Criminal Court Reform

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement from the other place. I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for his Statement on jury trial, although I wonder whether he understood many of its implications before delivering it to the press and then to Parliament. The Government’s troubling habit of engaging in legislation by leakage, of which their recent Budget is another precedent, should, however, not distract us from the content of this Statement.

In 2017, while leading the review of racial bias in the criminal justice system, the now Secretary of State for Justice declared that juries were the only stage of the criminal justice system without racial bias. In 2020, he declared:

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement”.


Now, the Secretary of State for Justice declares that, in order to preserve jury trials, he must abolish most jury trials. This has echoes of the logic of the lunatic asylum. Herod declares that to preserve the family unit, he must strike down the firstborn. Or, more recently, there was Gordon Brown’s decision to preserve Britain’s wealth by selling off half of our gold reserves at near the bottom of the market. That decision left the country poorer; this decision will leave the justice system weaker.

This is the Government dismantling the institutions they claim to defend, then insisting that destruction is somehow salvation. A judge sitting alone in a Crown Court trial will have to provide not just a verdict but reasons for the verdict. Does the Minister agree? Such reasoning is bound to be the subject of scrutiny and then potential appeal. If so, are the Government planning to abolish such a right of appeal on the merits of the decision? In that event, parties with no right of appeal may have recourse to judicial review. Or do the Government also plan to abolish the right to judicial review in such circumstances?

Just how deep do the Government plan to cut into the body of the justice system, and do they actually believe that our system of criminal justice can survive such radical surgery? The Secretary of State for Justice tells us that this radical surgery is required to deal with the enormous backlog of cases in the Crown Court, estimated at almost 80,000 cases. So will the Minister tell us whether this proposed legislation is going to be retrospective? That would be an unprecedented and unconscionable attack on an accused’s rights. If in an each-way case, for example, an accused has already decided upon trial by jury and is now preparing for and awaiting that jury trial, are the Government going to retrospectively remove that fundamental right? If so, can the Minister cite a precedent for such retrospective changes to our system of criminal law?

However, if these changes are not to be retrospective, then the tens of thousands of cases that the Secretary of State for Justice refers to as justification for this exceptional measure remain untouched. The backlog will not be cut. Victims and accused will be no closer to justice. In stripping away a centuries-old right, the Government will sacrifice principle but fail to fix the problem. To significantly dismantle the right to trial by jury and gain virtually no benefit is not just an exercise in incompetence but an act of constitutional vandalism. We are being reminded of a problem, but we are not being presented with a solution.

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

My Lords, at the heart of this Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The Government intend first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable-only offences or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less and, secondly, doing away with the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial altogether.

On the first, a radical restriction of jury trials, do the Government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make-up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise. Importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only, would not all but the most serious cases of dishonesty be triable by judge alone?

Do the Government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Is that not a fundamental mistake? Let us take the Horizon scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence—three and a quarter years—only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins. Most sentences were between six and 18 months, yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to a breakdown or suicide. Those defendants would have no right to a jury trial.

What about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career, income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting, and who wants the defence of honest mistake or absent-mindedness determined by a jury? What about the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure, who will never work with children again if convicted but who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity?

The proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of the sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants gaming the system. In the Statement, the word “gaming” is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor’s thinking? That is an absurd preconception. Do not many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers, with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer. They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary, one from another, in their prejudices and judgment. Does the Minister not agree? The public trust juries, and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals.

How are judges or magistrates to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started or any evidence been heard? Does the Minister believe that that would be either possible or fair? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? Should not these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that.

Jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years. Lord Devlin described it as

“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

The Statement mentions Magna Carta and it prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta does not do that. King John was not asked to take his pick between Article 39 on jury trials and Article 40 on justice delayed or denied—the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice, and we should do that now.

Will the Government not take further steps to reduce delays? Steps should and could be taken, including having many more court sitting days, repairing the courts, having more efficient listing, and using more and smarter technology. Do the Government really insist that the delays could not be cut over time with greater investment? Possibly in some long, technical fraud trials—where the points taken are genuinely not jury points, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when—the mode of trial might be changed. More generally, do the Government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because they admit defeat on cutting delays?

I have a final but entirely unrelated question on the Statement. The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent on victim support services over three years, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the Minister give us more detail, either now or in writing later?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they made on these reforms. I have a great deal of respect for the insight that both bring and their observations about the Statement.

I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Many people may think that it a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them due to the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many years. Victims are now reaping what the party opposite sowed. We on these Benches have to try to put this right.

Many matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all in my short response now. However, there are answers to almost all of them. For example, he asked how we estimate the likely sentence. That it is done using the sentencing guidelines. It is done all the time at the moment; magistrates do it day in, day out in the magistrates’ courts, when they decide where someone should be tried. It is a task that can be undertaken.

One of the things I want to say from the Dispatch Box is that I have changed my mind. I have been a criminal barrister for many decades. When I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trials was fundamentally wrong. However, I then became a judge in the Crown Court and saw what was actually happening. Every judge in the Crown Court up and down this country will have experienced sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, “I cannot believe that this case I am trying here and now is actually in the Crown Court. It shouldn’t be here”.

We are not sacrificing jury trials—of course we are not. It has never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury; 90% are currently tried in the magistrates’ courts. The question is, where do we draw the line? That is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review, and we will accept his conclusions. It would be frankly irresponsible not to do so; we cannot ignore what he is saying. We are not going far further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, implied; we are doing exactly what Sir Brian suggested: having a Crown Court Bench Division to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.

This is a package to deal with the problems we face with the criminal justice system; it is not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is about investment: record investment is being made in the criminal justice system in sitting days and legal aid payments to the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors, whose fees went down for ages. The second is about structural reform, which is what we are discussing now; that includes the removal of the right to elect, the reform of appeals in the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court Bench Division and some reforms to fraud trials. The third is about efficiency, and that is what Sir Brian is considering in the second part of his report.

Gaming the system is a real problem. I am afraid that there are rumours out there that some people are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police. Some of those people know that the delays are such in the Crown Court that, if they elect trial by jury and decide to sit around and wait, particularly if they are on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but at least two or maybe three. They will probably be tagged, and when they come back to the Crown Court when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then. That means that the time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served. I have seen that, and that is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard—possibly dropping out—meaning that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people’s real lives. If tradition is going to survive, it has to adapt.

Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. It makes sense—of course it does—because you do not have to swear in a jury; such things take time.

Governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day and to deliver for the public and the most vulnerable. This means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.

One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that trials have become more complicated. There is good news: the police are arresting more people, and more of them are coming through the courts. That is what we want to see. But things such as advances in science, such as DNA, advances in techniques, such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, and social media make proving a case, and, indeed, defending a case, much more complicated than it was. That is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place.

For the courts, there is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that would not require the system to deal with some change. The delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation. We are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. That is why we are not intending to impose a sunset clause here. These are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody is quite sure what is happening. These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett of Maldon and the proposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I have done so because it is important that we see this as a constitutional issue.

It is necessary to go back to the achievement of the last Labour Government. Some still mourn the loss of the position of Lord Chancellor, and tonight is not a time to go into why there had to be change. It is important to go back to those times to see what the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor entailed. In many respects, he—and it was a he, save in the case of Matilda the Queen—acted as the linchpin, a person who could bring together the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive. When that linchpin was taken away, it became necessary to look for a mechanism through which the three separate branches of the state, each with their own independent position, could act and work together reflecting what is inevitable in a state—their interdependence.

Out of the change that was made—which was somewhat hurried, if I recall correctly—there was born a series of mechanisms to balance the constitution. There was the concordat agreed, which dealt with problems such as the appointment of leadership judges, which was a joint and shared responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. There was then the need to look again at the way the rule committees worked, because sometimes one forgets how vitally important it is that the rules work well, that Parliament has its input and that the judiciary and all those other interested parties have their input in producing rules of procedure that work. When you talk to people in other countries, you see what a huge advantage we have here. I mention these examples—and there are many other instances, which I will not weary your Lordships with at this hour of the night—that reflect what is, I feel, the spirit that was created by the previous Labour Government, which endured very well under the Conservative Government, but which is now being undermined by the particular changes being made here.

My noble and learned friend Lord Burnett and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have both explained how the Sentencing Council evolved, and I do not think it is necessary to go over that ground again. But it is necessary to say that the Sentencing Council was born in the spirit of needing to create the interdependent relationships between the three branches of government. The great thing about all the reforms that were made is that, by and large, they have worked. Of course, when you have three different bodies, there are bound to be hiccups, and there was a hiccup earlier this year. But one has to look and see what the achievement was and how it worked.

What the Sentencing Council did was to bring together the respective responsibilities. Parliament’s responsibility is setting the framework. Generally speaking, until we had the clauses that we discussed examples of earlier in Committee and which are of a completely unnecessary complexity, Parliament’s function normally was to set the broad brush of sentencing policy; unfortunately, it has gone away from that, much to everyone’s cost. The judiciary then pass the sentences, though they previously had, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett explained, issued guideline cases to achieve consistency. Then the Executive are involved because after all, they have to find the money to deal with the punishments, and they have to administer the system. So, it is necessary to have the input of all three if the sentencing framework is to be set by Parliament, the judges are to do their job and the prisons and penal system are to work as intended. In balancing those three interests, it was essential to have an independent council that could bring everyone together.

The great success of this is that it has worked. Now, why did it work? Why was it successful? Well, I recall, it must have been in 2009 that the then Lord Chancellor, Mr Straw, and the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, working no doubt at about this hour of the night, if I recall it correctly, in their shirt sleeves, were looking at the detailed clauses and agreeing the composition of the council—it went to that level of detail at the highest level. The compromise was made, and a successful institution was created; and successful it has been because it had virtually completed producing the guidelines by the time of the row that occurred earlier this year.

I would simply say that the idea of a constitutional settlement, carefully worked out in the spirit that was born in our renewed constitution in 2005 and in the actions taken in 2009, is the way in which we should do things if they are to result in success. Now, there was the hiccup earlier this year—I do think it is probably right to call it a hiccup, as it really was not much more than that if one looks at it and stands back. It is a pity it could not have been resolved there and then, but it cannot be any excuse for altering the delicate mechanism created by the previous Labour Government. There is no justification for it whatsoever.

It seems to me that there are two points. First, Clause 18 ought not to stand part of the Bill: it seems an absurd thing to say that the plan of an independent body has to be decided by one of the three parties that is involved. It would be a good idea, maybe, if all three were involved in looking at the plan, but why one of them? It makes no sense, and it tears up the carefully agreed compromise that was struck. Secondly, it would be much better if Clause 19 did not stand part of the Bill, because that is another aspect of this Government’s desire to tear up, for wholly unnecessary reasons, a proper compromise made by their predecessors in 2009.

However, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett that we should go along in the spirit of compromise, but I regard that as a compromise, and it is one that I would hope the Government would accede to, and not pursue the destruction—because that is what it is—of the careful balance worked out by the late Lord Judge and by Mr Straw.

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

My Lords, I oppose Clause 18 and Clause 19, and my preference is, quite definitely, for both clauses to be removed from the Bill. I have not signed the opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to Clause 18 standing part, because his reasoning is rather different from mine, but Clause 18 is, frankly, very strange. It is certainly pointless, just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said, but it is also, with the greatest of respect to the Government and the drafters of the clause, legislatively illiterate.

I can see no reason in practice for the Sentencing Council to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor for approval as soon as possible after the beginning of the year—one wonders when that is supposed to be. But if there is to be a business plan, it is a strange imposition of a new duty on the Sentencing Council that it must declare in advance what it proposes to study, research and support during the course of the coming year without knowing what is coming down the track during the course of the coming year.

In any event, a business plan is pre-eminently a document for the body that is responsible for it and producing it itself to decide in its own discretion and to determine what it puts into it. Clause 18 demonstrates a serious lack of trust in the Sentencing Council to manage its business. Why should the Sentencing Council submit any business plan for approval by the Lord Chancellor, a member of the Government—with, certainly, an input into the Sentencing Council, but not a decisive or determining input?

Is it suggested that the Sentencing Council would not be entitled to consider other matters in the year, unforeseen at the beginning of the year, if they were not in the business plan? If that is not so suggested, what is the point of the business plan? It does not delineate the responsibilities that the Sentencing Council will carry out.

The clause represents an attack on the independence of the Sentencing Council. We have heard from both noble and learned Lords that it was set up by statute to be an independent body tasked with advising sentencing judges on the principles they should apply to sentencing—within the terms of the law as provided by Parliament in statute and the common law, of course, but independent in its advice to judges.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explained very well some of the reasons why this group of amendments is so important. I note, as somebody who is a fan of rehabilitation—although I quite like the rebranding that has just been suggested—that the truth of the matter is that what passes for rehabilitation, certainly in prison, is often shoddy, not available or not up to scratch. By the way, that is not a criticism of the people trying to deliver it. It is for all sorts of reasons.

I am very keen that we think hard about what kind of rehabilitation is being offered in the community. I just cannot see how, even with a pledge to invest £700 million more into probation services, the Government can deliver what is in the Bill. This is part of the problem I have with some of the suggestions around rehabilitating people via community sentences. I am worried that rehabilitation and community sentences will be discredited if this goes wrong. The amendments are trying very hard to ensure compliance and that sentences are completed, and that the victims and the whole of the community and society understand what they are trying to do. That is why these amendments are crucial.

I want to state very clearly that community sentences are criminal sentences. They are not supposed to be a soft option. They have to be taken as stringently and seriously as if you put somebody in prison. If somebody is put in prison and they escape—however that might occur—we think that they are trying to escape justice. My concern is that, if we do not have the resources, or do not keep our eyes on ensuring that community sentences happen properly, that is escaping justice. Therefore, it has to be taken very seriously.

I have some concerns about Amendment 52 in relation to mandatory “healthy relationships” courses. I have some cynicism that the way to solve the problem of violence against women and girls is through education. I have a certain dread of the kind of excuse being, “Well, you know, I committed that offence because I didn’t know that consent was needed. I wouldn’t have done the rape if I’d been sent on a good course”. I hesitate to say this, but some people are violent against women and girls because they despise women and girls: it is not a question of having sent them on a well-resourced course.

I have heard an awful lot of excuses in recent years from people who say, “I wouldn’t be a sex offender if only this had happened”. Well, you would not have been a sex offender if you had not committed the offence of sexual assault. So I do not want this to be an excuse for letting those largely male perpetrators off the hook.

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

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has spoken to our amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of mandatory healthy relationship rehabilitation programmes for offenders sentenced to offences against women and girls. We have heard the Minister talk many times about the Government’s target of halving violence against women and girls during the course of the Parliament. That is a target we completely support.

The area of relationship education is a difficult one, but we have evidence that education in healthy relationships helps to address unhealthy preconceptions and outdated—what some used to call “chauvinistic”—attitudes in young men. Sometimes those attitudes spill into offending, and my noble friend was entirely right to talk of harmful sexual behaviours. She also spoke about what young men in particular see and experience online, and how they take encouragement from that to do sometimes unspeakable things.

The question of rehabilitation for sentenced offenders is whether education would address this. I accept that making such programmes mandatory is not easy, but doing so would or might emphasise their importance. I hear the cynicism expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about education for healthy relationships, but we have seen how relationship education in schools encourages healthier attitudes among pupils and greater understanding among young people of the concept of consent, as against the concepts of violence and force. I suggest that, for offenders who commit these offences, education would have the same beneficial effect, particularly if it is combined with a sentence for the offender, whether that is a custodial sentence or a community order. An assessment of that beneficial effect would be entirely beneficial.

In a sense, of course, this is a probing amendment, because we encourage the Government to make the position clear. We hope they will adopt the spirit of the amendment in any event, and that the Minister will commit the Government to undertaking such an assessment of the place of healthy relationship education, but we note that the amendment is also supported by the Opposition Front Bench.

I turn to the rest of the group. Amendments 53 to 55 and 57 would impose extra directions to the probation officers and impose burdens on them as regards the nature of the arrangements they make for rehabilitative activity and the flexibility they have in adjusting those activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, at the beginning of this second day in Committee, in which we have covered Amendments 51 and 52 and now this one, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said that we can talk about doing all of this but it will all depend on whether there are resources to deliver real change.

In Yorkshire, I went to visit a pig farmer. He was very successful and the chair of governors of the local comprehensive school, where Ofsted was making a lot of demands, particularly about the testing of children. Everybody was into testing and examination, but the resources to deliver what was required were lacking. He said to me, “Come, and I will show you my pigs”. So we went to the farm and saw the pigs. He said, “Do you see them? Those are going to be sold in about six weeks’ time. What matters is not that every day I weigh the pigs to see whether they have arrived at the right weight. To fatten the pigs is not constantly to weigh them but to feed them”. That is what actually fattened the pigs, not the constant weighing. Transparency is important, but let us be very careful that we do not overburden the Probation Service by throwing at it a lot of things it needs to do and that we need to know whether it is doing them. What that did to the teachers, at the beginning of Ofsted, was to make them scapegoats to be blamed for a lack of proper resources and lack of constant training of teachers to be better teachers.

I hope that the Secretary of State will not be given so many burdens in things he has to produce before Parliament every year that our eye is taken off how we turn our Prison Service into a place where people really are rehabilitated, where those who want to learn are taught, and where reoffending begins to drop. We have to pay attention to that. I know that accountability and transparency are interesting, but we can become so obsessed that, in the end, people are given more and more burdens and take their eye off the job they are supposed to be doing. I urge a bit of caution, particularly about the Parole Board and what we mean by accountability and how we are going to get there.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that certain things need not all hang out. There are certain things which require confidentiality, and, if we are not careful, we will begin to distrust the entire criminal justice system, because the public will feel unsafe and feel that more should be put in. We are all very keen on it, but how much volunteering time have we ourselves given to helping prisoners and the Prison Service, so that they begin to deliver better?

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

My Lords, I will address briefly Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and my name. The amendment addresses the need for a report on the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements. It goes hand in hand with Amendment 139B, in my name, which proposes reporting the levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed both custodial and community sentences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I appreciate that anything to discourage populism is a popular call in this House for some people. I just ask the noble Lord what the danger is apart from encouraging populism. When I put my name to that amendment, even though I did not speak on it in the end, some of the controversies around sentencing, crime, law and order, prison, and so on have been a failure to provide information. The noble Lord mentioned the grooming gangs, but the more information there is, the better. What is there to be frightened of? One does not have to draw the conclusion that any negative things will come from having more information. As these kinds of details have been hidden for so long, having them made available for the British public so that they can make their own decisions is something we should trust the British public with. The noble Lord is keen that we trust probation officers. I am keen that we also trust the public.

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

My Lords, I too am keen that we should, generally speaking, trust the public. But Amendment 86 requires

“all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts”

to have their

“country of birth … nationality … ethnicity … immigration status, and … the offence(s) for which they were sentenced”

recorded, published and laid before Parliament. That could encourage the drawing of entirely the wrong conclusions by the British public.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I seem to recollect that the noble Lord’s party supported, for instance, the Lammy Review, which looked at sentencing and led, by a circuitous route, to the decision of the Sentencing Council to fall out somewhat spectacularly with the former Lord Chancellor. His party has also supported the use of quite detailed empirical data around stop and search, which is looked at through the prism of race and ethnicity. What is so different? Is there a particular kind of empirical data that he does not think that the public should be made aware of, or is he just saying that this a poor amendment for the sake of it? It seems to me that the rationale is that you collect as much data as possible, you have an evidence-led approach to the policy and then you can design the legislation in the appropriate way.

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

I entirely agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the collection of data. What I am concerned about is the mandatory publication of all data, which risks being misused.

The noble Lord is quite right to suggest that my party supported Lammy. Indeed, I spent some time in this Chamber in debates on the sentencing guidelines Bill reminding the House of the Lammy Review on the inequality of outcomes based on ethnicity. That is quite different from saying that every single offence needs to be reported on and published, which can lead to unfortunate reporting.

Turning to Amendment 93B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, not only did I agree with almost every word she said, but I agreed with it profoundly in the sense of the benefits of participation in education, training and purposeful activity. I just have some concern about the use of the word “mandatory”.

In principle, all those things are sensible and beneficial for all the reasons that the noble Baroness gave. However, as we in this House know, many prisoners are struggling with addiction and mental health issues and some with problems of aging and illness. For those prisoners, the prospect of education, training, work and purposeful activity may be nugatory. I worry about too much use of “mandatory” in these contexts without consideration of all the effects. What is important, as it was in the last group when we considered probation, is flexibility and a personal approach so that offenders are dealt with having regard to their personal needs. That is an additional point to the one made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, who talked about the availability of particular training opportunities—which were important as well.

On Amendment 127, I say yes to transparency of the Parole Board. Generally, the proceedings of the Parole Board should be public, should be heard and should be considered. Reporting of them is a good thing. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there may be material that needs to be private. In these hearings, some discretion must be applied to enable the Parole Board to receive and take note of material that should not necessarily be made public. The hearing should make that decision. However, in general, the principle of transparency is one with which I and my party agree.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 86, in the names of my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and will respond briefly to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, just made in opposing that amendment.

It might be relevant here to consider the interim guidance published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on 13 August, following consultation with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, to encourage police forces to disclose the ethnicity and nationality, although not the immigration status, of suspects charged in high-profile cases. That interim guidance is currently the subject of a consultation being carried out by the College of Policing, which is trying to decide whether to make the guidance permanent or to withdraw it. The Runnymede Trust and other charities have written an open letter to the Home Secretary and the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council making many of the same arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made, opposing the interim guidance that publishing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects in serious high-profile criminal cases is dangerous, that it can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions and that it can fuel the rise of populist parties and so forth.

However, the reason for the introduction of this interim guidance was the speculation and misinformation about the suspect in the Southport attacks in the summer of 2024. The object of advising the police to publish information about ethnicity and nationality of suspects in high-profile criminal cases is precisely to avoid people speculating in that way and drawing the wrong conclusion, giving them the information to fill the vacuum that would otherwise be filled by speculation. The same arguments can be made in favour of Amendment 86. If the courts—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I invite him to clarify whether his objection to what I was saying is restricted to high-profile criminal cases, to which he has referred, or does he support the amendment in so far as it covers every case in the Crown Court and every case in the magistrates’ courts?

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I support the amendment and do not think it is excessive to require the publication of this data in every case. Would the noble Lord approve Amendment 86 if it was amended, whereby it was just information about convictions in high profile cases that the amendment was asking to be published? Is the noble Lord’s objection just to the extent of the information required to be published, or does he object to any information being published?

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

The noble Lord sits down expecting a reply from me, and he will get one. It is that there is and ought to be a discretion about this sort of publication. To have a mandatory requirement for the recording of all information in every case—and it may be that it also goes to some high-profile cases—is to tie the hands of what is published in an unreasonable way. It may be that, in a lot of cases, publication is plainly in the public interest and should happen. I accept and agree that there should be the fullest possible recording, and then publication is a matter for the department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments and spoken on the topic of transparency. It is an important aspect of the criminal justice system that it is accountable and instils trust in the public, who rely on it.

Beginning with Amendment 58A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we on these Benches broadly support the aim of this measure. Knowing the affordability and accessibility of treatments and activities is an important part of ensuring that the probation system is working. Such matters are vital to persons on probation, and they can make a real contribution to those who complete their probation periods. Regional inequalities should be known and addressed, so that all who are subject to such orders have the same means with which to complete their sentence. That may be an ideal, but it is what we should be aiming for.

I offer support from these Benches for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. There may indeed be real practical issues and objections, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has reminded us of, with all his experience. He is right to draw our attention to the practical difficulties in identifying and recording ethnicity and other information—that may well be for another day. That is a fundamental objection; none the less, we would argue that the Government should certainly be looking at what information can be sensibly obtained in this area.

I was somewhat surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marks, say “yes” to the collection of data in principle but “no” to its publication. That is what I think he said. Who will see it, then? Just civil servants and Ministers? Not Members of Parliament? Not Members of this House? If collected, it will certainly leak. Maybe I misunderstood him.

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

I think the noble Lord did misunderstand me. I did not oppose publication in any broad way; I simply said it was a matter of discretion as to what should be published and what should be kept private. The issue of universal publication is the danger that I expressed. It is a matter of discretion, relevance and importance, and those are decisions to be taken by those who collect the information.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category—that is, prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events—may generally be too wide in any case, because it is going to be very difficult to define a “public event”.

Moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability but with enforcement, spoken to in the last group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, foresaw difficulties in determining practicability, which he thought might be fatal to these conditions. I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question for the Committee in considering whether these conditions ought to be permitted is to see how far they would in practice be imposed if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability.

I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points relating to community orders, if I can put it that way, and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is pretty easy to find out where the pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and intelligence-gathering techniques might be needed to address.

However, when I talk about justification, it is right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement. They are in part, therefore, punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, which is a far more serious punishment, and one that with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender having the opportunity to undertake any rehabilitative activity at all.

The other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring, as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer. Although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, monitoring by tagging is no different from monitoring by curfew or by a residence requirement, which we have had for a very great deal of time, but the new technology enables a more flexible and wider approach to conditions. However, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.

Amendment 106 in my name would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes, but those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restriction zone conditions.

The purpose of this amendment in each of its sub-clauses is to enable both the courts when imposing conditions and probation professionals to weigh in the balance, on the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition, against on the other the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It is a classic balancing exercise of a type that is undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity, and that is really what we are talking about here. The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of it is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So, the condition could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions, which will permit the desirable activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions, and of course I see that. But these conditions are not perfect, they will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. However, for the most part, in practice, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there, and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach.

Questions of affordability were raised, and of course more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions, but those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the Parole Board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I am not quite sure how that will work—it seems an onerous obligation on the Parole Board—but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones. In a general sense, that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges on how they are to be imposed, and by training of probation officers in how they are to be implemented.

On electronic monitoring, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke, if it is proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree with her points.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. In doing so, I am sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of the Committee about these provisions in the Bill.

It has already been made clear that we on these Benches do not in principle oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody, and we support that aim. But Clauses 14 and 15 do little more than say that courts now have these powers. The Government have provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced. A ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise and, indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence.

The Government want this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community-based orders. Yet to support them in this effort, they are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub, club, concert and public event bans, without explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan. Are we seriously proposing that every pub, bar, off-licence and concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? The result would be unacceptable. If such pub bans become unenforceable and are reduced to a tick-box exercise in sentencing documents while nothing on the ground actually changes, the sanction will become meaningless. That would not be an improvement in justice.

The burden that such a regime would place on the hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. Pubs and nightlife venues are already under severe financial and structural pressure, as we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association. As a consequence of the national insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed on these venues by the Government, some 209 pubs—an average of eight a week—have closed permanently and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, never mind unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court-imposed bans on individuals under threat of legal liability.

The Government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie on public events or drinking establishments, but, in that case, they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a Probation Service that, as everyone would accept, is already under severe strain. Simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough. We require specifics if we are to trust that the Government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community. If the Government cannot explain clearly how these bans will be notified, enforced or policed, how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these Benches must ask: on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders, if we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work and without the most basic detail on banning access to pubs or events?

The amendments offer a simple test. They would require the Government, before we hand out sweeping powers to courts, to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified: pubs, events, promoters, the police? What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishments? How will these bans be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring: the state, the Probation Service or venues? If the Government cannot provide that clarity, these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions. They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real-world effect, and that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and public safety.

The choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers; it is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community-based orders; they demand that, if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by a robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith. We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her Amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to another important question that is central to the debate on these orders. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to his Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, such as to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.

On the part of the amendment that requires an annual report on the orders’ use and effectiveness, we on these Benches support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that the provisions in the Bill are working or will work. We therefore fully support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important probing amendments.

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

My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will make two apologies. The first is to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham; my noble friend Lady Hamwee tells me that I referred to him twice as the “noble Viscount, Lord Hogg”. The second is to my noble friend Lord Foster, because I referred to the points that he made on electronic monitoring as having been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I apologise to them both.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will join the trend. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for calling him “Lord Sanderson” in my enthusiasm to agree with him. Misnaming is almost as bad as misgendering, but I hope he will let me off. I was glad to take credit for the very important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about electronic tagging, because I agree with him.

I want to query the Minister now, rather than interrupting him later, about this group. There is something I do not understand. The group is focused largely on enforceability, yet in the previous group, the Minister claimed that these kinds of prohibitions were part of the punishment. He is right to suggest that these are punishments for those people—they are not in prison, but they are still being punished. But I do not find it easy to understand how these orders punish the individuals. Are they related to the crimes they committed? The example that the Minister gave earlier was that, as part of the punishment, someone will be prevented from going to a particular football match. I understand that, if someone supports Liverpool, it might be a punishment to watch them at the moment, never mind anything else.

How do the punishments get decided? There was the example that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave of the potential downside of saying that we will have a curfew and someone cannot attend their Gamblers Anonymous meeting. Also, if we are going to say that, as part of the punishment, someone cannot go to public gatherings, who decides which public gatherings are included? Some public gatherings are obviously morally good for people. Do we not want them to go to a political public gathering?

Can the Minister just clarify how it is decided which person in the community gets one of these orders and who makes a decision about who should be banned from a pub, football match, public gathering, political gathering or what have you?

Prisoner Releases in Error

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, on Wednesday last week, the right honourable David Lammy, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, appeared at Prime Minister’s Questions to not answer questions about inadvertent prisoner release. The Speaker in the other place sought his recall. On Tuesday this week, the Secretary of State for Justice gave himself up and returned to the Parliamentary Estate, where—despite what was, no doubt, his officials’ careful preparation—he told Members in the other place that the previous Government had inadvertently released prisoners at the rate of 17 per month. This would have involved the release of 2,856 prisoners. The true figure, as recorded in the Ministry of Justice’s own official record, is 860, or about three each month—three too many, but a fraction of the number that the Secretary of State for Justice gave to his colleagues in the Commons. Can the Minister reassure this House that the most stringent measures will now be taken to prevent the inadvertent release of any further erroneous statistics by the Secretary of State for Justice, given the alarm that these are liable to engender in the general public?

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

My Lords, the release in error of Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth and all other such accidental releases, which have been far too numerous, are symptomatic of a system woefully prone to error. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has seriously criticised the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to the House of Commons on 5 November. It may be that the Deputy Prime Minister made the wrong call in withholding more detail because he felt he did not have the full picture, and it may also be that there were errors in the detail of his response, but if he made a wrong call on that decision to give less detail, I accept that it was a difficult call and a call made in good faith. Of itself, it has had no consequences. The more important question is how and in what timescale we improve the system now.

We on these Benches applaud the appointment of Dame Lynne Owens to conduct a full review. Accidental releases and the systems for avoiding them are very important, not just of themselves but for the confidence of the public in our systems. The Statement says that Dame Lynne’s report will come at the end of February, three months from now. I have to say that we think that is a long time. Is there scope for an interim report? Within days of Mr Kebatu’s release, the MoJ took some urgent steps, set out in the Statement, to tighten up the system and introduce, for one measure, a more robust checklist. May we ask for a further action plan, pending Dame Lynne’s final report, from her and her team if possible?

We expect, as I think the Minister does, that much of the improvement required will involve the introduction of more robust digital procedures—initially, no doubt, alongside strengthened paper procedures. Will he give an undertaking that the implementation of those of Dame Lynne’s recommendations that the Government accept will be treated with the greatest urgency? Only in that way and with that urgency can the serious loss of public confidence in our prison security that flows from these accidental releases be recovered.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they have made on this important issue. On Tuesday at 3.30 pm, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the other place that we were aware of three releases in error from prison. We were also investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may have still been at large.

I can now tell your Lordships’ House that the potential case to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred was indeed a release in error. I can also confirm that this individual was swiftly returned to police custody on the same day and returned to prison the following morning. I thank Leicestershire Police for its diligent work.

Finally, the foreign national offender, who was one of the three the Deputy Prime Minister referred to, was today classified as a lawful release, following additional checks that took place. What I have just set out means that the current total of releases in error from prison stands at two, as of 9 am today. These are all operational matters and, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate, things can change quickly. The Deputy Prime Minister and I get regular updates on the situation.

Releases in error are symptomatic of a system stretched to its limits. Prisons are full, almost to breaking point, which makes them an even more challenging environment. I pay tribute to the prison staff working under incredibly difficult circumstances.

What we are talking about here is a paper-based system, with individual prisoners’ sentences worked out every time they arrive to a new prison. Prison staff must consider the type of offence committed and each individual piece of legislation it comes under. This process has become increasingly complex in recent years, owing to the previous Government’s early release programme and the scheme this Government were forced to put in place upon coming into office to prevent the collapse of our prisons. A 2021 review found more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance. Of course, prison staff go through full and proper training before they start their jobs, but the reality is that prisons suffered staffing cuts of around a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people. The knock-on effect is that, today, over half of front-line prison staff have less than five years’ experience. That makes mistakes more likely.

The previous Government had 14 years to sort this problem out. The reason they did not is not because they did not try; it is because it is a complex and difficult task. I have taken on this challenge and what we are putting together is a sensible and achievable plan. I can tell noble Lords that, of the 57,000 or so routine prison releases in the year to March 2025, there were 262 releases in error. That is clearly too many. Typically, prisoners are flagged for release based on sentence length and statutory release points, usually at 40% or 50% of the sentence for standard determinate sentences and two-thirds for serious offences. Life and indeterminate sentences require Parole Board approval before release. Eligibility checks, identity verification, outstanding legal orders and exclusion criteria, such as sexual offences and terrorism, are all reviewed before release.

I accept that there has been uncertainty around the precise number of releases in error. This is down to the data challenges this Government inherited. It is why, on Tuesday, we published new data showing 91 releases in error from prisons from April to October. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put in the public domain. Publication was not due this week, but we recognised the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. I can tell noble Lords that further breakdowns will be published in the normal way through our regular statistics, and Dame Lynne Owens will be looking at data and transparency as part of her independent review. As the Lord, Lord Marks, inferred, it is important that we learn from her review.

As noble Lords will recall, following the release in error of Hadush Kebatu in October, the Deputy Prime Minister announced stronger release checks. There is now more senior accountability, including a new checklist to be completed by duty governors the night before a release. In the case of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif, the error leading to his release—a warrant for his remand being incorrectly forwarded by email from HMP Pentonville to HMP Wandsworth—took place before the new checks were put into place. Human error will, of course, always happen. It would be impossible to eradicate it completely, and no Government should pretend otherwise. I believe our staff turn up every day to do their best.

What we must do now is modernise the release process with digital systems that reduce the scope for error. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver AI and technology-based solutions to support prison staff to detect mistakes and calculate sentences correctly and to ensure that they have accurate data available to them.

Public safety is, of course, this Government’s top priority. The Deputy Prime Minister has already given an unequivocal apology to all those who have faced fear, distress or worse as a result of the accidental release of prisoners, and I echo that apology. On those released in error who are still at large, victims eligible to receive services provided under the victim contact scheme will be notified by their victim liaison officer when the offender is apprehended and returned to prison custody.

Releases in error are the consequence of a system pushed beyond its limits. It is a legacy this Government are determined to fix, and we are already doing so. This Government have gripped this issue where others have failed to act.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by expressing my sadness—along with that of so many others in the House—at the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whose heartfelt commitment to and hard work for victims have been quite outstanding. I also thank the Minister for his opening, and his work on this Bill. It is a tribute to him that—with the enlightened and evidence-based backing of David Gauke and his team—he has had the courage to champion and introduce these reforms to sentencing, aimed at reducing reoffending.

The urgency of this Bill had indeed flowed from the prison-capacity crisis, which this Government inherited from the Conservative Government—whose responsibility, I am bound to say, was surprisingly not acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his criticisms of the Bill and his call for severity. The reality is that we imprison far too many people in this country, for far too long: many more than many other western European nations. There is no evidence of a reduction in reoffending rates as a result. As analysed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, we have persisted in increasing sentence lengths by legislating both for longer overall sentences and for longer periods served, but also by a general sentence inflation, possibly in response to political, public and media pressure.

The noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, captured this well in their critique of the regrettable toughness contest between political parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, put it into historical context with his story of severe judges of the past now being seen as “softies”. The number of remand prisoners has increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, and we have recently seen a record number of prisoners recalled for breach-of-release conditions: some 15% higher in the second quarter of this year than in the same quarter last year. The reality is that prison often does far more harm than good, and that is particularly true of short sentences. Where we can, we should be relying instead on effective and well-resourced community sentences, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester argued in her principled speech, supported in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.

Many of our prisons have been bad at rehabilitation: underresourced, overcrowded and understaffed, with the toxic cocktail of failings rehearsed today and regularly in previous debates in this House, including too many prisoners in cells filled beyond capacity; prisoners locked in their cells, often for 22 to 23 hours per day, with very little purposeful activity. There is a shortage of vocational and educational training, and too few staff to manage the courses there are. An epidemic of drug abuse is fuelled by widespread drug trading often, sadly, involving corrupt staff. Prisoners, adults and young people, with serious mental health and addiction issues—as well as the literacy, educational and social difficulties discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—find that those issues are all going unaddressed.

There is also appalling violence within our prisons. In June, the MoJ and Prison Service reported increases of 11% in assaults by prisoners on other prisoners and of 13% in assaults on staff over the last year alone, attributed in their report directly to overcrowding. There are persistently squalid conditions in many prisons with inadequate, cancelled or deferred maintenance programmes.

As my noble friend Lord Beith said, the criticisms we make do not apply to all prisons. Many of our prisons are of high quality, innovative and motivational, but a successful Prison Service would ensure that all institutions met those standards. In spite of all this, I accept the Minister’s overall characterisation of the commitment and performance of prison staff as incredible. But against a history and background of low morale, there are still too many who fall badly short of that characterisation, and their wrongdoing needs to be exposed and tackled.

The Bill recognises that reducing reoffending depends crucially on rehabilitation and on the Probation Service. It is worth remembering the massive cost of reoffending, estimated to account for more than half of the overall costs of crime in the UK—an annual cost of between £18 billion and more than £23 billion, even without the costs to the state of housing and social care for the families of offenders.

Central to the success of the Bill and the Government in their aims will be resourcing the Probation Service. The Government plan, as we have heard, to recruit 13,000 more probation officers by March next year and are allocating an additional £700 million to the Probation Service by 2028. However, we are seriously concerned that these figures do not add up, as my noble friend Lord Foster explained in detail—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others expressed the same doubts. Do the figures take into account three areas of extra costs arising from this Bill: more tagging; implementation of the presumption against immediate short sentences: and extra supervision of early releases on the earned progression model?

We welcome the presumption against short sentences. We have been calling for this for many years in the light of consistent evidence that such sentences increase rather than reduce reoffending. It is to be hoped that supervision of suspended sentences, together with conditions such as treatment conditions imposed by the courts, will lead to a targeted approach to rehabilitation and to addressing the individual difficulties of offenders in achieving rehabilitation within their communities, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. Suspension of sentences for three years rather than two should assist in this process. However, more suspended sentences should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, argued, reduce the making of community orders where prison sentences are not warranted.

We also welcome the introduction of the earned progression model recommended by the Gauke review for standard determinate sentences. We recognise the perhaps surprisingly beneficial influence of the Texas model. This represents a logical, sensible and, above all, transparent approach to early release to replace the emergency and indiscriminate SDS40 arrangement. But, for the new system to work well and fairly, training and education in prison must be made more universally available. We would argue that there should be better rehabilitative programmes for prisoners on remand, as well as for sentenced prisoners, and we will introduce an amendment to that effect.

The introduction of a recorded finding of domestic abuse in the sentencing of a relevant offender is a reform for which my honourable friend Josh Babarinde campaigned in the House of Commons. This should enable victims and subsequent partners of domestic abusers to be better protected from past perpetrators. We also applaud the overdue recognition of the interests of victims as a factor in the purposes of sentencing.

On the question of the Sentencing Council, we fully agree with points widely made by my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and others. We regard the Sentencing Council as performing a valuable and independent function in providing advice to sentencers. Nor do we see the Sentencing Council’s work as undermining the constitutional role of Parliament in sentencing policy, as the Bill and this debate so clearly demonstrate. We will seek to amend the proposal in Clause 19 to subject sentencing guidelines to a veto by the Lord Chief Justice—or Lady Chief Justice—and the Lord Chancellor, which is an unwarranted restriction on the independence of the Sentencing Council.

We have specific concerns about the recall provisions in Clause 29. Effectively, the Bill would introduce an automatic recall of 56 days for most prisoners recalled to prison. For less serious breaches, 56 days is a long time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, such recalls may cost offenders their accommodation or places on treatment programmes or the like. We will seek to amend this.

My noble friend Lord Beith mentioned our regret that the Bill does not commit to a resentencing of IPP prisoners. I agree with the tenor of speeches on IPPs from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Woodley and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made the point of principle, and he added an important point on the cost of IPPs.

We also reject the notion of publicly shaming offenders undertaking unpaid work with names and photographs. It is vindictive and unhelpful—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.

Overall, the Bill is overdue in putting rehabilitation and reform first, respecting the evidence on what works in reducing crime. Along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and others, we reject the Conservative Front Bench’s characterisation of these reforms as likely to increase crime and make the streets less safe. We stress, however, along with all those who have insisted in this debate, that the Bill’s success depends on providing the Probation Service with the support, personnel and resources that it needs. Ultimately, the potential savings to the public purse in reducing the cost of reoffending and the burgeoning costs of the Prison Service could, if realised, bring great net benefit to society, financial as well as social.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that, although I do no divorce work now, I once did, and I am still—rather by default, I fear—a member of the Family Law Bar Association. I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on introducing this debate in an area where she has campaigned for many years. I also thank the Law Commission for its very hard work in producing the scoping report, which shows by its very length what a daunting task reform in this area will be.

This debate has exposed a tension well described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, between flexibility and judicial discretion, on the one hand, and certainty and predictability on the other. Those advocating flexibility and judicial discretion emphasise the importance of individual judges weighing up factors in particular cases and deciding how to apply them, in applying Section 25 and to reach fair decisions. Those advocating certainty and predictability argue that the present law does not make it clear to divorcing parties where they stand on how financial provision orders are to be made. That is particularly unfortunate when so many couples are without legal advice or representation.

The Law Commission’s scoping report said:

“The law lacks certainty, and accessibility to an extent that it could be argued to be inconsistent with the rule of law”.


The charge of inconsistency with the rule of law may be overstated, but the charges of uncertainty and inaccessibility are serious. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, set out this case, argued by her persuasively, as I have said, for many years, supported by others, including the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who both concentrated on the question of nuptial agreements.

The Law Commission recommends a full review of the law but it does not express a preference between the four options it considers, stating that a full report is required once a choice between the four options has been made by government. The first of those options is codification of the existing law. I submit that that represents no real reform, in an area where it is quite clear that some reform is needed. The second option, codification-plus, would involve consideration of the difficult issues in this area: the position and enforceability of nuptial agreements, considered by the Law Commission in 2014; limits on the duration of spousal and child maintenance; the place of conduct in financial provision proceedings, including domestic abuse; pension sharing; and limitation. The third option is guided discretion, which largely overlaps with the second option of codification-plus. It would leave judicial discretion in place but set out clearly the principles on which it should be applied. The fourth and final option is the default regime, applied in some other jurisdictions, which would set out a general rule—probably some kind of community property arrangement—subject to exceptions to be more fully defined.

I argue that the Law Commission is rather ducking the central issue in failing to express a preference between the four options. For my part, I favour retention of some judicial discretion in the context of greater clarity and certainty, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I agree fully with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that some judicial discretion and flexibility continue to be needed to cover unusual cases.

I understand the argument that this is a political decision, ultimately for Parliament, but that should not prevent the Law Commission expressing a view on the options it has thoroughly researched. The Law Commission has, in the past, made radical and fully considered recommendations for reform. Before we legislate, I would far prefer to see a full report, including consideration of all the options and specific recommendations from the Law Commission to Parliament. It would then be for Parliament to legislate on financial provision law for the future.

Trials: Timeliness

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord’s question. It is simply unacceptable, and behind every one of those statistics are human beings waiting for justice. Our immediate reactions are that we intend to fund a record high of 111,250 sitting days in the Crown Court, to free up an additional 2,000 days in the Crown Court by extending the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months, and to make some capital investment. But it is obvious to everybody that simply making efficiencies and putting financial help into the system will not deal with the problem. The backlog is now twice what it was before Covid, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at fundamental reforms of how the system works. We are considering those and will respond in due course.

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

My Lords, we all accept that there is no magic bullet to reduce trial delays to acceptable levels, but does the noble Baroness agree that the most important factor is indeed the number of Crown Court sitting days? Unless prosecutions have to be abandoned—which does happen because of delays—all these cases need to be tried eventually, so there is no saving of resources by delaying trials. What steps do the Government have in mind specifically to increase the number of court sitting days much further and so to reduce these shameful court backlogs?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, and once again I agree with his fundamental premise. The difficulty is that any court in the Crown Court is a complex system. It is not just a room or just a judge; it is also things such as numbers of court staff, advocates and prison cells available in that court system. Currently we are funding 111,250 sitting days, as I said, and the Lady Chief Justice has said the maximum available is 113,000. But that is just rooms and judges, not all the rest of the infrastructure. That is why we are looking at Sir Brian Leveson’s reforms and will respond in due course.

Accidental Prison Releases

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that important question. I have been visiting prisons and been interested in this area for 25 years, and with the previous Government I saw a lack of investment across the board. There are three specific areas. First, they did not build enough prisons and did not maintain the prisons that they had. Secondly, they reduced the staffing levels as part of austerity, to the extent that lots of very experienced staff left, and that was especially so in probation. Thirdly, and connected with errors on release, there was a lack of investment in digital technology to help our hard-working staff, who spend hours and hours with boxes of paperwork, when it would be far more efficient and accurate if they had digital support to help them.

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

My Lords, the two accidental releases from Wandsworth, together with that of Mr Kebatu, which we discussed recently, demonstrate a continuing and frankly pretty chaotic lack of co-ordination. Will the investigation by Dame Lynne Owens, announced after Mr Kebatu’s accidental release, now be widened to encompass all the release procedures throughout our prisons to prevent recurrence of these mistakes?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord will recognise that Dame Lynne Owens is a superb choice to do this investigation. I have already met with her, last week, to talk about the scope. She will be looking at the whole area of releases in error and is already visiting prisons and speaking to staff. I want to reassure the noble Lord about two things. First, in my book the staff who work in the offender management units are amazing. They have to do an incredibly complex, difficult job, with boxes of paperwork, and to make sure it is accurate when there are multiple opportunities for failure in the system. Secondly, this is not a quick fix. This has been getting worse for a number of years and it will take time to get it right.

Prison Services: Insourcing

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the prison industry actually grows £1.7 million in value of our own vegetables and fruit. We also do laundry services for all prisons, as we do for immigration removal centres and the police service. We also make everything there is in a prison cell apart from TVs, which we fix, mattresses, which we are working on, and kettles and pillows—but we are working on how to do that ourselves. We are trying to do an awful lot in-house, but there is more to be done.

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

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are two particular areas that might benefit from insourcing when the review is undertaken? One area is tagging: this could easily be undertaken within prisons by prison staff. Numbers of prisoners have been released untagged into the community, causing risk to the public and potentially leading to unnecessary recalls when appointments are subsequently missed. The other area is prisoner transport to courts, where frequent failures have led to multiple court delays and increased backlogs. Could this too be better organised within the prison system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises two important points, which I have been very focused on since I took on this role. I am a commercial person, so I have been interested in getting into the detail on this. On PECS—the prisoner transport contracts—the performance levels are exceptionally high but, when things go wrong, often it is not down to the PECS providers; it is down to our own self-inflicted problems at the prison. With regard to electronic monitoring, we inherited a problematic contract and, although it is performing much better now, there is still some way to go. Serco’s leadership team has been in my office a number of times and we are working really well together. I recently visited its Warrington office and saw its performance, which really is improving. What we need to do is get to a point where the service that it delivers is excellent.

Adult Prison Estate: Support for Young People

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

As someone who did a little bit of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme many years ago, and not very well, I would say that it is great to see it working well in prisons. It has been going for some time in the youth estate, but it never followed through into the adult estate. However, since 2020 it has expanded to the estate for those under 25 and is now operating in 38 adult establishments. It improves young people’s confidence and teamwork and their relationships with fellow prisoners and the adults who take them on. The volunteers who work on the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award are fantastic. If noble Lords go to Wetherby, they may well see young offenders working at local food banks, litter picking and at the Boston Spa church, all under the Duke of Edinburgh scheme.

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

My Lords, since the 2022 policy framework, decisions on the actual age for transition from the youth estate to adult prisons appear to have been made largely on grounds of prison capacity rather than individual need. Should not transition planning be based largely on the need for continuity of courses and vocational training? Can the noble Lord say what plans there may be to ensure flexibility in the age of transition and the timing of transfers, to meet young people’s individual needs for training and programmes?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important question, because the transition from the youth estate to the adult estate can be a point of great concern, both for those who work within the secure establishment and for young people themselves. We have a complex case panel, which works on the best solution for that individual, including how we manage the risks and the opportunities for them. Sometimes, children stay beyond 18 for a few months, if they need to finish off various courses or if probation officers feel it is the right thing for them to do. But another important thing is that we have enough capacity in the adult estate to ensure that, when it is appropriate that they move into the adult estate, we have a suitable prison for them to go to.