Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and I am delighted to endorse everything that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have said about it. I am delighted to join the noble Baroness in her campaign against Henry VIII. I am bound to point out that he had six wives, so there is no reason why he should not have as many critics and more.

The amendment would leave out part 2 of new Schedule 3ZA and therefore remove the power to add or remove offences to the list by order of the Secretary of State. That amounts to a pernicious Henry VIII power to add any offence to the “judge alone” list. No one has read it out, but I remind the Committee that the “judge alone” list in the Bill as drafted is just financial crime: conspiracy to defraud and offences under the Fraud Act; tax and VAT evasion; false accounting; insider dealing; money laundering; terrorist funding; bribery; historic fraud offences under the Theft Acts, including deception and going equipped to cheat; and ancillary offences. Those are financial crime, and that is what we had all envisaged the judge-only provisions would be about. However, it is not what is now proposed when there is a power—fettered only by the need for a preparatory hearing, effectively—to add further offences of whatever sort, provided that they are not the offences, excluded by the primary legislation, of homicide and serious sexual offences.

The Delegated Powers Committee, on which I once served—I agree with the noble Baroness about the worth and value of the work that it does, if often unlauded—described those provisions in its report on the Bill as being concerned with

“offences of serious economic crime such as fraud, bribery and terrorist funding”.

The committee summed up the principle in the 2021-22 report Democracy Denied?, which the noble Baroness cited:

“The appropriate threshold between primary and secondary legislation should be founded on the overarching principle that the principal aspects of policy should be on the face of a bill and only its detailed implementation left to delegated legislation”.


That neatly and elegantly sums up one of the cardinal rules on which parliamentary democracy is based: that the Government are accountable to Parliament and Ministers introduce a programme of legislation, but it is for Parliament to pass or reject it as it determines.

Vesting a Minister with the power to enable trials without a jury of any offence triable on indictment other than excluded offences, provided only that a relevant preparatory hearing has been ordered, would be a radical departure from that principle of parliamentary sovereignty. We will oppose it and we will vote against it on Report. While we are prepared to give the Government time to consider their position between now and Report, Ministers should be in no doubt as to the seriousness with which we view this threatened abuse of constitutional principle.

On the merits of adding further offences to Clause 3, we see little reason, as I have explained, for judge-only trials as a matter of principle, unless applied for by a defendant. We see no reason whatever for them in other cases in the Crown Court, unless sought by the defendant, and will continue to oppose these provisions.

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

My Lords, Schedule 1 is an inherent element of “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases, as it stipulates those offences that are in scope of the measure, and therefore should stand part of the Bill. I have heard concerns that Part 2 of Schedule 1 could be used over time to expand broadly the scope of Clause 3 —noble Lords have spoken very clearly and firmly about that. Let me be clear: it is already the case that amendments to the schedule can be made only through the affirmative procedure—and I note the comments that have been made about that—which requires a successful vote in both Houses. Offences cannot be added to the schedule without Parliament’s consent.

Amendments 30, 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent the addition of further offences to the schedule. Amendment 29, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would go further by preventing any changes to the schedules at all, whether additions or deletions. As I have said, the purpose of this provision is to allow the system to respond flexibly as fraud and financial offending evolve over time. Technology continues to evolve rapidly, including developments in artificial intelligence. Cases involving any added offences will always have to comply with the other statutory safeguards for an order under Clause 3: a preparatory hearing, a public interest test, exclusions for homicide and indictable-only sex offences, and judicial decision- making.

I have noted the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee, and I understand that we will return to this on Report. With those comments, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, it occurs to me that the Minister may have missed his vocation: he is able to advance an unstatable case with at least a scintilla of conviction. We cannot accept the explanation advanced. I note the support across the Committee for removing Part 2 of Schedule 1. The suggestion that it might be required to introduce further new laws unknown at the present time was met eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who pointed out that such laws would almost certainly be introduced by way of primary legislation anyway. I make it clear that we will be returning to this on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 5 provides powers to increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 or 24 months should future circumstances require it. These powers provide important flexibility to respond to changing pressures across the justice system and to ensure that court resources are deployed proportionately. Drawing on the experience of the past few years, responding to changing pressures across the justice system, including in the prison system, is a very high priority for the efficient management of justice which commands public confidence.

The Crown Court continues to face significant pressures, and many cases sent there for sentence can be dealt with fairly and effectively in the magistrates’ courts, as I have said in earlier groups. Extending magistrates’ court sentencing powers will allow more cases to be appropriately retained in the magistrates’ courts, freeing Crown Court capacity for the most serious and complex cases.

Reducing delay is not simply a matter of efficiency. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and justice, and freeing Crown Court capacity is critical if victims are to receive justice within a reasonable timeframe. The backlog is one question, and noble Lords have cited various statistics about the backlog in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court, but the backlog in the magistrates’ court is dealt with much more quickly than the backlog in the Crown Court, for all the reasons that are obvious. The waiting times in the magistrates’ court are less than half the waiting times for the Crown Court. That matters to victims in particular.

Amendments 69, 71 and 72 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 34 from my noble friend Lady Goudie seek to make these reforms subject to the affirmative procedure and prevent them taking effect unless a prescribed number of magistrates is maintained. The Government do not consider this additional procedure necessary. Parliament is already being asked by this Bill to take the substantive policy decisions, including approving the full range of magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers that may be exercised in future. Once Parliament has established that framework, it is proportionate and consistent with existing practice for changes within those limits to be made by regulations. I know that is not what many noble Lords wanted to hear, but it is our view. The negative procedure is the established approach and has been used previously, both to reduce and to increase magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers in response to the changing pressures across the justice system, which have been vividly recounted in recent months.

Nor do we believe that the implementation or continuation of these reforms should be made contingent on a single workforce metric. The Government fully recognise the importance of magistrates’ courts’ capacity, which is why we are increasing sitting days and undertaking a national recruitment campaign with the aim of increasing the size of the magistracy to around 21,000, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, noted, by 2028-29. However, operational readiness cannot be reduced to a single numerical threshold. It depends on court capacity, workforce deployment, case volumes and wider pressures across the criminal justice system. Amendment 72 would make commencement and continued operation dependent on a prescribed number of magistrates being maintained, regardless of the wider operational position of the justice system. The Government’s view is that such decisions should be guided by evidence and operational need rather than a single workforce measure.

Amendments 36 and 68 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater—I thank her for meeting me in such a constructive spirit, and we have provided her with more information since. I take seriously all the points that she made about the things that needed to be true, if I can put it like that, for these reforms to succeed. I pay tribute to her experience and collaborative spirit. The Government have already committed in Clause 20 to post-implementation monitoring and review of the reforms, and therefore we do not consider that a further statutory review requirement is necessary. Amendment 68 would delay commencement beyond two months after Royal Assent. We do not consider that necessary either. The Bill does not increase magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers. Magistrates will continue to operate at their current sentencing limits unless and until a future decision is taken to exercise the power. Any future decision to increase sentencing powers will be informed by operational data and engagement with key partners across the criminal justice system, including HMCTS, prisons and probation, the CPS and the judiciary.

Since sentencing powers were increased to 12 months in November 2024, fewer cases are being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, and magistrates are retaining more cases to hear. I reject entirely the comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that the Government have provided no evidence. We have published a magistrates’ capacity plan; I have commissioned a fact sheet that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has seen, and we have published our modelling. There is a good deal of data out there already. I have spent a good deal of time, including this morning, going over progress on magistrates’ courts’ capacity, recruitment and retention, so I am afraid I simply do not accept that characterisation.

We are going to increase sittings days to 131,000 in 2028-29. A national recruitment campaign is under way to increase the number of magistrates and recruit additional legal advisers and district judges. We are committed to rebuilding the magistracy. We have already made 1,500 new appointments across England and Wales since April. In 2025-26, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, noted, 17% of new appointments were from an ethnic minority and more than a third of new recruits were under 50. Women account for 55% of the new appointments.

I heard the concerns from the noble Baroness about the capacity and funding of the Judicial College. We will monitor those carefully but, as I told her when we met, we have significantly increased the funding to the Judicial College. That is an important aspect of making a success of these things—as is the need for new magistrates to have the mentoring and support of more experienced magistrates, as we have discussed. We have a detailed implementation plan. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness, given her experience, would continue to work with us on making sure that is a reality. We all have the same ambitions here. I have a good deal of confidence in our efforts to expand the capacity of the magistracy. I am happy to share that with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sater and Lady Hamwee, and others.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The Minister referred to Clause 20, which talks about a review of equalities issues and, regarding the appointment of reviewers,

“any other matter specified in the appointment that relates to the effect of the relevant criminal justice provisions”.

It would be helpful to know what other matters the Government have in mind. We have been talking about some quite specific issues. I would be glad of a reassurance that that is what the Government intend to look at in a specific and detailed way to report to Parliament.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The review that is promised is specifically on the question of disproportionality as it affects Black and minority-ethnic people. The provisions that we have made for the appointment and so on of the reviewer relate to that. That said, we also intend to review and publish progress on magistrates’ capacity, because we see that as central. It is not the same review, but both of those things are in play.

Of course, the readiness of the magistrates’ courts would be assessed before any decision to increase sentencing powers is taken. The decision would be informed by operational data and engagement. A fixed statutory delay would, therefore, reduce our flexibility without providing realistic additional assurance on operational readiness. It would also delay commencement of the statutory independent review of the structural reforms—just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—and provisions for when the Crown Court sits in the City of London, despite there being no equivalent operational rationale for doing so.

Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, together with Amendment 35, and consequential Amendments 58 and 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would either restrict the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts to the current possible limits of six or 12 months, variable by regulations, or remove altogether those existing powers to vary their sentencing powers by regulations. The Government do not believe that would be the right approach. Parliament is being asked through this Bill to decide whether magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers may in future be increased to 18 or 24 months. Clause 5 does not itself increase those powers. Parliament is taking the substantive policy decision about those limits through this piece of primary legislation and setting the limits within which any future regulations may operate. The purpose of Clause 5 is to continue to enable flexibility and any future decision to exercise the power would be informed by that evidence.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for raising this issue in Amendment 4. As is the case with a number of his amendments, I note he has the support of other noble and learned Lords—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, as well as my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. It appears to us that the Bill will necessarily require some reassessment of summary offences, so we welcome the point that the noble and learned Lord has raised with the Government.

Should this Bill become law as it stands, even without the original clauses that the Government have already removed, we will be making a significant, indeed fundamental, change to the way many offences are tried. Indeed, should the regulation-making power under Clause 5(1)—that is, the power to increase the magistrates’ maximum sentence—be implemented, we will see a great many more cases, some relating to serious offences, being tried in the magistrates’ courts on a summary-only basis. If the Government are going to proceed with these plans—and we sincerely hope that your Lordships’ Committee is able to demonstrate to the Government how flawed some of them are—Ministers must, as an absolute minimum, undertake a reassessment of the offences that may be tried as summary-only offences.

That said, we have some concerns about subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 22B of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. That subsection would require the Secretary of State to specify those offences that are triable as summary-only offences. As noble Lords across the Committee will appreciate, whether an offence is triable as a summary-only offence is defined in primary legislation, and it would be concerning to establish a regulation-making power for the same purpose, unless, of course, the regulations made under subsection (2) were merely intended to be descriptive of existing laws set out in primary legislation. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point.

On Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, with regard to out-of-court settlement, where such settlements are appropriate then they should be considered, and they might well help to reduce the backlog that already exists in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court. That said, an additional requirement placed on the courts through primary legislation may not be the best way to promote appropriate out-of-court settlements. I suggest that that is a matter for further and more detailed consideration going forward.

We are a little curious about the proposal that courts be permitted to adjourn a case for a period of up to 28 days to enable an out-of-court settlement to be considered. It appears to us that there is room for that to be abused by more cynical defendants who may find themselves in court. We would have to consider what impact that might have on further delays in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court; as all lawyers will know, an adjournment for a period of up to 28 days can transmogrify into something materially different.

Having said that, we understand the force of the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and, while it may not be a matter for primary legislation, it is surely a matter for further detailed consideration.

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

My Lords, as this is the first time I have got to my feet, I thank all noble Lords for meeting me and for the various discussions we have had. In relation to this amendment, I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Burnett, Lord Phillips and Lord Bellamy, for meeting me yesterday specifically to talk about their amendments. I hope we can continue that conversation.

Amendment 4, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, seeks to reclassify certain triable “either way” offences to summary-only, in line with the recommendations, as he said, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, in his independent review. The Government considered the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, but concluded that they would not result in significant sitting day savings and would carry risks for the wider justice system and public protection. I know noble Lords will say in response to that that the Government are obsessed by backlogs and sitting days, and I shall address that point in my remarks in a moment.

Offences that are triable either way are, by definition, treated as sufficiently serious to warrant the possibility of longer sentences and broader police and prosecution powers, including longer investigatory time limits. None of the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment has addressed this specific point and it is one that we will need to return to in the discussion of reclassification.

Reclassifying offences as summary-only—as I said, the Government have considered this—would restrict important operational powers and reduce maximum sentences for those offences to six months. This would be particularly concerning in domestic abuse cases, including breaches of protective orders. We do not believe that it would be right to constrain the justice system by restricting the investigative period when the protection of the public and victims is at stake. Tackling violence against women and girls remains a top priority for the Government, of course.

Nevertheless, we recognise the benefits of retaining more cases in magistrates’ courts because of their efficiency, which is why, as we discussed on the first group, we are bringing forward measures to remove the right to elect and to increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers, which we will return to later today. This will deliver many of the same benefits as reclassification without undermining the protections and powers attached to offences that are triable either way.

I want to address comments made by several noble Lords, on this group and the previous one, that the Government’s only concern is the backlog. I want to be completely clear, as my noble and learned friend Lady Smith was: of course the Government are committed to fair trials. That principle is completely intact and inviolate in the Government’s thinking on this. Our concern with the backlog is perhaps better expressed as being about waiting times and their impact on victims’ experiences. The backlog is a problem for administrative reasons, but it is much more important for victims of crime.

We do not think, as a matter of principle, that defendants should choose their own mode of trial. However, I am happy to continue the discussion with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Leveson, and others, on the suggestion for reclassification.

On Amendment 51, I recognise that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is to increase use of out-of-court resolutions, which can provide an effective and robust alternative to prosecution. I do not think the phrase “out-of-court resolution”—or, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, the word “diversion”—will travel very well on the streets. We want to ensure that, in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, justice is done rapidly for the vulnerable people he spoke about, including vulnerable parents. My preferred description, for further revision if necessary, is “rapid justice” that addresses the root causes, which was the point the noble Lord made. I agree entirely with his comments about parents.

The Government are not suggesting, and would not support any suggestion, that the use of out-of-court resolutions amounts to decriminalisation or making those offences irrelevant. That is not our view. Keeping your children from school is an offence but we think it can perhaps be addressed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referred to youth justice. The Minister in the other place, Jake Richards, is concerned about addressing root causes in his work on youth justice. I thank the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, for their reference to restorative justice, which is an important area where much could be done.

Let me set the position out clearly for the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government are committed to strengthening the use of out-of-court resolutions and diverting low-level offenders away from court with conditions that address the underlying causes of crime and therefore reduce the risk of future reoffending. However, the police are already required to assess whether the public interest can be served by an out-of-court resolution instead of prosecution. Prosecutors also make this assessment when making prosecution decisions. Courts also already have the power to inquire about an out-of-court resolution and CPS guidance provides that, where the prosecutor in court concludes that such a resolution is appropriate, the matter should be referred to the police and an adjournment sought.

An additional duty on the court would therefore duplicate these processes—I think this is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was making—and may add unnecessary delay. However, as outlined in the Government’s response to the recommendations from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, we are urgently examining the legislative and delivery framework for out-of-court resolutions to ensure that it supports our ambitions and that such resolutions are considered whenever appropriate.

Although I cannot at this stage support the amendments in this group, I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and others to have a constructive discussion on these issues. Although the Government have, for the moment, reached a different conclusion on these proposals, I look forward to continuing those discussions and to further discussing the question of out-of-court resolution with the noble Lord, Lord Marks. With these reassurances, I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all who have participated in this short debate. There are no easy answers to dealing with the backlog. There have to be compromises along the way, which we have discussed in the previous debate and in this one. We appreciate the problems that arise by classifying as summary-only, as regards the way that the police should be required to act with greater expedition, but we did not intend by this reclassification to suggest a reduction in the maximum sentence, which would be below two years if the Government take those powers under the Bill or one year if they do not. However, I am very grateful to all who have spoken about it and I hope we can look at this again.

I am most grateful to the Minister for our discussions yesterday and our continuing discussions in relation to finding an answer, because what is critical is that we end up with something certain, so that we produce the same result in every postcode, and that we do not get appeals. We cannot have appeals on the question of allocation.

Also, on the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on out-of-court resolution, I think I can recall this subject going back at least 20 years. One of the problems has been in getting some system to bring together the magistrates, the police and the prosecution service. One suggestion—this was probably 15 or 20 years ago —was that magistrates should play a role in looking at the way in which local police forces dealt with out-of-court disposal. That was never proceeded with. There are lots of other ideas, but it is plainly part of the system of justice that we get out-of-court disposals correct. It is not decriminalisation; it is finding a means of an effective deterrent for future criminality, rather than sending people into the criminal justice system. I welcome the proposal raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and hope we can carry it further. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, my answers are always unambiguous.

Amendment 6, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would apply Crown Court legal aid financial eligibility rules and pay Crown Court-level fees to providers for triable “either way” offences, even if that case takes place in the magistrates’ court. Amendments 8, 67 and 75, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would extend the same financial eligibility criteria which were applied at the Crown Court to proceedings heard at the magistrates’ court, and provide for these changes to come into force before implementation of the Bill’s wider provisions. The noble Baroness laid some emphasis on that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I heard the strength of feeling on this subject at Second Reading.

These four amendments are not limited to triable “either way” offences impacted by the removal of the right to elect a Crown Court trial. The effect would therefore be to apply Crown Court rules on legal aid financial eligibility to all defendants and cases in the magistrates’ court, including all summary-only cases. Under current financial eligibility rules, the majority of defendants—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to—charged with triable “either way” offences would be eligible for legal aid at the magistrates’ court. That tells you something about the social make-up of who appears in our magistrates’ courts.

For individuals who do not financially qualify for legal aid, there are already measures in place in the magistrates’ court to provide support. The hardship review mechanism can provide legal aid to some individuals who fail the means test but face higher than usual outgoings. In addition, unrepresented defendants may access the free magistrates’ court duty solicitor scheme, which may provide legal representation at the first hearing for those charged with an imprisonable offence.

None the less, we have been listening carefully to the concerns raised at Second Reading around eligibility and the potential impacts of reform on litigants in person, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. We have accepted in principle the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, to increase the legal aid income thresholds at the magistrates’ court. In so doing, we recognise the importance of ensuring that legal aid is available for those who need it most, and the financial eligibility thresholds reflect this. I think that is fairly unambiguous. Once court reforms introduced by the Bill have been fully implemented, we will be better placed to take final decisions on income threshold levels, subject to future funding decisions and operational considerations. I have no doubt at all that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others will press us on that point, but I am repeating the formulation that I used at Second Reading. We are also examining the measures that are currently in place for litigants in person and considering additional options for support.

I think noble Lords would acknowledge that amendments to align Crown Court and magistrates’ court eligibility would add complexity to the magistrates’ test through the introduction of a contributory system which assesses income and capital. This may negatively impact efficiency in the magistrates’ court and create additional administrative burdens. I spent some time this morning reading about how this works, and it was interesting.

In relation to remuneration for legal aid lawyers in Amendment 6, I am afraid that, with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Shamash, I do not think that we will be paying legal aid lawyers the same rates as lawyers in the City are paid—but then the job is much more interesting. I say that as someone who worked in the City for quite a long time.

Fee schemes are specific to the court where the case is heard and are designed to reflect the differing processes and nature of work in the magistrates’ court and Crown Court. The magistrates’ court fee scheme is designed to be simple to administer and for providers to use, reflecting the greater speed and case volumes through that court. There is also a non-standard fee route for cases in the magistrates’ court, which ensures that work on complex cases is appropriately remunerated. I hope I have set out where the Government stand on that and demonstrated that the Government have listened. With that, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken of the importance of this point—the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald, Lord Shamash, Lord Jabbar, and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. Although we welcome what the Minister has said, we all regard it as imperative that, if the more serious work is being transferred, that should be done simultaneously with a change to legal aid. That is critical. We cannot wait, because it will cause problems in the magistrates’ courts and with magistrates’ courts recruitment—a point particularly made by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash. It is getting very much more difficult to find people prepared to do magistrates’ courts solicitors’ work. Of course, the Government could not afford to pay City rates; that is out of the question. But at least pay a decent rate for the hard job people do, to encourage them to come into that part of the profession. I agree with the Minister: much of the work is far more interesting than working on infinitely uninteresting schemes in the City.

I wish also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendments and also for pressing the point about getting eligibility brought into line. Maybe the answer is to look at the complexity and see whether that can be simplified as well. With those remarks, I thank noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I have lent my name to Amendment 10, but I recognise that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has provided what he describes as a raft of amendments which are intended together to establish a bulwark that will give a stronger safeguard against the removal of jury trial. In that sense, they are a secondary defence to the provisions in this Bill. We would rely on the primary defence, which is the retention of jury trial as it presently exists, but I acknowledge the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendments—I just hope they will not be required because the Government will see sense with regard to the primary position.

We will come on to discuss related issues in the next three groups, and in particular whether we should see these fundamental changes to the justice system coupled with Henry VIII powers as reflected in Schedule 1 to the Bill. This is an ecosystem. All these elements are interconnected and if you interfere with one, you have an impact on the other.

Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the important distinction between public interest and the interests of justice. I would add only that the interests of justice can be seen as being orientated towards the interests of the defendant in a way that the public interest will not necessarily be, and therefore that distinction is important.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for meeting me beforehand and setting out his views in trenchant form, not just on this set of amendments but on the Bill as a whole. All these amendments seek to add new safeguards to Clause 3: “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases. That clause already contains robust and careful safeguards, and it is important that I go through them. Cases can qualify for the policy only if they involve a scheduled fraud or financial offence and do not involve excluded homicide or indictable-only sexual offences. That is a very important exclusion. A preparatory hearing must have been ordered for the case, something that can happen only to manage exceptional seriousness, complexity or length—to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made. The case must be sufficiently complex or lengthy that jury trial cannot be in the public interest, and judges can decline to make an order for any other reason where jury trial is more appropriate. It is Crown Court judges who will be making these decisions and the Government’s view is that we trust them to apply the test set out by this policy properly.

Amendment 9 would allow an order to be made only when all co-defendants in a multi-defendant case were charged with an eligible fraud or financial offence. Amendment 10 would mean that every defendant would have to be charged only with fraud or financial offences. Ancillary offences, such as theft, would make a case ineligible—the link with theft is important. Defendants involved in the same alleged criminal schemes are often tried together, even though they are charged with different offences. Defendants in large-scale fraud and financial cases often face related charges, such as theft, that should, rightly, not be scheduled offences on their own. Severing charges, as these amendments suggest, or defendants, would not in the Government’s view be an efficient use of court time by requiring another separate trial. These amendments could encourage artificial charging decisions or unnecessary changes to the indictments to circumvent the statutory test.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and certainly before the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, stands up, I would just question the Minister’s assertion that, because there is an appeal against a conviction that would continue, Amendment 25 is otiose or not needed. Under new Section 42A(5) on page 6 of the Bill, there is no right of appeal against a decision to make or not to make an order. If it is intended that a decision to make or not to make an order under this section could be raised as a ground of appeal in the Court of Appeal following conviction, how is that clear in view of the bar on appeals under new subsection (5)?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point, and we can certainly discuss it. However, as I have said, the Government’s view is that the designation of these trials is protected very carefully and thoroughly, and that should be sufficient.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, after 40 years in Parliament, I have come to revere the guidance given by St Brevita and the wise words of Father Concision, both of whom are doubtless known to the present occupants of the episcopal Bench, so I shall confine myself to three points. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support. I always welcome it; we very frequently think along the same lines. Secondly, I am glad that Members of your Lordships’ Committee focused on the words “appropriate” and “public interest”. That is a matter of some concern and perhaps one that we should refer to later. Lastly, these amendments—all the occupants of the raft—raise a number of serious issues which we may well revert to on Report. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the temptation to leave the country is there, but I shall seek to resist it.

The amendments in this group—in particular, Amendments 12, 13 and 22—appear to us to be intended to try to find a halfway house that would give some protection to the right of jury trial, while giving the Government some opportunity to reduce the number of cases that are tried by a jury. We disagree in principle with the Government’s overall approach, and so it would be difficult, and indeed inappropriate, for us to support the ideas that underpin these proposed amendments. It is in these circumstances that we express no particular support.

I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. It is an issue that has been raised before and that might be subject to further consideration in the light of the evidence from other common-law jurisdictions, but it is not one that immediately arises in the context of this group.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 12, 13, 22 and 32 all relate to allowing defendants to apply for trial by judge alone in the Crown Court. Amendments 12, 13 and 22 would introduce a role for defendant applications into Clause 3, which provides for “judge alone” trials in certain complex or lengthy fraud or financial cases. Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would allow any defendant in the Crown Court to apply for trial by judge alone, so that goes significantly further, and he set out the case very eloquently.

Amendment 22 would allow defendants to apply for the court to make an order under Clause 3. The court would have to apply an “interests of justice” test —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made that clear—before accepting an application. All co-defendants in a multi-defendant trial would have to apply, and the prosecution could not apply. Amendments 12 and 13 would make defendant application a mandatory condition of “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy financial cases. The court could not move on its own to make an order, and neither could the prosecution apply.

Any defendant in the Crown Court would be able to apply for “judge alone” trial under Amendment 32. It is not limited to fraud and financial offences. The exact process would be set out in Criminal Procedure Rules. The court would determine the application by applying an “interests of justice” test, but must have regard to various matters including exceptional complexity, prejudicial publicity, national security considerations and other named criteria. I recognise that it is similar, as he has just said, to a recommendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, himself.

However, the Government are unable to accept this proposal. The Government agree with the conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, that court choice, rather than defendant choice, should determine the appropriate mode of trial. This central principle runs through the Bill and we wish to maintain it, so I am making almost exactly the converse of the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, with the same sense of consistency.

The Government’s view is that we must redress the balance between defendant and victim. We have heard from victims that they feel the balance is currently tilted in favour of defendants, who get too much control over questions of venue or mode of trial, when victims have no say in this. Our reforms would achieve the right balance by placing the decisions on mode of trial squarely in the hands of the court. Decisions should be based on whether a case meets the statutory test, not the preference of a defendant.

Let me be clear that this is not to say that the views of the defendant would be absent entirely under Clause 3. Parties must be given the opportunity to make representations on a potential order and the court must take those views into account when determining whether to make an order.

I thank all noble Lords for a fascinating debate. I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, is leaving the country, but I hope we will hear from him again before he does; surely, it is not that bad. Given this position, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I am bound to say that, at the moment, I am disappointed by the position taken by the Minister. I can see his reasoning, but I am not sure that there is a great deal of understanding of the position of defendants or the arguments put particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and in relation to Crown Court trials generally by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I appreciate that goes much further than my amendments do. Nevertheless, that may be something we can continue to discuss. I would envisage further thought on whether jury waiver by defendants would not be appropriate in the Clause 3 cases. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, this measure is about reducing the ask we make of members of the public. I think we can all agree that being required to serve on a jury, not for the typical two weeks but for months, could have significant consequences for someone’s personal and professional life, and the impact is likely to be worse for someone self-employed or with caring responsibilities.

Clause 3 follows a long line of similar recommendations made by distinguished judges and independent reviewers, including Lord Justice Auld, in 2001, and Lord Roskill, as far back as the 1980s. Fraud and financial crime have continued to evolve since then, becoming enormously more complicated and with vast volumes of digital evidence, which are still dramatically increasing. That means that, for a very small number of cases, we need a new model that is fit for the modern age.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I want to make it clear that we are not suggesting this is going to save an enormous number of court days or reduce the backlog. This is about the jury experience, as I said in relation to the last group; it is not about jury competence. We do not think that there will be many of these cases. This is not about who can understand dishonesty better but about reducing the burden on ordinary people’s lives from sitting on long trials, with which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would agree, at least in principle.

I agree that disclosure and the case management of fraud cases must improve, and this Government have agreed in principle to many of Fisher’s part 1 recommendations and others made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson. However, even after effective case management, some trials are likely to remain highly complex or lengthy. This is for those exceptional cases—and I stress the word “exceptional”.

Rape and Serious Sexual Offences: Jury Directions

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, I remind the House to exercise our customary caution in refraining from references to ongoing investigations or court processes.

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

My Lords, independent judges already can and do give directions concerning rape myths, based on the specifics of each case. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we are taking action to stop rape myths being weaponised in court, ensuring that previous allegations of rape or compensation claim information cannot be used unfairly as evidence. We will consider my noble friend Lady Levitt’s amendments to the Bill on this issue, which will be debated next week.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, Russell Brand has just been sentenced to 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. Irrespective of the accuracy of every detail reported from the trial, the reports themselves have caused considerable distress to victims and grave concern among those who support them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of that harm. Does my noble friend agree that, while most judges follow best practice by directing juries about harmful myths and stereotypes, the fact that some do not means that it is now time for Parliament to require that such a direction be given—before any evidence is heard, not just at the end of the trial, when the damage may have already been done?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships would not expect me to comment on the Russell Brand case but I will say this: I pay tribute to the courage of the victims in seeing this case brought to justice. On the wider question, judges give a tailored direction to assist the jury where they deem it necessary, based on the specifics of each case. The primary source of guidance, as my noble friend knows, is the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium, which gives examples where guidance may be necessary. All judges who hear sexual offences in the court receive specific training through RASSO ticketing. The specific issue my noble friend raises is exactly what we will be debating in relation to her amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Does the Minister consider that Parliament’s imposition of mandatory jury directions would ever be an appropriate intrusion into the exercise of independent judicial discretion?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Government support the exercise of independent judicial discretion. We are, as the noble and learned Lord knows, taking measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to ensure that evidence in relation to previous sexual behaviour that should be inadmissible is inadmissible. There is also our approach to the relevance of previous domestic abuse convictions. Of course, judicial independence is absolutely essential to the rule of law.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s tribute to the women, and I would extend it to the journalists and media who have been quite dogged in this case. Does the Minister agree that any new anti-SLAPP law must contain an accessible early dismissal mechanism, such as that in my Private Member’s Bill, which is based on objective tests, to ensure that everyone subject to a SLAPP can access that mechanism? This includes litigants in person, such as Sylvie Berki, who has been subject to the most draconian injunction by Russell Brand—for life—preventing her even speaking to the police after accusing him of assault in 2014.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. As I have said, I will not comment on the Russell Brand case—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am asking about SLAPPs.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We will have an opportunity to debate SLAPPs again, not least in relation to the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while this House perhaps more than anywhere else will always be concerned to protect judicial independence and discretion, Parliament none the less legislates all the time? It is getting the balance right between discretion and rules that makes good law. Given the universality of rape myths in society and that in the past Parliament has intervened—for example, to prevent rape defendants cross-examining in person—this is a worthwhile debate that our noble friend Lady Levitt has raised.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I absolutely agree that my noble friend has raised a worthwhile and important debate. At the heart of this is the fact that rape myths are pervasive, widespread and widely damaging in our society. That is what we need to do something about. The Government want to ensure—I am sure my noble friend agrees—that they are not used to distort criminal trials and retraumatise victims. Victims should never feel that they are on trial. We know we need to do better on ensuring that victims of rape and sexual abuse feel safe to seek justice. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Levitt’s work at the Crown Prosecution Service to achieve that. But this is ongoing work, and of course the Government will continue to think about it.

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

My Lords, worryingly and counterintuitively, young people seem unduly susceptible to rape myths. End Violence Against Women found, for example, that only half of 18 to 24 year-olds recognise that rape is still rape even if the victim does not physically fight back, and that only 42% of that age group realise that a relationship or marriage does not mean assumed consent to sex, as against 87% of over-65s. Does this not underline the need not only for clear directions to jurors, with which I fully agree, but for more and better sex and relationship education in school?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, it does. The noble Lord’s points about the attitudes of young people are well known and deeply concerning, and they certainly need to be addressed through relationship and sex education. But it is not just young people: I make the fairly obvious point that we are particularly concerned about how some of these myths are perpetrated online and the access that young people have to that. That is why our work in the Online Safety Act, which is ongoing, will continue. This is an extremely important area of work, and the noble Lord draws our attention to how it is a matter not simply of the law but of wider attitudes in society among young people, and we need to address that on a very broad front.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Will the Minister agree with me, at least in respect of the following short propositions? First, the Court of Appeal has now, for almost two decades, been giving judgments about rape myths and encouraging judges to give directions in appropriate cases. Secondly, it would be a very good idea, before this matter is debated later in Committee, were everybody to read the Crown Court Compendium dealing with this topic. It is comprehensive, detailed and instructive. Thirdly, picking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will the Minister agree that it is unprecedented for Parliament to seek to instruct judges on how they should direct juries, as opposed to laying down the substantive law, and that to do so would be an unacceptable intrusion upon judicial independence?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. As he says, we will debate it next week. But the principles he sets out are of course the right ones, and I agree with him. I have actually read the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium on this subject, and I commend it to people where the guidance may be necessary. I do not want to jump the gun on this—we will debate it in relation to my noble friend Lady Levitt’s amendment next week—but the principles he lays out seem entirely responsible and sensible.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend on our Front Bench by saying that, subject to appropriate guidance from the Court of Appeal, directions are best left to the discretion of the trial judge, who has presided over the trial and is familiar with the issues.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I think I have made it clear, but I am happy to make it clear again, that the principle of judicial independence in these cases—in all cases, indeed—is a fundamental building block of the rule of law. We are not seeking to undermine that in any way. As I have said, independent judges already can and do give direction concerning rape myths; we do not want these myths to be weaponised, but we also do not want that to compromise the independence of judges.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, we have rightly been reflecting on the trauma that victims and survivors face in court and trying to see how we can reduce that. One of the things that make trauma worse is the sheer length of the delay between when offences are committed and initially detected and when trials happen. What work are the Government doing with the Crown Prosecution Service to try to see that serious sexual offenders are brought to justice more quickly, so that survivors and victims do not have to wait so long to give their evidence?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate on the damage that delays, particularly in the Crown Court but also in the magistrates’ courts, do to victims in those circumstances. That is why the Government are legislating in the Courts and Tribunals Bill. It is not a question simply of working with the Crown Prosecution Service, which of course we will, and already, do; it is with the specific intention of reducing waiting times and the damage those do to victims that we are legislating.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, the evidence is that judges sometimes look as though they have not actually read the guidance, which leads to very different interpretations and control of trials. In the north-east, in Northumberland, a previous PCC recruited a group of women as volunteers who were given in-depth training around what the law actually meant and said, and they would turn up at rape trials. The judge would know that they were there—it was all agreed beforehand—but it meant that the judges were much more attentive to how they conducted the trials. When that happened, you did not get what I saw, with one group of perpetrators behaving so badly that the victims—or the alleged victims, as the alleged perpetrators would have said—actually left the courtroom and left the case because they were being so intimidated during the trial. We need to improve how we do it. Can we make sure that we improve these things by widening the number of people who say something?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My noble friend is clearly right that if the experience of being a victim and giving evidence in these cases is so traumatising or retraumatising, one can understand—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate said, in the context of long delays—why victims would find that a really serious problem. As I have said, that leads to us not having the track record that we would wish for in prosecuting these cases. The specific initiative that my noble friend refers to is a civil society initiative, and I welcome civil society initiatives such as that as part of an ongoing social campaign to change this question of rape.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s comments on Friday:

“We need to do more to support victims of sexual assault and rape, and we will do that”


have been broadly welcomed by survivors but have also raised expectations of swift action. What concrete steps are the Government going to take to provide that support?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and pay tribute to her for her own work in this area. On what we are doing to support rape victims, we are introducing independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape this year, with £6 million of initial funding over the next two years. We are introducing a package of crucial legislative reform to protect victims, which I have already talked about, and we are delivering on our commitment to introduce a specialist rape and serious sexual offences court, backed by £23 million of funding. That is an extremely important initiative—and I see the noble Baroness nodding in agreement. The way in which those courts are rolled out—and, as she knows, we are rolling them out— will, we hope, make a big difference.

Finally, we are establishing a new rape justice taskforce, chaired by the Lord Chancellor and bringing together leaders from across the criminal justice system, directly to tackle the rising rate of postponed rape trials and confront the rape myths that cause victims to withdraw from their own cases. I hope that that full answer gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks.

Prison Recalls: Breach of Licence

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in response to the number of recalls to prison for breach of licence in the year to June.

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

My Lords, recall is an essential public protection tool. Through the Sentencing Act we have reformed recall, replacing short-term recalls at 14 and 28 days with a fixed-term recall of 56 days, to provide time to address risks and resettlement needs to ensure safe re-release.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, MoJ data between April and June this year shows 12,278 releases from custodial sentences, and 11,898 recall prison admissions. Despite radical early release schemes, we seem only to be breaking even. The Minister has a great track record in offender rehabilitation, but the Government need to end this merry-go-round and make prisons a place of reform. How will they ensure that politicians no longer ignore the game-changing role that relationships play in rehabilitation? HMPPS staff and front-line charities are completely seized of its importance but need those responsible for policy setting to make the case to a public desperate for change. Will the Government buck the trend of the last 20 years and explain why they are not being soft on crime to make healthy relationships prominent in penal policy?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Well I hope we do buck the trend, certainly of the last 14 years, but I will answer the noble Lord fully. Recall is a public protection measure, as he knows, and people are recalled because they have broken licence conditions. The way for offenders to avoid recall is to comply with their licence conditions. On his wider point about relationships and rehabilitation, I think he knows, as we have worked together on this before, that I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is saying. If there is indeed a gap between policy and practice, I shall be very happy to champion closing it—with, of course, his wise advice and help.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that special steps are urgently needed to reduce the number of IPP prisoners recalled for breach of licence conditions?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I do agree with that, and I am very proud that the Government have announced decisive steps to address the IPP problem. It has gone on far too long and we are going to address it, as the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have announced. I should say, of course, that we shall not compromise public protection in doing that and, with regard to recall of IPP prisoners, we must make sure that the public are safe. But, as far as the IPP sentence is concerned, it must go.

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

My Lords, recalls are at their highest level ever, with more people now being recalled than are released. More than 70% of recalls follow non-compliance, while only a fifth follow reoffending. Non-compliance is often not deliberate but results from an inability to meet conditions, often because of housing or debt issues, rather than wilful breaches. How is it decided where recalled prisoners are placed and what support they are offered while back in prison for 56 days to help break the cycle of repeated recalls?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There are several parts to that question; let me try and answer them quickly. On the question of recalls for administrative breaches, we are trying to improve the administrative procedures and use technology to ensure that, as far as possible, offenders on licence can avoid recall for those reasons. Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right: the way to avoid recall is to prevent people becoming homeless and support all the protecting factors that prevent reoffending or, indeed, recall. Since we started our community accommodation service in HMPPS, we have helped to house 36,000 people, and the number of homeless ex-offenders has come down, but there is more to do. Finally, on the 56 days point, the reason we have done that, as the noble Lord knows, is to ensure that something meaningful and purposeful can happen when people are recalled.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, picking up on the last two speakers, there are countless people serving IPP sentences who have been recalled for no further offence but who have to wait up to two years to satisfy the Parole Board that they are indeed safe for release. Does the Minister agree that IPP prisoners who have been deemed safe for release should not have to prove yet again that they should regain their freedom?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I think my noble friend knows my views on this; we have worked closely together. He is a tireless campaigner on behalf of IPP prisoners and I pay tribute to him for that. We are going to end the IPP sentence without compromising public protection, and that includes ending the licence period.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think we can all agree that, unless we have the facts about a government policy, none of us can evaluate it properly. The Telegraph reported that, in the first week after the introduction of the early release scheme, the number of recalls went up by 10%. In the Ministry of Justice figures released last week, in the relevant quarter the number of recalls went up by 27%, but no data is provided on how much of that 27% is due to the early release scheme. Will the Minister commit to providing that disaggregated data, so that we can see precisely how many of the recalls are due to the early release scheme?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

May I politely correct the noble Lord, first of all? It is not an early release scheme? Early release schemes were started as an emergency measure under the last Government. What we have introduced under the Sentencing Act, which I have spent many happy hours here debating, is an earned progression scheme.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Well, noble Lords may laugh; I am sorry, but this is a big change in sentencing policy which we have debated at length, and it is now the law of the land. It is very early days for people released as part of this model. The data would not be meaningful, but we will publish data in the normal way.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

Can the Minister give a breakdown of the types of perpetrators that are being recalled to prison: for example, how many are domestic abuse or sexual abuse perpetrators?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

As I say, we will publish the data in the normal way, but I am very happy to point the noble Baroness to where that data is available and what breakdown is given.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, many of the prisoners who are released have drink and drug addiction problems. Is the Minister not concerned, as I am, that we have unfilled beds in residential rehab centres around the country, yet we have prisoners being released who are then quickly going back to drink and drugs, when we should be making a match, filling those beds, getting people proper recovery and stopping the cycle?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I am concerned about that. I know from being involved with HMPPS for many years that the pathways to drug treatment for people leaving prison are very complicated and disparate around the country. We need to improve access and, as my noble friend said, the matching to drug treatment services. It cannot be right that more offenders need to receive that treatment when the treatment is available. It is an absolutely crucial part of reducing reoffending.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on why prisoners breach licence conditions, as we have seen prisoners released early armed with tents because they do not have houses to go to, is that not a guarantee that they will breach their licensing conditions, as the Probation Service seems to be using recall as a mechanism to cope with the early release system by getting people off the books? Is it not the case that policy is assisting them to breach their licence conditions? Secondly, on the IPP question, will the Government look urgently at removing the IPP label from those in the community who have had to jump through high-threshold hoops to prove they are safe for release? Why not just get rid of the IPP label so that they will not be recalled egregiously and promiscuously, as too many of them are?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I should make it absolutely clear to your Lordships’ House that we do not issue tents to people leaving prison, and the noble Baroness should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. On the question of IPPs, I was pleased that she attended our briefing on that, so she knows the progress we are making on that and I appreciate her support—and I wish all noble Lords a good day off tomorrow.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

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

The draft remedial order was laid to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SW v the United Kingdom. It amends Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith, where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under Article 8—the right to respect for private and family life—of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government consider that amending Section 9(3) in this way is the appropriate approach to ensure that we meet our international obligations, while respecting the important principle of judicial immunity.

The applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings in his judgment on the professional conduct of SW, without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond, and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant’s assignment with the local authority was subsequently terminated.

In 2016, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s Article 8 rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that there had been a breach of Article 13 of the convention—the right to an effective remedy—read together with Article 8. The breach arose because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her Article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages, which has been paid.

We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment which, in this case, requires legislative change to ensure that similar violations will not arise in the future. The Human Rights Act contains powers in Section 10 and Schedule 2 to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 17 July 2025, the Government laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Government considered that this addressed the specific findings of the court.

In November 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order. We are grateful for the committee’s scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order, which addresses the specific breach of Article 13 identified by the court in SW. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of Article 13 where judicial acts infringe upon convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principled exceptions to Section 9(3) or considering removing the provision entirely, alongside a number of recommendations to amend the drafting.

While we recognise the committee’s recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully, the Government have decided to continue with the current approach for the order, and have implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further as it has been five years since the judgment became final. We have taken care to ensure that the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the court in SW v UK while respecting the principle of judicial immunity.

Although the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertaking a review of the operation of Section 9(3) separately to the implementation of this judgment, in consultation with the judiciary, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order that has been laid. We welcome the Joint Committee’s recommendation that both Houses approve the order.

Noble Lords will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity, which is a long-established common law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that it was fully sighted on our plans.

Finally, given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this order would apply UK-wide. Officials have been in contact with the devolved Governments during the process of drafting this amendment.

This draft order ensures that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with Article 8, on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that article. I beg to move.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and, more importantly, place on record that I was the Minister in the previous Government who held the posts that the noble Lord now holds. This proposed statutory instrument—or an instrument along these lines—came before me at the time and I declined to allow the department to proceed with a statutory instrument, not on the basis that we should do nothing to implement the relevant judgment of the Court of Human Rights but on the basis that it should be done by primary legislation and that the statutory instrument rule is quite wrong for this kind of instrument.

I relied particularly on two things. In 2021, as noble Lords will recall, the then Government commissioned a review of the working of the Human Rights Act 1998, chaired by Sir Peter Gross, who had a distinguished panel in support and came out with an impressive report. A major recommendation of that report was that, although one can have remedial orders to amend various Acts of Parliament, that should never be done in relation to the Human Rights Act itself, because that is the foundation stone of the whole system and a foundational Act by Parliament, so amendments to the Human Rights Act itself should be done only by primary legislation. I was not, as the Minister, prepared to go against that very important recommendation and constitutional safeguard. That was the first reason.

The second reason was that this instrument has profound constitutional implications anyway. As the Minister has just said, the principle of judicial independence is a foundational principle of our constitution. In order to protect judicial independence, we have for centuries held that judicial acts made in good faith are immune from damages. That is also a foundational principle of the constitution, and again I took the view that if one was going to modify or weaken that principle, that should be done by Parliament and by primary legislation.

From the point of view of judicial independence, once one allows people to sue a judge or the court for acts done in a judicial capacity, there are two fundamental problems. One is that you are undermining the independence of the judiciary fairly self-evidently. The second is that you are opening up a second route of appeal from the decision in question, and that is a serious matter. I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that this should be done only with the full consent of both Houses of Parliament, properly and fully debated on the Floor of both Houses, following normal procedure for primary legislation.

I regret to say that by proceeding by this route, the Government have taken the wrong course. They have shown profound disrespect to Sir Peter Gross and his distinguished panel in this regard and have managed simultaneously to weaken both the foundational principles of our constitution: namely, the supremacy of Parliament and judicial independence.

I therefore respectfully ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reflect on whether this really is the route that the Government should proceed with to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act 1998, and I invite him to withdraw this order and to proceed by way of a one-line Act of Parliament which we can debate fully to explore these very important and difficult issues about judicial independence, the way courts operate, and whether in any circumstances parties or witnesses in court have rights against the judges or against courts for what is done in good faith judicially.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, but I immediately say that I align myself entirely with the observations made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. We are dealing, on the surface, with what appears to be a very simple and straightforward order, but below that simple surface there is a raging sea of contention and debate. It is one that should be addressed by Parliament in the form of primary legislation, not by Ministers in the form of remedial orders.

When the Human Rights Act was passed, Parliament ensured that all aspects of the principle of judicial independence and immunity—what the Minister, rightly, referred to as a long-established common-law principle and a foundational constitutional issue—were preserved by Section 9 of the Act. There is a minor exception with regard to where someone has been detained, but that does not impact directly on the issue. The concept of judicial independence is central to our common-law system of justice.

I will come back to this point, but I make the observation that this is less easily identified in many continental legal systems. Many of those legal systems make up the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, so there is, if you like, a potential divergence in the view taken on judicial immunity and judicial independence between common-law systems such as our own and continental systems.

Five years ago, in 2021—I emphasise 2021—in the case of SW v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights intruded on the issue of the immunity and independence of the judiciary by determining that a remedy in the form of damages should be available where there was potentially a breach of Article 8 of the convention. It is in that context that we are now presented with the remedial order.

When the Human Rights Act was being debated nearly 30 years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, set out that the power in Section 10 to make a remedial order was to be conferred only in exceptional circumstances. It was a power to be exercised lightly. It is a point reinforced by the terms of Section 10 itself. Noble Lords may wish to refer to the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraph 6.3, which emphasises this. Section 10(2) of the Human Rights Act requires that a Minister must consider there to be “compelling reasons” for making an amendment by way of a remedial order. I emphasise “compelling reasons”.

Five years after the judgment, Sir Peter Gross and his board determined that there could never or should never be compelling reasons to amend the Human Rights Act itself—the foundational document—by means of a remedial order. There may be cases with regard to other primary legislation where such a remedial order would be appropriate but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, pointed out, it is a power to be conferred or exercised lightly and not one to be deployed with regard to the foundational principles of human rights as expressed in the Human Rights Act.

In attempting to meet the requirement for compelling reasons, we are told:

“We consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change swiftly”.


Is this swiftly? The European Court of Human Rights opined on this matter more than five years ago. As regards compelling reasons, when the Minister presented this order, he did so under the non-urgent procedure. There is nothing compelling about any of this. This is an issue that should properly be brought before Parliament in the form of primary legislation, and the absence of a suitable vehicle is of little moment. Indeed, I happen to notice that we are at present debating the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Will the Minister confirm to me that he has checked whether this provision would fall within the competence of that Bill? No doubt he has addressed that issue, given the way in which the Explanatory Memorandum is set out, but other legislation could be made available.

In these circumstances, what we are actually seeing is the developing jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg intruding upon the primary legislation of our sovereign Parliament in an area of fundamental constitutional importance and, five years later, a Minister laying an order under the non-urgent procedure seeking to maintain that somehow there is an issue of urgency and a compelling reason to intrude upon a fundamental constitutional right and protection. The time has come for the Government and Parliament to consider the increasing intrusion into our parliamentary sovereignty of an ever-evolving jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, particularly when the jurisprudence is significantly and materially influenced by continental lawyers unfamiliar with our common-law based system. I suggest that the remedial order sets not only a very bad but a very sad precedent.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am sorry we got to this rather late, because it clearly raises some interesting issues. I am getting, if I may say so, conflicting advice from the parties opposite. Let me try to deal with the points that were raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord German.

On the question of primary legislation, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, raised, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, we considered this a proportional and appropriate use of the power in Section 10 of the Human Rights Act, which was referenced: it does not prevent the amending of the Act itself. This is exactly the type of situation that the Section 10 power was created for.

I take the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made about Lord Irvine’s comment that it should be used lightly, which is in part why we are approaching this with a very narrow and targeted amendment to address the incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts. The scrutiny report of the JCHR was mentioned. I join with the noble Lord, Lord German, and very much associate myself with his sentiments about being proud of the work of the JCHR: it is a very distinguished part of your Lordships’ House. It was satisfied that the power to make a remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act can be relied on in these circumstances.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights also accepted that the conditions for compelling reasons—a point that has been raised—to use the power under Section 10(2) of the Human Rights Act were met. The committee also considered this question in the previous Hammerton remedial order and reached the conclusion that the Government do have the power to amend the HRA in this way.

On the question of finding suitable primary legislation, I do not think it is frivolous to observe that, in the short time I have been in this job, I have frequently been told that we should find time for one-line Bills to achieve something important. But we consider that there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make such amendment in the new year. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and I have discussed this before. I think he described waiting for parliamentary time as a “quagmire” in that debate. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to there being a compelling reason to make the necessary legislative change swiftly via a remedial order.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is right that this has been going on since 2021, but of course he knows what I am going to say: we were not in power until 2024 and I understand from my officials that there was a search for a primary legislation vehicle before this Government came to power and none was found.

I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord German. I think I should address the question of judicial immunity, because it is so central to the discussion we are having. As I have said, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, also said, judicial immunity is a long-established common-law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. The Government of course support that and commit themselves to protecting it. The immunity protects judges from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had—I want to reassure the Committee on this—continuous engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans.

I will just make some remarks specific to this remedial order. When the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed, the purpose of Section 9(3) was to preserve the principle of judicial immunity and to limit the extent of damages for judicial acts done in good faith to the extent necessary to comply with Article 5(5) of the convention. A further exception, as I have noted, was added via the Hammerton remedial order to allow damages to be awarded in the case of judicial acts that are incompatible with Article 6 in circumstances where the person is detained and, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained for so long. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned that.

This order preserves the approach of the original legislation. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord German, on the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we want to take the narrow approach so that we can preserve the approach of the original legislation by setting out a further limited exception related to a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under Article 8. There clearly is a difference of view between the Government and the Opposition about the whole question of the European Convention on Human Rights, and this debate is a small part of that. I wish to put on the record the Government’s support for the European Convention on Human Rights, as I have done before, but I am very happy to reiterate that.

I am grateful for the contributions to this debate, and I am sure that issues that surround the European Convention on Human Rights will return to our debates many times in the future. We believe this order is the right way to implement the judgment. It ensures that we meet the obligation to implement the judgment while upholding the important principle of judicial immunity. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we are aware that more than 5,000 released offenders were not fitted with tags in the first half of this year and consequently went unmonitored on their release. With the pressure that the early release scheme has placed on the system, that number is liable to have increased. Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of prisoners released as part of the early release scheme were not tagged before they were released? If he is unable to tell us today, will he commit to publishing that data in his response to the Written Questions I tabled on this very point on 22 October?

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

There are various reasons why individuals who have an electronic monitoring order are not yet tagged, including not being at their address when officers arrive or being within in the contractual 48-hour period for installation. They may have been recalled, or the tag may have been tampered with or cut off. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that the earned progression model and release under it are likely to have increased those numbers. The earned progression model has been planned and releases under that are different—I make this point every time I speak on this at the Dispatch Box, and it is a really important point. It is not the same as the emergency early release schemes introduced under the last Government and at the beginning of this one. It is a planned process happening in 10 tranches. We made sure that the tag resources were available through Serco, so I do not agree with that. On the question of data, we will publish data on tagging in the normal way.

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

My Lords, the Government now seem to recognise that home tagging after a prisoner’s release has serious problems. First, until released offenders can be tagged at home, they can be a frightening menace to their victims. Secondly, if they have no stable home, they can prove very difficult to tag at all. Yesterday in the other place, Minister McKinnell told my honourable friend Jess Brown-Fuller MP that tagging at prisons before release, so-called tagging at source, was being ramped up. She welcomed a suggestion from Dame Emily Thornberry MP that prison officers should be trained to fit the tags and were willing to take such training and do so. Tagging at source is obviously a better and, I suggest, a cheaper system and one wonders therefore why home tagging was ever an option. The Government have an extra £100 million earmarked for tagging. Why can tagging at source not be organised almost at once? Why the delay?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Home tagging was instituted under the previous Government and is part of the Serco contract, as we have discussed before. The Government agree that tagging at source is the right approach, and that is what Minister McKinnell said yesterday. We are rolling that out and are doing it in an orderly way. We are receiving a great deal of co-operation from prison staff as we go about that. That is the right answer, and that is what we are going to do. On this whole question of tagging, I think all noble Lords who work in this area know that tagging will be an increasingly important part of the criminal justice system. The way we go about it will evolve and, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, tagging at source is the future and we will get there as soon as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I remain concerned that the problem is constantly being framed as a lack of prison capacity, but there needs be a very different narrative which includes a major focus on reducing reoffending and addressing what underlies so much offending. Can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that, alongside tagging, the Probation Service is properly funded, resourced and supported to address the issues that underlie the offending of those who are tagged?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I hesitate to correct the right reverend Prelate—I know that is not good form, especially not coming from me—but I did not frame the problem as part of the prison capacity problem. I framed the issues around tagging as being related to our earned progression model. This gives me an opportunity to advertise the presentation I have arranged for noble Lords on 23 November on the earned progression model. On reducing reoffending, I should have declared my interest at the beginning, which is that I was the lead non-executive director and chair of the agency board of HMPPS until 2025. During that time, in relation to one of the key aspects that the right reverend Prelate knows is part of reducing reoffending—accommodation—we secured accommodation for 35,000 people leaving prison. That is a substantial contribution to reducing reoffending.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the Government have the right idea about tagging, and I support the Minister in saying that. However, I think there are serious problems in the operation of it now and the ambition for it for the future. First of all, tags are not being fitted, and if they are not fitted at source, they never get fitted. Probably more important is the future, with geolocation for devices, which allows people to be excluded from areas, as well as to be kept within areas, and sobriety tagging, which stops people drinking when drink is the aggravating factor in their offending pattern. There is no strategy as to how this is going to develop in the future. There is no real connection to the police or, as has already been said, the Probation Service. The current system means that an email goes from Serco or whichever commercial entity it is, and within the next few days, the police might get some information about a rapist who breached the curfew around the rape. That could all be done digitally immediately. I think the ambition is incredibly good—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My question is: what are the Government’s ambition and strategy for rolling out tags in the future? I have not seen one.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I disagreed with the right reverend Prelate and now I am going to disagree with the policeman—former policeman. I do not accept that characterisation. The situation on the specific question that the noble Lord raises about knowing where tagged people are is that by Christmas, because we are rolling out our plan, probation officers in every region will know the whereabouts of people on tags within 10 minutes, so the situation that he describes should not arise. I do not accept that there is no plan. I have already said that this is an important part of the future. It is an important part, for example, of the work that we are doing on domestic abuse in relation to alcohol tags. GPS tagging is improving. This will continue and it is extremely significant.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister knows only too well that the private sector is due to pocket an extra £100 million as a consequence of the expansion of the tagging service. As I said only last week, it is on its knees. It is very difficult to see how we can improve the situation when we have unacceptable strings on the table for the unions to accept. Therefore, does the Minister agree that HMPPS needs to remove these strings and give the staff a bigger slice of this £700 million pie, as opposed to their going on strike, which we do not need at all in this country?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend—my good friend—will understand that I do not want to comment on the negotiations that are under way, but I will say this: the staff of HMPPS have risen to challenges that many of us would find impossible. I pay tribute to them and they deserve credit. As we ask more and more of them, we will of course work with them to ensure that they are motivated and properly rewarded.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many of the 5,000-plus prisoners released have reoffended since this scheme started in its latest format?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The figures on tagging, as I have said, will be released in the normal way. We publish stats on reoffending and will continue to do so.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister tells us very clearly that Serco has been meeting its contract requirement since March. However, the Chief Inspector of Prisons points out that that contract requires specification of attempting to tag rather than succeeding in tagging; that 45% of GPS tags and 40% of alcohol tags have been fitted late; that one in five people has had to wait up to two weeks for a tag; and that, amazingly, one in 10 has waited up to five months for their tag. If that is contract specification, is there not something dreadfully wrong with the contract?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord is an expert on this; he chairs the committee and quoted all those statistics at me without reading his notes. He knows, as I do, that what we inherited was a tagging system in crisis. What we have done is to put the arrangements with Serco on a better footing. I do not deny for a moment that there are still problems. We have access to its performance data, and the situation is being better managed than it was before, but there is still some way to go.

Adults Lacking Mental Capacity: Child Trust Funds

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in enabling access to Child Trust Funds on behalf of adults who lack mental capacity.

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

My Lords, the Government are considering all potential options to resolve the issue of access to child trust funds. The round table held in July, hosted by my noble friend Lady Levitt, provided valuable perspectives on all options, and officials are moving forward with this work. The Government cannot endorse the banks’ exceptional processes. It is not consistent with the framework established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the common-law principles that underpin it. However, we recognise the need to find a solution to this problem so that the money can reach those who own and need it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Some £250 million is locked up in child trust funds, built up by children who are now adults but have a learning disability. The Government insist that the only way that these sums can be unlocked is by going through the Court of Protection, a cumbersome and at times expensive process that can take between six and 12 months. This deters many applicants and so the benefits are forgone. Will the Minister transform the lives of some 80,000 young people by building on the excellent work of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who recognised that the present system was not fit for purpose, and promote quick and easy access to these funds to bring to an end a manifest injustice?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. We understand the seriousness of this problem and remain committed to resolving this long-standing issue of access to child trust funds for young adults who lack mental capacity. This is a high priority for Minister Richards, who has engaged extensively with stakeholders and wants to move quickly towards a practical solution. The Government are very hopeful of making progress in the coming weeks.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the law currently requires parents of disabled adult children to navigate procedures which were designed to protect vulnerable people from fraud and financial abuse. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, where parents are simply seeking to access a child trust fund or junior ISA on behalf of a son or daughter for whom they have cared all their lives, there is a strong case for a bespoke and proportionate process which starts from a position of trust rather than one of suspicion?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Of course we do not think that all parents are a danger to their children; that would be ridiculous. As I have said, Minister Richards is looking for a solution in the coming weeks. However, as I am sure my noble friend would agree, not every adult has loving parents and the principles that underlie the Mental Capacity Act about adults—we are talking about adults—being entitled to agency over their own funds is an important one.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at least three-quarters of a million funds have been unclaimed so far, and they are attracting “kindly tracer agents”—though scammers might be a more apposite description. What do the Government intend to do to enable those 750,000 young people to get access to those funds?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes two points. I very much agree with the first one. It is deeply shocking, not just with this group of people but others, that scammers target people who lack mental capacity or have intellectual or learning disabilities. It is deeply immoral and disgraceful. On the question of accessing these funds, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Young, we are working actively towards a solution to this problem and Minister Richards hopes to announce something in the coming weeks.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, following on from the very helpful meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, held with several of us who have been concerned about this for many years, could the Minister tell us when there have been meetings with the Court of Protection to develop a fast-track process that would be compatible with the Mental Capacity Act and avoid the delays and expenses that are incurred, but recognise that these funds mature when the child becomes an adult at the age of 18 and that they are therefore legally an adult-to-adult transfer?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Baroness knows that, since 2020, various changes have been made to the Court of Protection framework to make this easier and cheaper to deal with. I will not answer her question specifically, because this work is actively under way, but I am very happy to set out exactly what the arrangements are for the Court of Protection. It is important to reiterate that the Mental Capacity Act is there to protect people’s rights. We do not want to undermine that in any way, and we will not, but we will seek a solution to this problem.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this House used the opportunity of the Financial Services and Markets Bill to send an amendment to the other place which would enable the FCA to, in effect, enable financial institutions to release these funds based on their existing knowledge of the relationship between the parents, guardians and young people, whom they know because for many years those parents and guardians have been managing large sums of public money on that child’s behalf. Will the Government please take that seriously as the Bill is addressed down the other end, because it gets us around the dynamic of having to make very extensive changes to the Mental Capacity Act and delivers a practical solution?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am well aware of the amendments that the noble Baroness put down on child trust funds and junior ISAs. It is fair to say that slightly different issues are involved in child trust funds and junior ISAs, but, as I say—and I hope she can take some reassurance from this—we have considered her amendments, which are now in the other place, and thinking about a solution which resolves the issue of principle here, which is that parents who care for their children in a loving and trusting way should be able to help those now young adults to get access to these funds.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has consistently talked of making quick fixes—although apparently that does not include the economy or defence. We have heard from noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that this trust fund issue could be easily and quickly fixed. Will the Minister undertake to share the proposal with our quick-fix Prime Minister?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I should demur from those observations about the economy and defence, having listened to the Budget with enthusiasm. I am not sure about quick fixes, but I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the need to resolve this problem. We will do so, because it has gone on too long; I do not seek to pretend otherwise.

[Lord Macintosh of Eastwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the work he is doing to improve access to child trust funds for young people with reduced capacity. However, is he aware that there are thousands of disadvantaged young people who are not even aware that they have these child trust funds? Is he aware of the work of the Share Foundation, in particular the campaign for release at 21, and will he look into that with a view to liberating these funds for people who need them?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am aware of that work, and I pay tribute to all the charities and other campaigners. I pay particular tribute to Andrew Turner, who has been heavily involved in this campaign on behalf of his son, Mikey, and to Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whose thoughtful and persistent advocacy has done so much to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I should have paused there. I endorse that “Hear, hear”—on this issue. The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Blunkett, have also played an important advocacy role on this subject. This is an important campaign and those are interesting and important proposals, and I thank the noble Lord for raising my good work—but, in fact, it is the work of Minister Richards and, before him, my noble friend Lady Levitt.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said he would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to say what was happening with the Court of Protection. Could he also undertake to place a letter in the Library, because I am sure we would all like to know what the Court of Protection is doing on this?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, of course I will.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend explain why the proposal for automatic release at 21 has not been accepted?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am not sure I quite said that. My noble friend will need to wait for the government announcement, which will come not in due course but in the coming weeks.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 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 thank all noble Lords who have met me to discuss the Bill over the last few weeks. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, for his independent review of the criminal courts, which provides the foundations for this Bill. I have now met him several times, and I hope that he will continue to work closely with me and the Government as the Bill progresses. I am always conscious of the extraordinary depth of legal expertise in your Lordships’ House and in this debate. I know that the Government will greatly benefit from that wisdom as this Bill progresses.

With some notable exceptions, such as fraud and online crime, crime rates are on a long-term downward trend. Nevertheless, we prosecute and sentence more people every year, and the length of sentences has doubled over the last 30 years. Despite that, a majority of the public continue to believe that crime is going up and sentences are too short. The prisons are full, and the courts have a substantial backlog. In other words, there is an entrenched breakdown of public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is at the heart of this Bill’s purpose and all the Government’s criminal justice reforms. These are not reforms of expediency or efficiency, but principled reforms to a criminal justice system which is steeped in the best of traditions but has also never stood still.

The nature of crime in contemporary society has changed. Criminal networks are ever more sophisticated, cases are more complicated, evidence can run to literally millions of digital pages—as noted in the Fisher review—and the pressures on judges, advocates, prosecutors and court staff are acute. Today, almost 81,000 cases are outstanding in the Crown Court—more than double the number in 2019. Nearly 24,000 have been waiting for more than a year and more than half of those involve violent or sexual offences.

Imagine being the victim of a serious sexual assault, finding the courage to come forward, going through the investigation, steeling yourself to stand in court and recount what happened and then, at the last moment, being told that your trial cannot go ahead. For some victims, the wait becomes intolerable and they understandably give up on the prospect of prosecution. Cases collapse and victims are denied justice. Defendants are denied the opportunity to clear their names and the guilty do not face the consequences of their crimes; they simply walk free. Other victims face the extraordinary prospect of waiting longer for justice than the convicted offender may ultimately spend in prison.

Justice delayed is justice denied. That phrase has been used a great deal in this debate and I am sure that it will be used again today, but it is the heart of our concern. Last year alone, the number of cases requiring a trial was nearly a quarter higher than in 2019. The conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, was clear: we need investment, modernisation and, crucially, structural reform. This Government are acting on all three. Let me set them out in turn.

We have put record investment into the courts, including £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades. We have recruited more judges and magistrates and have put record funding into criminal legal aid. The Government have removed the cap on Crown Court sitting days so that all available judicial capacity can be used to hear cases. We have also committed more than £550 million to support services over the remainder of this Parliament to help victims through the delays.

I turn to modernising. Working with the judiciary, we are improving how cases are listed. We are rolling out case co-ordinators for every Crown Court centre and investing in better video technology so that more hearings can take place remotely. However, we also need practical, proportionate, structural reform to deliver faster, fairer justice for the 21st century. The measures in this Bill are designed to ensure that court time is used proportionately to maintain the balance between victims and defendants, and to make it clear that the court is the decision-maker, not the defendant.

Central to that approach is a significant strengthening of our magistrates’ courts. Magistrates’ courts already deal with the overwhelming majority of criminal cases fairly and efficiently. Yet too many cases that could be resolved by magistrates are pushed into the Crown Court, adding to pressures on a Crown Court system that must also deal with murder, rape and the other most serious offences.

The Bill addresses this in three ways. First, it provides the power to extend magistrates’ court sentencing power to 18 or 24 months for offences that are triable either way. The Government’s intention, depending on when we get Royal Assent for the Bill, is to increase sentencing powers to 18 months later next year. This does not increase the maximum sentence for any offence. It simply allows appropriate cases to be concluded in the magistrates’ courts, which deal with these cases around four times faster than the Crown Court.

Secondly, the Bill changes who decides where some cases are heard. For “either way” offences, defendants will no longer have an automatic right to elect for Crown Court trial. Instead, magistrates and district judges sitting in the magistrates’ court will determine the appropriate venue, having regard to the seriousness and complexity of the case. Decisions about where cases are heard should rest with the courts, not with defendants, who may have an incentive to prolong proceedings in the hope that the case might eventually collapse. This will help ensure that valuable Crown Court time is reserved for cases that genuinely require it, but it will also ensure that all cases that can be heard by magistrates are heard in the magistrates’ court far sooner and more quickly than if they had joined the queue for the Crown Court.

Thirdly, the Bill reforms appeals from magistrates’ courts. At present, an appeal to the Crown Court requires a complete rehearing, even where the grounds for the challenge are weak. This places further demands on court time and can require victims and witnesses to relive their experiences unnecessarily. The Bill therefore introduces a permission stage to filter out appeals without sufficient merit while preserving the right to bring a proper challenge. We will also enable audio recording in all magistrates’ courts, providing a reliable record of proceedings.

These are ambitious reforms, but it is essential that we have the capacity to deliver them by investing in courts, certainly, but also in the magistracy itself. I am sure we will discuss capacity in the magistrates’ courts today and in later stages on the Bill, so I want to set out straightaway that we are on track to reach our target of having 21,000 magistrates in place by 2028-29, having recruited almost 1,500 new magistrates in the past six months alone. Alongside them, we are strengthening judicial capacity, boosting the ranks of our district judges, who have the expertise to hear more serious and complex cases in the magistrates’ courts. Last year, we recruited 50 new deputy district judges and have identified a reserve list of over 80 additional candidates whose appointments are now under way. Alongside this, recruitment is under way for 30 district judges, strengthening judicial capacity and giving us flexibility to tackle growing demand.

Finally, the Bill retains jury trials for almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown Court, while bringing forward a narrowly defined provision for “judge alone” trials in the longest and most complex fraud and financial cases. These exceptional trials can last for months, placing considerable burdens on jurors through prolonged absence from work, lost income and disruption to family life. The primary purpose of this measure is not to save court time but to protect ordinary citizens from the disproportionate demands of serving on juries on such lengthy and complex trials. It is also about ensuring that our justice system keeps pace with the changing nature of crime that I have described. As financial offending becomes increasingly complex, we must ensure that our courts are able to deal with these cases swiftly and effectively, now and in the future.

Some of the current problems are simply unfair. The burden of court delays is not shared equally. People from Black and mixed ethnicity backgrounds are more likely to be victims of crime, while defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are also more likely to be remanded in custody before trial—a fact highlighted in the Lammy review of racial disparity in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the Bill also includes a provision for an independent review of the impact of these reforms on defendants from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The reviewer will be appointed within six months of the first reforms taking effect, with an initial report within 12 months and a full report within five years. Those findings will be published and laid before Parliament.

I emphasise again that the Bill is about far more than court capacity. It is about rebuilding a system that works better for everyone, perhaps especially by improving the experience of victims. For too long, victims of rape and sexual violence have faced not only delays, as I have described, but harmful assumptions and insinuations about how they should have behaved, how they should have responded, or what a victim is supposed to look like. The Bill therefore introduces important reforms to improve the way evidence is given and to make special measures easier to access, as recommended by the Law Commission. Alongside this, the Government have announced £23 million to improve the experience of victims of rape and serious sexual offences in court, including specialist courtrooms, better facilities and additional support. Each year, the witness intermediary scheme enables over 10,000 children and disabled witnesses to give evidence to the police and courts.

We are also committed to strengthening protections for children in family proceedings. The Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989, ensuring that children’s safety and welfare continue to be the foremost concern of the courts. This month marks 12 years since the tragic death of Claire Throssell’s two sons, Jack and Paul. Indeed, today marks the anniversary of Jack’s death. I am sure noble Lords will join me in remembering them and in paying tribute to Claire Throssell, who has campaigned with extraordinary courage to ensure other children do not suffer as her sons did and are better protected from abusive parents.

Finally, I turn to the remaining measures in the Bill. First, our intention is to bring the leadership of tribunals in England and Wales, which until now has been separate, into the judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice. The new structure will support more flexible working and deployment, as well as wider judicial career options, recruitment and morale. Secondly, changes to magistrates’ expenses rules will ensure that expenses reflect modern working life, compensating magistrates appropriately for the important work they do. Finally, a technical change will primarily preserve the unique status of the Old Bailey as the Central Criminal Court, to avoid confusion with the new Salisbury Square development set to open in the City of London next year.

I began my remarks by speaking about public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system: trust that when someone reports a crime the system will respond swiftly; trust that when a victim finds the courage to give evidence, the courts will be ready to hear them; and trust that when a defendant faces an allegation, they will receive a fair trial within a reasonable time. We are protecting the principles that have made our justice system respected across the world, while having the courage to change the practices that are preventing it working as it should in the 21st century. Our task is to deliver justice that is fast, fair and worthy of the public’s trust and of our reputation in the world—not simply to clear the backlog today but to rebuild a system capable of meeting the demands of tomorrow. That is the purpose of this Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, a powerful, thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. There is much for us to continue to discuss. Before I respond in detail to some of the points that have been made, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Stace on his excellent maiden speech and will comment on his rich and varied career. I do not think I ever imagined I would meet someone who was both chair of the Prison Reform Trust and the former CEO of Saga. I wonder which of those jobs is the more entertaining. Anyway, I congratulate him and I very much welcome him to our Benches. I am sure he is going to make a powerful contribution. I endorse my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s comment that his speech was humble and humane and, in that sense and in many others, entirely admirable.

At the heart of this Bill are principled reforms designed not simply to address the pressures that face our courts today but to ensure that our justice system is fit for the future. A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the Bill already, and I am grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that I promise to engage very fully not just with the Official Opposition but with all Members of your Lordships’ House, as I have already done on this Bill. I will continue to work constructively with all noble Lords who are interested in this. I do not underestimate what is at stake here, and nor do the Government.

I will address some of the points that were raised most frequently—as it were, the biggest concerns. If I do not get the chance to address every issue that has been raised, I promise to write in detail and will continue to engage. I will try to mention noble Lords who have raised these points, but I fear I will not be able to remember everyone and apologise in advance for that.

The constitutional importance of jury trial and the right to elect for a jury trial has been raised several times by noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Ashcombe, and, from rather different perspectives, my noble friend Lady Levitt and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The Government agree that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental constitutional principle. However, a defendant’s ability to choose the mode of trial is not a constitutional safeguard. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and allocating cases to the most appropriate venue supports that objective. The right to elect is not a universal feature of the common law system, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile said; indeed, Scotland does not operate a general right of defendant election, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, pointed out.

That said, when determining venue, magistrates will continue to apply the Sentencing Council’s allocation guidelines, considering the seriousness and complexity of the case alongside representations from both the prosecution and the defence. The constitutional principle we are protecting is the right to a fair trial before an independent court, and that principle remains fully intact.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the question of good character and the right to elect. In the Government’s view, allocation should be determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending and not by the personal characteristics of the defendant. Magistrates’ courts already deliver fair and impartial justice in the overwhelming majority of criminal cases. A Crown Court trial is not inherently fairer. There is no statutory or straightforward definition of “good character” for these purposes, and introducing such a test would add greater complexity and subjectivity to allocation decisions.

The question of legal aid was raised by a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. We acknowledge, as noble Lords have noted, that the Bill will result in more cases being heard in the magistrates’ court, where the legal aid means test is less generous than in the Crown Court. However, having looked into this, we are confident that the majority of defendants currently charged with “either way” offences will be eligible for legal aid in the magistrates’ court under the existing financial eligibility rules.

For individuals who do not qualify, however, support is available through the hardship review mechanism, as well as the free duty solicitor scheme, which may provide legal representation at the first hearing. We have listened carefully—this is an important point—to concerns about legal aid eligibility in the magistrates’ court in the context of the Bill’s reform to the right to elect. In light of this, the Government have accepted in principle recommendation 155 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, to increase the legal aid income threshold at the magistrates’ court. Final decisions on income threshold levels will be taken once the reforms have been implemented, subject to future funding decisions and operational considerations. I hope noble Lords take some reassurance from that.

There was a theme that ran through the entire debate today about the question of whether we were putting too much strain on the magistrates’ court system. It was mentioned by my noble friend Lord McNicol, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Mallalieu, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and, notably, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. The Government’s view is that the magistrates keep the system turning; they already handle more than 90% of all criminal cases, completing around 1.5 million cases each year, more than 11 times the number in the Crown Court, and deal with cases triable either way four times faster than the Crown Court. We of course recognise that additional demand will have an impact, and that is why we are increasing funded sitting days from 114,000 last year to 125,800 next year, rising to a target of 131,000 sitting days by 2028-29.

We have launched a multi-million pound recruitment campaign, and through this we are increasing the size of the magistracy by around 50%, as I said in my opening remarks. We are also increasing overall capacity through the recruitment of legal advisers and district judges, with recruitment programmes expected to provide sufficient judicial and legal adviser capability to support the increase in funded sitting days by 2028-29.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about magistrates and whether we have asked them if they support these measures. The Magistrates’ Association is on the record as saying it supports these measures, and it is in our own Library briefing that it is supportive of them. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and I very much look forward to working with her, as we are working on other issues too. She clearly has extensive experience. I particularly note the points that she and a number of noble Lords made about training, which is obviously critical. It is a statement of the obvious that recruitment is one thing, but getting people trained and functioning effectively is something else.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, asked me about models and assessments; the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Keen of Elie, also asked me about this. We are confident that the remaining package of reforms, combined with record financial investment and our work on efficiencies, frees up enough Crown Court time to turn the tide on the backlog and to start delivering swifter justice for victims by the end of this Parliament. My honourable friend Minister Sackman has made that commitment many times. In fact, without the operational challenges of creating the Crown Court Bench division that would introduce juryless trials for less serious offences in the Crown Court, we shall be able to act quicker to implement other reforms and begin reducing the backlog sooner. We have published modelling that I have circulated to noble Lords who have attended various engagement meetings I have had.

That modelling shows that our remaining package of reforms, when combined with investment and our work on efficiency, sees the backlog peak in 2028 before starting to fall rapidly over 2029. With the accelerated implementation of the measures removing the right to elect, and of the magistrates’ court sentencing powers, we can go faster and turn that tide sooner. Our model suggests that, in fact, the backlog will peak in 2027 before starting to fall. That means that we should be able to get the backlog down sooner in this Parliament.

I want to be completely clear with your Lordships about this. The data has been published and we will keep it under review. I shall be happy, as we go through Committee, to discuss this with noble Lords and to be clear about it. We want to be transparent. Obviously, we want the magistrates to have the capacity to deal with the extra burden. We have published our models, as I said, and I will continue to discuss those with noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, asked me about the Institute for Government’s observations. I understand that it has endorsed our model and said that it agrees with the analysis that we have set out of when the backlog will come down.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for their contributions on the court estate. Obviously, we know that this is an important question; a number of references have been made to buckets and so on. We need to address the inefficiencies in the system. We must pull every lever, not just for structural reform but for investment and efficiency, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, encouraged us to do—in parallel, rather than choosing between them.

We have started to modernise our courts through greater use of technology and AI, and we are developing specialist case progression staff in every Crown Court centre, expanding appropriate remote hearings and investing over £17 million in virtual remand hearings. Pilots to help reduce delays and improve court productivity are under way. Again, efficiency in the court system is something we will have to think about as we go through these debates, and, indeed, beyond. We will continue to think about ways in which we can make the physical, as well as the technological, infrastructure of the court system more robust.

I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, among others, about diversity in the judiciary and the magistracy. For all the reasons noble Lords have given, diversity in the judiciary and the magistracy is vital to maintaining public confidence, widening the pool of talent, and ensuring that the justice system benefits from the full range of skills and experience across society. Significant progress has been made for new entrants. This last year, women accounted for 55%, and 16% of new entrants to the judiciary were from ethnic minority backgrounds.

That is a positive, but there is clearly much more work that we can do, and need to do. That is why the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice are co-chairing the Judicial and Legal Diversity Board, which looks across the whole system to improve diversity while maintaining appointment on merit. We think that is very important. I have also mentioned that we are engaged in a major magistrate recruitment campaign, targeted outreach and streamlining recruitment processes so that we can attract a broader and younger range of candidates to the magistracy, and ensure that it better reflects the communities it serves.

The question of appeals was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord McNicol. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, identified that an automatic right to a full rehearing impacts adversely on victims and witnesses, who may not be prepared to return to court a second time. We know that some appeals succeed not due to an identified error in the original trial but because victims and witnesses feel unable to relive the trauma with a second trial at appeal. We would all agree that this is not how we want things to operate.

Magistrates already give their reasons for their decisions, and these will be recorded and available to the judge to decide on the merits and scope of possible appeals. I note the comments that have been made about training and access to legal advisers. I also note the comments about the Law Commission. The Law Commission’s report was commissioned in 2023, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, has reported since.

I now turn to “judge alone” trials, which are an important aspect of the Bill for complex and lengthy cases. This was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. We have heard concerns that Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill could be used, over time, to expand the scope of Clause 4 beyond fraud and financial offending. Amendments to the schedule can be made only through the affirmative procedure—I confirm that for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, who asked me about it—which means a successful vote in both Houses. Offences cannot be added to the schedule without Parliament’s consent. This provision has been included to allow the system to respond flexibly, as criminal offending evolves over time. Any added offences would also have to comply with the statutory safeguards for the policy: a preparatory hearing; a public interest test; exclusions for homicide and indictable-only sex offences; and judicial decision-making.

On the same subject, I was asked by noble Lords about dishonesty. This change is not about who understands dishonesty better; it is about reducing the burden on ordinary people’s lives from sitting on long trials. Disclosure and case management of fraud cases must improve, and the Government have agreed in principle to many of the recommendations of the Fisher report and those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson. This measure follows a long line of similar recommendations made by distinguished judges and independent reviewers, including those by Lord Justice Auld in 2001 and by Lord Roskill in the 1980s, as mentioned by noble Lords.

I am running out of time, but there are two important issues I want to deal with now; I will deal with the others in writing. I will address the question about victims, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. The case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of Emma—I realise that that is not her real name—was heart-rending, and I am very grateful to them for bringing it to our attention. We all agree that we do not want the delays facing victims today to continue. We believe that the changes in the Bill, not just to speed up these trials but in tackling harmful myths and the admissibility of evidence, matter. The special measures that are also addressed in the Bill make enlightened and principled reforms that will be of great benefit to victims.

On the specific question that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, asked, my understanding is that the judiciary’s national listing framework will put an end to the practice of “floating” lists. Along with these reforms, we are investing record levels in victim support services and consulting on a new victims’ code, as we have discussed before in your Lordships’ House.

I will say just a few sentences about rape and serial sexual offences in the courts. I note the comments made by a number of noble Lords about this very important initiative, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We can do this without legislation, so we are rolling it out. I am very happy to discuss that with her further.

Finally, on repealing the presumption of parental involvement, we heard powerful contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I absolutely undertake to discuss in detail those matters with them and others. This is a subject very close to my heart. I take it very seriously and I very much look forward to working with them on it. We have received divergent advice from your Lordships on this subject, so we need to work our way through it, but I think everyone agrees that we want to do what is best for the child.

I really have run out of time now—in fact, I have gone well over. I just want to say one other thing, which is to note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about out-of-court disposals and the comment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about getting to the root causes, endorsing the comments by my noble friend Lord Stace. I too think those are things that we should discuss further.

With thanks to your Lordships for a powerful debate and apologies for exceeding my time, I look forward to discussing these matters with your Lordships in Committee and, indeed, in engagement between now and then.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

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 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 to 27, Title.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—words I thought I would never say. I will definitely vote for his amendment if he decides to put it to a vote at any time. I have been with Government Ministers recently who sniped about your Lordships’ House being a cause of delay for legislation, which is totally unfair because if they did their job at the other end, we would not have to do quite as much here. I say well done to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker seeks information on amendments debated in the Commons. I therefore thought it would be useful, in keeping with responses to similar amendments to other Bills, if I set out the scrutiny the Bill has had in the House of Commons.

The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 10 March 2026, as my noble friend noted. The House of Commons then ordered that the Bill should be committed to a Public Bill Committee for its Committee stage. The Public Bill Committee itself decided its sitting pattern. The Committee completed its scrutiny in 12 sittings over six days. As usual, all clauses and schedules were considered, as were all proposed amendments and new clauses that were selected by the chair. The Bill was carried over, and on 13 October the other place took a full day on Report. All proposed amendments and new clauses selected by the chair were considered.

I have no doubt that noble Lords will add to the work of the other place with their usual high-quality scrutiny as we go through the rest of the stages on the Bill. There will, of course, be time to debate all the issues the noble Lord raises on the Bill in detail as the Bill progresses through this House. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I would say to my noble friend the Minister that it is not his fault that he got the short straw, but he answered the first of these Motions that I tabled four Bills ago. I am not interested in what the Commons said at Second Reading or in Public Bill Committee. What I am interested in is what they put in the Bill at the last minute without any debate or scrutiny. That is all I am interested in—not how they conducted their affairs in a Public Bill Committee. To say they had a full day on Report when it was two and a half hours, for 52 new clauses, is a joke. That cannot be accurate in relation to what we normally think of as a full day.

I say to my noble friend again that it is not his fault he got the short straw. It is an unsatisfactory response and I will be back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

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.