’s amendments will ensure that any reasons for rejecting a business plan or guideline are publicly available and drawn to the attention of Parliament. This is an important commitment to accountability that will increase the transparency of both approval processes. Since this is a point that was raised in Committee, I confirm that nothing in this clause is intended to prevent the council from carrying out its statutory functions in the event that a business plan was to be questioned or rejected.

I will now address the concerns arising from Clause 19’s requirement that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must each individually approve definitive sentencing guidelines before the council can publish them. We want to make it clear in the Bill that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected.

Amendments 56 and 57 therefore provide that guidelines can be rejected only in instances necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Our intention is that a rejection will occur in only very rare cases, when it is truly necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system; it is absolutely not our intention for guidelines to be rejected arbitrarily. It is with that in mind that we have put these safeguards in place.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that this approach represents a significant constraint on any involvement in the guidelines and will help safeguard against guidelines being rejected without proper justification. By requiring approval from both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, it is the Government’s intention for there to be close collaboration between the two on any approval requests from the council. In drafting this measure, we have also had regard to their existing joint responsibilities for the council, including, for example, the appointment of its members. We are keen to ensure parity between them in respect of the approval of guidelines.

Finally, we are also keen to provide assurance that the council’s work will not be subject to unnecessary delays, which, again, was a concern raised in Committee. Through Amendments 54, 56 and 57, we therefore propose that any approval requests from the council are to be considered by the Lord Chancellor and, in the case of the guidelines, the Lady Chief Justice, as soon as practicable.

I stress that we remain very grateful to the council for its continued work in bringing greater consistency, transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process. We look forward, from the Government’s perspective, to working closely with the council in the months ahead. I beg to move.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, your Lordships may recollect that, in Committee, I supported an amendment which would have removed Clause 18 from the Bill altogether. While also suggesting that Clause 19 would be best removed, I laid an amendment to the effect that a guideline could be prevented from being issued only if both the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed that that should happen.

I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Lemos and Lord Timpson, for the time and trouble they have taken in discussions, which have included me and my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also particularly relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, explained in the all-Peers letter that went round—forgive me, I do not remember the precise date before Christmas—which drew attention to the fact that both the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice had been engaged in these amendments, that that should not be taken in any way as suggesting that either are happy with them or supported them.

Indeed, on 25 November, the Lady Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and explained that the clauses that we are concerned with do not sit easily with the independence of the Sentencing Council. She explained that there were no conceivable circumstances in which the Lady Chief Justice or Lord Chief Justice would seek to exercise the veto. She also made the important point that the mood of the Sentencing Council is “pretty bleak” because of the uncertainty hanging over its head. That was particularly important, as she explained, because the Sentencing Council is due to be very busy revising sentencing guidelines, which will be necessary as a result of the contents of this Bill, particularly because of the reduction in the use of suspended sentences. It will also be busy if the proposals that the Government have foreshadowed—to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates—come to be enacted, because, again, guidelines will have to be changed to reflect that. None the less, as I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, agreed in Committee to consider these matters further and I am particularly grateful for the care with which he and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, have treated my concerns.

I regret that His Majesty’s Government were not able to accept the amendments that I laid in Committee, because these clauses remain unfortunate, to put it as mildly as I can. Clause 18, requiring a business plan to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, might be thought to serve no obvious purpose, save to empower the Lord Chancellor to exert some pressure on the Sentencing Council. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, just explained to the House, that pressure will have no statutory effect. That is because the Government have just now accepted that the Sentencing Council would still be obliged to carry out the positive statutory duties laid on it by statute, and to exercise the discretionary powers conferred on it by statute. But if the Lord Chancellor is to exert pressure—pressure which, in my respectful opinion, continues to be inconsistent with the independence of the Sentencing Council—he must at least do so as soon as practicable and explain himself, which are both positive steps.

Clause 19 as now proposed to be amended remains—this should not be sugar-coated—a potential executive veto. That veto too, if it is to come, must now come as soon as practicable, and the grounds on which it can be exercised have been identified. I recognise that that is an improvement, if perhaps only a slight one, on the original drafting.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, explained, there is perhaps a hope—and, indeed, an expectation—within the Government that these powers will never be used in a way which brings conflict between the Government and the Sentencing Council, and between the Government and the Lady Chief Justice. But it is important, when conferring powers, to contemplate how they might be used by others who perhaps are not so benign in their attitudes as the current Government and Lord Chancellor.

It seems that the Government have laid the foundations for what could be the destruction of the Sentencing Council through executive interference. Were such interference to occur, I fear that the Sentencing Council would cease to function for the simple reason that all its members—all fiercely independent—would leave.

I concluded that there would be no purpose in relaying my amendments. I am grateful to both Ministers for the tentative steps that have been taken to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and for that reason I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the Ministers for their engagement on this issue. However, we should bear in mind that our statutory provisions are designed to address powers and not intentions. It is certainly questionable whether we should be enacting provisions which we consider will never be used. They are on the statute book and they are available for use.

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for outlining the issues here. The language he used was indicative of the reservations we all have with regard to this course of action: “unfortunate”, “inconsistent” and “a slight improvement”. It is not a ringing endorsement of anyone’s legislation.

The Government’s stance on the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary remains demonstrably unclear and uncertain. On the one hand, they repeat that sentencing is a matter for our independent judiciary—I quote the Ministers. We did not support the original Clauses 18 and 19 as drafted, but nor do we support these amendments, as they appear to simply illustrate the Government’s internal inconsistency with regard to the Sentencing Council. These amendments simply add more confusion to the puzzled stance the Government have towards the Sentencing Council.

On Report, the Government have now implemented amendments to reduce the degree to which their own Bill reduces the Sentencing Council’s independence. But do the Government retain any idea of how independent they would like the Sentencing Council to be?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. It is obviously a subject on which your Lordships have thought very carefully and deeply, so I appreciate those contributions and note them all with great significance.

However, I hope all noble Lords will agree that these proposed amendments at least reflect the seriousness with which we have taken concerns raised in Committee. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, acknowledged that. I also hope we have answered the important questions about how the provisions will operate in practice, which both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, again acknowledged.

We recognise that there is further detail to work through around how both these approval measures will work, and I am very grateful for the ongoing discussions between officials in the Ministry of Justice and in the Sentencing Council on these important considerations.

Amendment 54 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has addressed what is clearly an anomaly in our sentencing policy that raises a clear issue of fairness, and we do not dissent from the principle that has been advanced with regard to that matter. Indeed, I acknowledge the thoughtful and careful way in which the matter has been addressed by all noble Lords. With regard to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I have nothing to say.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by addressing Amendment 63. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for raising this and for her work and expertise as a member of the Youth Justice Board and as a magistrate. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby’s long-standing interest and work in this area, including from this Dispatch Box.

Youth sentencing, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken know, is largely out of scope of this Bill. But I should say—and I am very happy to put it on the record, for myself and for my noble friend the Minister—that this amendment raises an issue with which we have a great deal of sympathy.

We recognise that, when a child turns 18, that can have a significant impact on the outcome of criminal justice proceedings, and that is, in a sense, the heart of the argument that the noble Baroness is making. A child who reaches the age of 18 before their first appearance will be tried and sentenced as an adult. However, sentencing guidelines state that, in such cases, the court should take as its starting point the sentence that would have applied at the time the offence was committed. That does not quite deal with some of the points that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby was making; I acknowledge that. They also state that the offender’s maturity, along with other relevant factors, should continue to be considered.

This amendment, however, would significantly alter the youth sentencing framework, and I note the careful way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked for the Government’s response. If we were to accept these recommendations, the Government feel that there would be ramifications across the wider justice system. The youth sentencing framework has been specifically designed for children and there may well be unforeseen consequences, which we should think about carefully, of applying that framework to young adults. I am sure that your Lordships can appreciate that such a change requires thorough consideration beyond the confines of this Bill. So, although I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I hope she will take what I have said as some reassurance.

I now turn to Amendments 93 and 94. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling them. I am afraid I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as I probably did in Committee too, by restating that the Government already believe that existing mechanisms are sufficient to address perceived injustices.

Unduly lenient sentence reviews and criminal appeals are two routes by which cases can be reviewed. From 1 January to 8 December 2025, 933 sentences were considered by the Attorney-General’s Office as valid to be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The Government cannot support an amendment that puts more pressure on the justice system, which I think everyone in your Lordships’ House recognises is under considerable pressure, by requiring the courts to reconsider the sentences of those who apply. We do not believe this would be workable or sustainable, and we do not want to duplicate existing functions at a time when the system is under so much pressure.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, knows—we discussed this in Committee—we await the Law Commission’s report on criminal appeals, which is due later this year. Your Lordships’ House has my assurance that we will consider its findings with great care, especially those which relate to the important points made today. Once the report has been published, we will of course discuss it further. For the moment, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. Collectively, they seek to introduce an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The stated purpose of this panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources. I am sure that all noble Lords support that aim, and the idea of creating an independent body to help the Government in developing better policy in this area is an interesting concept that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to.

These amendments seek to implement recommendation 9.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review by Mr David Gauke and others, a document that has inspired many of the provisions of the Bill. Should the Government decide not to support this recommendation, they should make plain their reasons and justification.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for these important and thoughtful amendments. They seek to give effect to a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review, by David Gauke, which would involve creating an independent advisory body that would provide greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on the criminal justice system. I absolutely understand the sentiments behind these amendments, and we recognise that this Bill represents a big change to sentencing in the future and that the Government will need timely advice from voices of expertise and experience. I have worked with some of the organisations the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to and hold them in the highest esteem.

The Government do not believe that it is right to legislate for a new statutory panel at this stage, but I will say a little about how we think we can take forward the spirit of this. There are already many advisory and oversight authorities for prisons and probation, many of them with statutory remits. However, we will certainly continue to consider whether the creation of a new advisory body is the appropriate mechanism to ensure greater scrutiny and greater effectiveness of the impacts and outcomes of policy and legislation in this area.

Although we are considering this recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review carefully—I hope I have made it clear that we take it very seriously—we do not support an amendment at this time. As I hope the Committee will understand, creating such a panel requires a good deal of thought about its purpose and responsibilities and how it could fit within the panoply of organisations that already advise the wider criminal justice system. It is already a Rubik’s cube.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are undertaking an ongoing review of arm’s-length bodies, and this sets out clear principles, including ministerial policy oversight, avoiding duplication—that is very important—and improving efficiency. So we are not clear that the creation of such a body in statute, as this amendment would do, would quite align with these aims. So, although we do not accept these amendments today, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and indeed the whole Committee that the Government will continue to consider this recommendation.

On the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate about improving the understanding of the press and the public, we are certainly in the market for anything that will improve their understanding of how the criminal justice system, particularly sentencing policy, works. So I hope this reassurance about the seriousness with which we take the spirit of David Gauke’s recommendation, and indeed the amendment, enables the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his response and his understanding. I am, however, disappointed that he is not prepared at this stage to commit to putting this recommendation into statute. It seems to me and the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Gloucester to be an important feature. If his concern is that we should continue to try to inform the press and public of what sentencing is about, and of what government policy on sentencing and reducing reoffending is about, then the formation of this body is very important. If the formation of this body is very important, why should it not be sanctioned by statute?

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for bringing this issue to the Committee. Effective probation practice depends fundamentally on local knowledge, local accountability and integration with wider services, including housing, health, substance misuse, skills and so on. In Wales, these services, in contrast to probation, are largely devolved. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the current arrangement or settlement best serves the people of Wales and whether the structures we have today genuinely allow probation to work in partnership effectively with the devolved landscape.

The noble and learned Lord has raised an important point. We on these Benches do not commit ourselves today to the specific mechanism set out in the amendment. Devolution of an important plank of the criminal justice function requires proper consideration, planning and, above all, collaboration—I emphasise that word in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said—between the United Kingdom Government and Welsh Ministers. We agree that that conversation cannot be avoided. It must be approached constructively with regard to the Welsh perspective.

Probation in Wales faces real pressures and deserves a stable and effective framework within which to operate. If the Minister believes that the current reserved model remains the right one, the Committee would expect him to set out clearly how it delivers coherence, integration and accountability, and how it is effective not in theory but in practice. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for initiating this debate, and we look forward to the Government’s response, probably not for just the one time.

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

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his amendment and his thoughtful engagement on this issue and others. I know he has met my noble friend the Minister outside the Chamber to discuss these things.

The Government committed to undertake a strategic review of probation in their manifesto, and it is still our plan to review the governance of the Probation Service, looking at partnerships across England and Wales. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the Manchester model. I hesitate to agree with the suggestion that it is being imposed on Wales, but I have to say that I am rather a fan of the Manchester model. In fact, I regard myself as the progenitor of it—or one of them—when I was at HMPPS as its lead non-executive director. That is part of what is on offer, as it were.

It is important that the recommendations in this Bill are first implemented and that we bring stability to the Probation Service in England and Wales as it currently is before undertaking any structural review. The Government believe that this would not be the right time to consider factoring structural changes into the many changes to probation that will arise as a result of this legislation. I understand that the doctrine of unripe time is often a fairly feeble excuse for inaction, but I am sure that everyone in the Committee recognises that—if I can put it like this—the capacity for change in the Probation Service, with this Bill and the current situation, is pretty much maxed out.

The amendment proposes devolving the Probation Service, but not the equivalent in relation to sentencing or prisons. Devolving parts of the criminal justice system in this way would create a divergence between the management of offenders and the wider criminal justice, sentencing and prison framework across England and Wales. We know that poor handovers, weak communication or gaps in support during the transition from custody to the community are among the greatest barriers to successful resettlement, so we are concerned that some of the changes that might arise as a result of this would create friction in the way that I have suggested. Therefore, any framework in which prisons and probation are separately owned, funded or designed carries a real risk that the two halves of the process might fail to connect, particularly at a time of strain. When that happens, people leaving prison can all too easily fall through the gaps.

That is the heart of the Government’s view at the moment—that this is not a good time to impose structural change on the Probation Service. We want to be sure that we do not create the sort of risks and frictions that I discussed. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to support the local delivery of services by devolved and reserved partners in Wales. I hope that I have given the noble and learned Lord some reassurance, at least sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord who has responded. It is obviously sensible to devolve prisons and probation together—that is what we recommended—but the political reality of the way in which the Governments in Cardiff and London relate, particularly when they are of the same party, made me think at this stage not to put down prisons and probation. I shall rethink that for the next time.

I wish that people here would realise that there will be no effective change to the Probation Service until we can take some of the money out of prisons and put it into probation. I am sure that most people who think about it realise that the Government do not have any money and realise it has got to come from somewhere, and that imprisoning people for sensible and shorter times is a much better policy. I would like to see that done in Wales, and I am convinced it could be done, so I will think about the suggestion from the Minister that we should put down both on the next occasion.

I said that the Manchester model was being imposed, but it is really a Hobson’s choice. That is what I mean about it being imposed—“You want something, so we will give you a little bit to keep you quiet”. But it is not the right model, because Manchester is not a country; it is a city in England where people here make decisions on policy. Wales is a different country, a proud and ancient nation. That is the difference, and that is why the Manchester model is good for Manchester but not good for Wales.

In the light of all that has been said, I hope that I may return to this issue, maybe in a slightly different and wider form of amendment, as suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments may appear useful in a time where sentencing laws are revised with increasing frequency, as illustrated by this Bill. A call for transparency and data is also generally welcome. Both amendments reflect a desire to ensure that justice keeps pace with changes in law and society. I am sure that anyone can support that general intention. We would invite the Government to address constructively the concerns that lie behind these amendments.

However, it appears that there may be very real practical issues and difficulties about any such amendment to the Bill. To take one simple example, the Bill, when it becomes law in its present form, will determine that someone who is sentenced to 12 months or less should have a suspended sentence. At the point when the Bill becomes law, is everyone then serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or less going to seek review on the grounds that the sentence should now be suspended? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of practical difficulties around that possibility.

Then, of course, we are going to have people reviewing the Sentencing Council recommendations from time to time who will say, “Wait a minute: they used to recommend three years for what I did, but they are now recommending two. Could I please have a review?” While the amendments are well intentioned, it occurs that there could be an immense number of practical difficulties, putting aside even the imposition upon the courts to review sentences at regular levels.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for these amendments, which I understand are seeking to ensure fairness in sentencing outcomes and are clearly rooted in the commitment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, to ensure that justice keeps pace with society.

That said, it is important to recognise that mechanisms already exist to address perceived injustices, including criminal appeals and sentence reviews, and mandating a formal review every three years with accompanying data and recommendations therefore risks duplicating existing oversight functions and placing additional burdens on the justice system. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there are already pressures in our justice system and it is especially important that we ensure that any reforms that create additional burdens are proportionate, targeted and deliverable.

I note, however, that the recent Leveson review calls for a full review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to modernise how criminal records are disclosed. The Government are considering this recommendation and will update the House in due course. In addition to that, the Law Commission was invited by the Government to consider the law on criminal appeals. Its consultation closed earlier this year and the responses are currently being analysed. We can expect the Law Commission to report to the Government with recommendations next year. Given that those pieces of work are in train, I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance that those recommendations will be carefully considered. While we are sympathetic to the principle that fairness underpins these amendments, for the reasons I set out, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I must say from the outset that we on these Benches cannot support it. The power to remand a person in custody for their own protection—or, in the case of a child or young person, for their own welfare—is not one that the courts use lightly. It is already tightly circumscribed and deployed only where the alternative would expose an extremely vulnerable individual to serious harm.

To remove that safeguard entirely would be a mistake. There are rare, but very real, occasions when a defendant’s personal circumstances, exploitation by criminal gangs or acute safeguarding concerns mean that the only safe option, in the immediate term, is to keep them in secure accommodation. That judgment, made by a court on evidence and subject to challenge, is not one that we believe Parliament should now deprive them of. Where children are concerned, the imperative is even stronger. The court’s paramount concern must be people’s welfare, and removing this power risks leaving young people unprotected in precisely those situations where intervention is most vital. For these reasons, we cannot support Amendment 140.

We strongly support the principle underlying Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Far too many people spend far too long in remand—months and, sometimes, well over a year—awaiting trial or sentence. For all practical purposes, they experience incarceration in the same way as sentenced prisoners. They are deprived of liberty, separated from their families and often held in conditions indistinguishable from the sentenced estate. Yet those in remand do not have the same access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other forms of support that are routinely offered post sentence.

That is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly given that time spent on remand is overwhelmingly treated as time served for the purposes of the ultimate custodial sentence. If we accept that remand can form a significant part of an individual’s total period in custody, it cannot be right that this is, in effect, dead time, in which they are able neither to progress their rehabilitation nor to address the issues that may have contributed to their offending behaviour.

Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is a valuable contribution to a discussion that is long overdue. It does not prejudge the precise mechanisms or impose unworkable obligations on overstretched services, but it rightly challenges us to consider whether the current disparity is effective or conducive to reducing reoffending. The Government should engage seriously with the spirit of these proposals.

Taken together, the amendments highlight two themes that run throughout our debates on the Bill: the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to ensure that custody, whether pre or post sentence, serves a constructive purpose. I hope that the Minister will commit to further work in this area, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her amendment and for taking the time to discuss her related concerns with my noble friend Lord Timpson. I also thank her for her support for the Bill and its overall intentions—that is very much appreciated coming from someone with her track record.

Amendment 140 would remove an important safeguard which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, is very rarely used but remains an option for the courts as a measure of last resort and out of concern for the defendant. Eliminating this provision could leave vulnerable individuals without any viable protection, particularly where alternative care arrangements were simply unavailable or could not be implemented swiftly enough. We fear that those may be the consequences. Examples where it may be used include where it is the only option available to the court to keep someone safe, such as in cases where the defendant is a member of a gang and could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected.

I hope it will also reassure your Lordships that the Mental Health Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to, is now in the other place. It includes a reform to end the use of remand for one’s own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. This reform should ensure that remand for one’s own protection is, therefore, used only as a last resort in the circumstances I have outlined.

At this stage, repeal would leave a gap in the available provision. Courts must retain the flexibility to act decisively in safeguarding individuals when no other option exists. The amendment would risk unintended consequences for vulnerable defendants and undermine the protective function of the justice system.

Amendment 147, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for tabling, seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary, given that remand prisoners can already access those programmes where prisons run them.

There is also an important legal distinction here that I should highlight to your Lordships. Remand prisoners are held in custody pending trial or sentencing, and some have not yet been convicted. Of course, we recognise that people are spending more time on remand; therefore, as I have said, where these services are available and in the right circumstances, they should be able to access them. However, remand prisoners are legally distinct from sentenced prisoners, and we have to reflect that in the priorities for resources.

There are already mechanisms in place to support remand prisoners, including access to healthcare. At the moment, the Government have no plans to expand all rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support to remand prisoners. This would require substantial changes to prison operations and resourcing, and could divert resources from those already convicted and serving sentences. We recognise, however, some of the changes in the remand population. My noble friend the Minister and I would be very happy to continue to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about these matters but, given what I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so grateful once more to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, I have to say, I am disappointed in the responses from both Front Benches on this occasion. They were uncharacteristic, knee-jerk responses that do not display a broader understanding of the other laws of England and Wales that deal—or should deal—with vulnerable people.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, mentioned children. There are ample measures for protecting children under the Children Act 1989 and looking after them in more appropriate circumstances than in criminal justice detention. I remind the Committee that we are talking about defendants who are being detained not for the classic justifications that they would commit further offences, interfere with witnesses and so on, but for their own protection. Of course, the criminal justice estate is not a place of safety or protection for anyone.

I did not hear a reply to my question about how this can be justified under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister could drop a note on that and offer it to other Members of the Committee. There will not be too many to send it to because there are not many Members here, but I would be hugely grateful for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had it right when she talked about a Victorian hangover. There are too many Victorian hangovers in this area of law and policy, and I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson is well aware of that. The thrust of the Bill, in general, is about departing from such Victorian hangovers, such as social death and locking people up and throwing away the key. I urge further reflection.

If I am a member of a criminal gang who wants to turn King’s evidence but I am not charged with a minor offence, I will have to be put in a safe house, and there are schemes and measures to do that. But if I happen to be charged with a low-level offence that does not attract a custodial penalty, I am told that it is a last resort and that I am going to be locked up in a prison system where I will be more at danger from the criminal gang than I ever would be in a safe house. These are rather disappointing arguments from members of the Committee who, on reflection, may think again. I shall certainly return to this on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.