Sentencing Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that in his response the Minister will be able to offer assurances that unless the whole tagging system is brought into the public sector in a well-planned and well-resourced way, prison officers will not be asked to take on this extra work. I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. He will probably not be surprised to learn that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support Amendment 77. I note the noble Lord’s commitments, but it would simply be a foolish burden to impose more administrative obligations on the public sector. It cannot be right to bar the use of a private enterprise where appropriate; the emphasis must be on “appropriate”. That should be for the Probation Service, as the commissioning body, to determine, with the Ministry of Justice having oversight.

Of course, our justice system should not be privatised, but the single issue here is delivery. This does not mean there are not benefits to be gained from working together with the private sector, especially as the current system is hugely overburdened. We should be welcoming prudent collaboration with private companies that specialise in supplying such services to community sentences, but only where it is right to do so because they are the right people and they pass the test of competition. We should not be needlessly blocking off an avenue that helps ease this strain.

This amendment is not necessary. The Probation Service is currently in the process of regaining control of community sentences. Private community rehabilitation companies had their contracts terminated and their responsibilities transferred to the Probation Service by the last Conservative Government. Community sentence oversight and management is already in the hands of the public sector, while private and volunteer suppliers provide support services. That is how it should continue.

We are in a situation where the public sector has responsibility for running and delivering the community sentences and, at the same time, can make use of the efficiencies of the private sector for supply on the ground where appropriate. Banning public sector involvement is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. It would come at the cost of placing undue strain on the Probation Service. If the ministry determines that prison officers should fit tags—here, I move from one topic to the other—because it is operationally sensible, then that should be done. If it deems that it is not appropriate in one prison for one reason, it can divide it up, but let us leave it as it is.

We cannot support either of these amendments. We agree that there is merit in demarcating the Probation Service’s remit and ensuring that it remains a public service, but prisons are not in the state to be taking on board more responsibilities at this time. Rather than attempting to legislate powers into the public sector, we should allow services to be dynamic. We should allow the Probation Service and the Prison Service to make their own decisions on the most appropriate basis. They are the ones who must react to changing duties and capacities. Sometimes this will require contracting out to the private sector; sometimes it will not. Merely attempting to close off an option for ideological reasons will not help best delivery of the services we need.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Barber for introducing them in his absence, giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the issues they have raised.

I appreciate that my noble friend’s Amendment 77 is founded on concerns that unpaid work will be privatised. To be completely clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I assure him that the privatisation of unpaid work is absolutely not being considered. The Government are clear that unpaid work must be robust and continue to pay back where it matters most: in our communities. The Government remain open to a full range of potential projects that help our communities. Were any of those to have any private sector involvement, it would be within the realms of the current requirement for the Probation Service to retain ultimate control and supervision. This requirement is unchanged and, as I say, we have no plans to change it.

For example, it is already possible for a private company to influence the type of projects offenders may complete through nominating suitable projects, such as graffiti removal in a local community. In these scenarios, the unpaid work would always be overseen by the Probation Service and the work undertaken would always serve a community purpose—I stress that point. We do not intend to privatise the delivery of unpaid work, but we should encourage joining up with local businesses and charities to determine how best to expand projects further and to deliver work that has the greatest community benefit. We believe that there is sufficient operational guidance already in place to support delivery in a way that benefits charitable, state or not-for-profit organisations and guards against exploiting any offenders for private profit.

Turning to Amendment 135, I will address the concerns that my noble friend raised. It is important to be clear that it is the responsibility of the electronic monitoring field and monitoring service provider, Serco, to perform the duty of installing and monitoring the output of electronic monitoring devices. I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the commitment to probation being seen as a public service. He also noted that this community rehabilitation company was brought back into the public sector by the last Government; of course, it was also the Conservative Government who put it in the private sector, where it failed, in the first place.

I recognise and deeply appreciate the vital role that the Prison and Probation Service performs. I stress that, as my noble friend Lord Timpson said, we see it as crucial to the success of these reforms. We want it to be able to focus on recovering from the challenges it faces and on becoming genuinely world-class.

The Ministry of Justice has recently launched a pilot to test the fitting of electronic monitoring devices before offenders leave the prison gates, instead of at a home visit. This goes to my noble friend Lord Barber’s third point. We are doing this so that we can begin monitoring them immediately, in the crucial period just after leaving custody. The approach is initially being tested in six prisons. I therefore reaffirm to my noble friend and the Committee that it absolutely remains the responsibilities of Serco to install tags at these pilot sites and of Probation Service staff to manage the prison leavers to whom they are applied. The pilot will be subject to proper evaluation so that we can take forward the operational learning and evidence it generates to inform future practice.

I hope that that reassures my noble friend that the changes we are making do not change the responsibilities for applying the tags. With those reassurances in mind, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

51: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after “duty,”, insert “or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the second day of Committee on the Sentencing Bill. Amendment 51, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, proposes a targeted and necessary change to Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act, dealing with the Sentencing Code. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that, where a police or prison officer is murdered because of or in retaliation for their current or former duties, that murder automatically falls within the highest sentencing category—that is, one where a whole-life order is available and, ordinarily, appropriate.

At present, Schedule 21 refers to murders committed “in the course of” the victim’s duty. Those words are too narrow. We suggest that the provision was intended to capture the most egregious attacks on those who serve the public in roles that inherently expose them to danger. However, the phrase

“in the course of … duty”

in the statute has, in practice, been interpreted by the courts in a restrictive manner, excluding cases where an officer is murdered because of, in retaliation for or in consequence of their earlier performance of their official duties—for example, when a murder takes place a while later, after service has ended.

This amendment would correct that anomaly by inserting the essential clarification that, where the motivation for the murder is connected to the officer’s current or former duties, the case will fall within the highest sentencing category. That is legally coherent and morally necessary. Motive is already a well-recognised component of sentencing. It is taken into account in terrorism offences, hate crimes, witness intimidation and organised crime retaliation. It is therefore entirely consistent with the existing principle that the deliberate targeting of an officer because he or she carried out their duty should be regarded as an aggravating feature of the utmost severity.

This amendment would not create a new offence. It would not broaden the law on homicide or interfere with the Law Commission’s wider review. With precision and exclusively, it would ensure that the statutory scheme reflects Parliament’s clear and settled understanding that to murder a police officer or prison officer simply for having done their job is among the gravest crimes known to our law.

Let me speak plainly. We have seen the consequences of the existing drafting. The tragic case of former prison officer Lenny Scott revealed the gap starkly. Lenny Scott, whose widow and father I and others met last week, carried out his duties with integrity in HM Prison Altcourse, Liverpool. In March 2020, he discovered an illegal phone in the hands of a prisoner. He was offered but refused a bribe to turn a blind eye. He duly reported it, and, as a result, not only was the prisoner discovered to have had a phone but it was discovered that he had been having an affair with a woman prison officer—which was pretty serious, if you think about it. For that simple act of professionalism, Lenny received explicit threats at the time that he would be seen to. Those threats were graphic. They contained details about the appearance of his twin boys, who were no older than six years old.

Some years later, on 8 February 2024, after Lenny had left the Prison Service, those threats were put into practice. He was hunted down and murdered—shot as he left a gym class, in a planned act of revenge. It was a murder directly and unequivocally connected to the past performance of his duties. This was a gangland execution intended to punish Lenny for doing his duty and not giving way to what had been asked of him, and to terrify and intimidate other prison officers into doing gangsters’ bidding in the future. Because this crime did not occur in the course of his duty but a couple of years later, the statutory framework failed to treat it as the kind of murder for which Parliament provides the highest penalty and the judge therefore did not pass a whole-life order. This is a clear loophole in the legislation, and I look to the Minister to put it right. How many more Lennies will there be?

Serving officers in prisons and in the police force must know that there is the added protection of whole-life-order deterrence after they have left as well as when they are in active service. How many serving or former officers walk our streets knowing that they will remain potential targets long after they take off the uniform, and knowing that under the law as presently interpreted, their killers may not face the penalty that Parliament intended for those who attack innocent public servants?

We cannot undo the tragedy that happened to Lenny Scott and his family, nor repair the pain, but we can ensure that the law is changed. We can ensure that the sentencing framework recognises that the risks to officers do not end when their shift finishes and certainly do not disappear when they have left the force. When a murder is motivated and driven by the officer’s service, the seriousness, risk and moral culpability are exactly the same. This is a plain gap in the legislation as currently drafted, and it must be closed immediately.

It is very disappointing that this amendment was opposed by the Government on Report in the other place. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together were in rare agreement on this amendment. I urge the Minister not to oppose it.

This amendment is modest in drafting but deep in its importance. It transcends political fault lines. I suggest that there is no reason why any noble Lords should oppose it. It simply makes no sense that a whole-life order can be imposed for the murder of a prison officer while he is a serving prison officer and while he is at work, but not if he is killed on the weekend with his family. This amendment would restore coherence to the statutory scheme and protects those who seek to protect us. I commend it to the Committee.

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

My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government during the second day in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for drawing attention to this important topic, which I have carefully considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

What happened to Lenny Scott is absolutely appalling, and we need to ensure that we do all we can so that no other prison officers, or previously serving prison officers, have the same fate. We want to work with the Law Commission and to take away the points raised by the noble Lord to discuss them with colleagues. What is important is that we ensure that the public are protected from the people who commit these terrible crimes.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be reasonably brief. Amendment 51 is simple, precise and entirely consistent with established principles of sentencing. It does not create a new offence and, with respect, it does not pre-empt the Law Commission’s broader review. Instead, it addresses a real gap—and, with respect, we do not need the Law Commission to decide whether there is a gap here. Prison officers in particular need this protection. We have seen the tragic consequences, and this is the sort of threat that we are likely to see more of, not less.

We look to the Minister for assurances on this. Otherwise, it will come back on Report. It must be accepted that murdering a police officer or prison officer because of or in the course of their duty is one of the gravest crimes imaginable. The law should reflect this, not simply to punish but to deter. It must deal with and deter against calculated acts of revenge against former officers. Gangland people will learn about this. It will get about in prison. They will know. It will go down the network.

This amendment is significant for the men and women who carry out with integrity the difficult and demanding work of protecting our streets and looking after—I use that phrase advisedly—the prisoners under their care. It is important that we reassure and encourage them. We want the best people to serve in our prisons. We do not want recruitment to be handicapped. What message will it send out if the Government say, “Oh well, if you’re shot down two years later, that doesn’t count. We’ve got to hope that the judge gets it right”? We must provide the right protections throughout the careers of these officers and beyond. We have the opportunity today to close that gap.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now, but it remains very much on the table.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 52 would provide for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the benefits of mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or girl and to lay a copy of that assessment before Parliament. I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London, a charity which works with young Londoners affected by, or at risk of, violence and exploitation. Among these are young Londoners who display harmful sexual behaviours. Often, they may not have a full understanding of their actions, where their behaviours may stem from or that they themselves need support.

I am under no illusion that an intervention is likely to be quick or easy. These are young or not so young people who have had no role model or a bad role model, who may be neurodiverse, who may be resistant to relevant specialist treatment and support. They may not understand what a healthy relationship is like. They may believe that what is harmful is what a girl or woman wants. The picture over recent years has become further confused by what they see online or on social media. I am under no illusion that this is easy, but it is important. A Bill seeking to reduce reoffending is just the place where this kind of action should be taken. I am not asking for such programmes immediately, though it is good if there are some that can be accessed. However, I would like to see put into the public domain an assessment of the benefits of programmes such as this.

The other amendments in this group are in the name of the Conservative Front Bench. They seem to focus largely on the number of rehabilitation activity days. The number of days is a factor, but it is neither the first factor nor the only one; the content of rehabilitative activity and the reasons for that are more important. In other words, the approach should be more reasoned and nuanced than these amendments might suggest.

I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, many of which are in my name—Amendments 53, 54 and so on—address the Government’s proposal to transfer a significant element of sentencing discretion from the courts to probation practitioners: determining the number of rehabilitation activity days under community orders and suspended sentence orders. The amendments seek not to frustrate reform, although, as we made clear on our first day in Committee, we oppose the changes. They are intended to ensure that, if such powers are to be reallocated to the probation officer or practitioner from the judges, they are supported and buttressed by the same principled framework of accountability, transparency and procedural safeguards that have underpinned judicial discretion through the years.

The constitutional architecture of this country has long rested on the independence and authority of our judiciary. Sentencing is a judicial function and the product of reasoned evaluation of seriousness, culpability, risk and proportionality. Judges exercise that responsibility transparently, in open court and subject to appellate review. These protections exist because sentencing is a public act in which legitimacy rests on visible fairness. Society, represented by the third limb of the constitution—the judiciary—is passing sentence on outlaws and criminal offenders.

Clauses 11 and 12 would shift this discretion from judges to probation practitioners. Probation professionals are dedicated and skilled, of course, but they were never intended to assume quasi-judicial responsibilities. The Government may describe this as flexibility, but flexibility cannot become a veil for judicial discretion exercised behind closed doors without consistency or oversight. If probation offices are to take on direct decision-making powers that influence the substance of a sentence, proper safeguards must apply; the Bill, we submit, contains none.

Amendment 53 would therefore require the Secretary of State to establish, by regulation, clear national criteria governing how rehabilitation activity days are to be determined. Decisions of such consequence must not depend on local practice, staffing pressures or administrative expediency; in these straitened financial times, I emphasise “staffing pressures or administrative expediency”. Judges operate within well-established frameworks. Probation practitioners should not be left to improvise.

Amendment 54 would require written reasons for the determination of rehabilitation days. Giving reasons is a cornerstone of fairness. Offenders must personally understand what is required of them. Victims must be able to trust the process, and the courts must be able to review what is being done in their name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, I was not intending to intervene at all in this group, but could I just try to inject an element of reality into Amendment 86A, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, proposes? It requires the courts service to record and retain, in respect of all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court and magistrates’ court, the details that have been referred to: country of birth, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, and the offences themselves.

It is important to remind the Committee that, in the magistrates’ courts, hundreds of thousands of minor offences are dealt with every year. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of motoring offences such as speeding, careless driving, not having insurance and matters of that sort, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of failures to pay a TV licence. The vast majority of those cases do not trouble a court in the normal sense, in that there is no hearing in a court. They are dealt with under the single justice procedure. Almost all of them, save those that are contested, are dealt with, essentially, on the papers.

The information identified in the proposed amendment is not available at the moment, and it is difficult to see how it might be made available. I cannot, for the moment, think of a way that it could be done without exponentially increasing the burden on the system generally and imposing huge burdens on those who have been prosecuted for speeding or not having a TV licence, and so forth. Unless there were compulsion of some sort for this information to be given, nothing could sensibly happen. I do not seek to express a view on the merits of collecting such information, or at least parts of it, for some cases; that already happens, as in the Crown Court, to some extent. However, the breadth of this amendment travels into the area of unreality, I regret to say.

[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 Sandhurst (Con)]

I think there are problems with that as to how the discretion would be exercised and who would set what rules. I will not spend any longer on this, but I suggest that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton was right when he drew attention to the interim guidance supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We really have to think about this. We need information—we need some sunlight—and if we do not have accurate information, the wrong information will be put out there, will be used by populists and will be dangerous.

We need accurate information. If it is limited to serious and Crown Court cases, that would at least be an important start. We do not need to know the ethnicity of every driving offender—that is clearly unnecessary—but why not for offences of violence and everything else in the Crown Court? If it can be done, let us just look at it.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for giving way. Why do we need to know anyone’s ethnicity? Why is that relevant at the stage that we are talking about? I am afraid I just do not get this argument. Why is ethnicity relevant and to whom is it relevant?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

It is only one of the factors included. I did not mean to select just that. I was using it as shorthand for what is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment, which includes country of birth—which I suggest is relevant—and nationality.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I beg the indulgence of the Committee to specifically answer the reasonable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There is and has been for many years significant concern about the overpolicing of some communities. That has given rise to a number of key initiatives, including the police action plan, which the noble Lord with his great expertise is well aware of. That is based on the collection and collation of data around ethnicity. You cannot have one without the other, I am afraid.

Therefore, to keep the faith and trust that taxpayers have in the criminal justice system, one has to collect as much data as possible. If one collects it to prevent overpolicing, one should also collect it for other reasons, so that you have a clear, transparent system.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

There is quite a lot to cover in this group. My noble friend has made the point. We never suffer from having too much information. If it is collected in bits and pieces, there is the danger of distortion.

The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, exposed a decade-long data collapse and made it clear that this should not carry on any longer. This is an area in which we have dragged our feet for too long. The majority of OECD countries have mandatory reporting statutes. The fact is that the United Kingdom does not do the same, and that is no help to anyone other than the offenders.

We need to do something to implement the recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. The amendment would give forces the necessary data to record, analyse and respond to different dynamics in different communities. Publishing data would prove to the public that the Government are not concerned with accusations of bigotry but focused on outcomes. These are clear benefits in this amendment for noble Lords’ efforts to tackle crime and reduce reoffending. I hope the Minister has considered it carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

59: Clause 13, page 28, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a court imposes a driving prohibition requirement under subsection (3) the court must be satisfied that suitable arrangements exist for the practical monitoring of compliance with the requirement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would add a general practicability condition to the imposition of driving prohibition requirement, ensuring they may only be imposed where compliance can realistically be monitored.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. We on these Benches welcome the underlying principle of Clauses 13 to 16, which relate to new community order requirements that can be imposed on offenders as part of their suspended sentences and community orders that can be imposed on offenders as part of their sentences. However, as I asked at Second Reading, the big question is: how are these going to be made a practical reality?

There is a commendable aim here: to equip the courts with additional tools that will both enhance public protection and steer offenders towards genuine rehabilitation. It may surprise noble Lords to hear that we on these Benches do not oppose suspended sentences as a concept or in application. It has been abundantly clear, I hope, that we take issue with Clauses 1 and 2 as they are currently drafted because we believe that there should not be such an indiscriminate provision for criminals to serve their sentences in the community. However, for those offenders who should serve their sentences on a suspended basis, these clauses are a welcome measure. They will improve the regime—or, at least, they have the potential to improve the regime, if properly drafted.

Many noble Lords have spoken of their support for suspended sentences in favour of short-term custodial ones, arguing that the short-term benefits of serving such sentences in prison are largely outweighed, if not entirely negated, by the effects of custody. Although we recognise this argument and, in many cases, agree with it, I would respectfully point out that this is just one side of the coin. Of course, the outcomes for prisoners themselves are an important consideration in this debate—because, if successful, the Bill will prevent or reduce the rate of recidivism—but we must recognise the wider public. They also have an interest in recidivism—namely, that it does not occur—as well as a legitimate interest in seeing the right people be positively punished.

If we are to give support to the broader aim of this Bill, it will hinge entirely on the Government’s ability to ensure—in fact, to guarantee—that those on suspended sentences will be managed in a manner that drives towards public safety, not just the term of the sentence. If it cannot be shown that those being released into the community cannot be managed in a safe and effective way, we will fail the public by allowing this Bill to pass into statute. Noble Lords may wish to point to statistics that claim that reoffending rates are lower for those on suspended sentences, but the reality is that the statistic is not nothing. If we are to allow offenders on to the streets, we must do so in a way that does not increase the danger to citizens going about their lives and does not increase the crime rate.

A higher number will receive suspended sentences than do at the moment. It must be common sense that, when imposing suspended sentences, judges have striven, at least to date, to impose them on those for whom they think there is a lower risk of breach. But if it is to be, in effect, for everybody, inevitably there will be those for whom there is a higher risk of breach.

On day one in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke in opposition to exemptions we suggested from the suspended sentence provision in Clause 1. She said she had thought:

“If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1342.]


The reality is that there is a range of crimes for which offenders are routinely sentenced to immediate custodial terms of 12 months or less. It is a matter of fact that certain sex offenders come within that category. The noble Baroness may not consider such people a real danger to the public, but we on these Benches do. Further, the Minister has confirmed that, in reality, this presumption will extend to sentences up to 18 months once guilty pleas are accounted for; in other words, 18 months discounted to 12 because of a prompt and early guilty plea, and then suspended.

We must be very clear about this: sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment apply to categories of people who are certainly violent and certainly dangerous. They may not be dangerous to a particular identified individual, meaning that the exemptions in the statute will not apply. Instead, we are at the mercy of court orders to keep the public safe.

The amendment proposed on day one to exempt those involved in terrorist or associated offences from the suspended sentence provision was also met with resistance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked:

“If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1350.]


Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a person who wears an item of clothing or displays an article related to a proscribed organisation will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment “not exceeding six months”. This means that an offender wishing to fly an al-Qaeda or a Nazi flag on the street will, in this case, now receive a suspended sentence. They are not putting a particular individual at significant risk of harm, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that they are a risk to the public and the behaviour of the public generally. Such behaviour winds people up. Yet will they not be exempt from this presumption, as currently drafted?

We will never support this measure, but if we must resign ourselves to the possibility that this will soon be the reality, we on these Benches will strive to do everything we can to lessen the risk to the public. That is why the amendments in this group have been tabled, and I will now briefly outline the practical aims of each.

Amendments 59, 64, 69 and 72 would add a general practicality condition to the imposition of the new community order requirements. This has been suggested to ensure that they may be imposed only where compliance with such requirements can realistically be monitored. Imposing these new orders will be meaningless if we cannot ensure that they can and will be enforced in practice. It is of no practical benefit to ban an offender from a particular type of public event if there is no meaningful way of ensuring that he or she will in fact not attend such events when released into the community. Likewise, there is little value in placing a driving prohibition on an offender who feels no deterrent from getting back on the road as a result of an order that he knows is fruitless in practice.

These amendments touch on a point of the utmost importance. If the Government oppose them, they are saying that they are willing to allow the courts to impose orders which they know will not be upheld in practice. This was the exact justification for the removal of the rehabilitative activity days in Clause 12; namely, that the maximum thresholds are rarely upheld in practice and so they needed reform. Will the Government follow the same logic for the new powers they are giving the courts, or will they allow conditions of suspended sentence to be given out in the full knowledge that they are just token gestures?

We make this point not only to expose the inconsistent arguments that the Government have set out in the Bill. This is not simply a matter of an ineffective law that is likely to waste the already stretched resources of our judiciary; failure to get this right will lead to more crime. It will result in more sexual offences, assaults, thefts and knives on our streets. If offenders cannot be practically managed under the new community requirement conditions, they should not be allowed to return straight to society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is very interesting, and I will take it back to the department.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister, but the issues at stake here are not theoretical; they are practical questions about how these conditions will actually work. Will they be real, meaningful and enforceable? The Government have repeatedly asserted confidence in suspended sentences and the expanded use of community-based requirements. If that confidence is well placed, these amendments should be entirely uncontroversial; they do nothing more than ensure that what is ordered by a judge can be delivered in reality.

We are not seeking to impose obligations to enforce on the licensee of a public house, for example, but they should know so that they are then free to pass the information on to the police or the Probation Service, because they will not want someone there who is the subject of an order. It will be a public house order, for example, because the offender has a particular issue with behaviour in such places—so too with football grounds or other specified events. The host, if that is the right word, should be informed and should know that a particular individual, if recognised, should not be on his premises and can be turned away.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with her usual acuity, pointed to the civil liberty aspects of this as well. I will not embark on those, but she also identified practical and policy issues underlying these provisions in Clauses 13 to 16. We on these Benches suggest that these amendments insert a simple and reasonable test. They do not impose a condition unless compliance can realistically be monitored in practice by the Probation Service, and the Probation Service will need help from the hosts. It is not radical to say that orders issued by a court should carry weight. A prohibition that in practice cannot and will not be checked is not a deterrent. A restriction that cannot and will not be enforced is not a restriction. Without these safeguards, we will create orders that are performative rather than protective. They will offer only the illusion of safety to communities and to victims.

The Government themselves use this precise standard when justifying reforms elsewhere in the Bill—for example, removing rehabilitative activity days because the system “did not operate effectively in practice”. The provisions in Clauses 13 to 16, if they are to be enforced, must be enforceable in practice and must be effective. If a condition is imposed but nobody has a duty to enforce it, it is not a condition at all. The Probation Service is not going to have time to run around the pubs, football grounds and so on; it is going to have to rely on information from other people.

These amendments would simply ensure that the supervising authority has responsibility for enforcement and is given the means to do so, rather than the vague hope that somebody may intervene if they happen to notice a breach. Without this duty, we repeat here that the failures seen with criminal behaviour orders and football banning orders, where thousands of breaches each year go unpursued and offenders learn that compliance is optional, will be repeated. Public confidence will not be restored by rhetoric; in fact, it will be damaged. It will be damaged by visible consequences, namely failures to enforce.

The Government propose to release more offenders into the community under suspended and community-based regimes. That is a political choice. Having chosen that path, they must choose the responsibility to ensure that it works and that it is safe. We should not be asking the British Government to accept greater risk while refusing the safeguards that would mitigate that risk. Ministers who believe that this strategy will reduce reoffending should have no objection to tests of practicability, enforcement duties and notification requirements. To oppose these amendments, they must be justified as to why they will be unenforceable, unmonitored, unaccountable conditions. That is a hard case to make to the victims, to police officers on the street or to the public whose safety is being traded away.

The amendments we put forward are not obstructive but supportive. They would help, indeed allow, the Government’s policy to function in the real world, not just on the printed page. If we are to put offenders back in the community who might not otherwise have been there—indeed, probably would not have been—the very least we owe the public is confidence that these conditions will be monitored and enforced, so I urge the Government to look again at these amendments and to reflect. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for moving his amendment. Providing care for individuals with addictions, gambling in particular, should be a fundamental role of a national health service, and we support his aims.

As the noble Lord explained, gambling addiction is a chronic issue across this country. Roughly 2.8% of all adults are engaged in at-risk or problem gambling—a huge number of people either in need of, or at risk of needing, support services. His amendments highlight this issue and the need for our services properly to address gambling addiction.

We support the sentiment behind the approach to general addiction recovery services of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Often, individuals with addiction either cannot or do not want to accept recovery services. To introduce a requirement to engage with services would serve those people. This is particularly the case in prisons. Last year, there were almost 50,000 adults in recovery in alcohol and drug treatment centres in prison and secure settings. Almost 60% of those individuals were undergoing treatment for crack or opiates. That 60% comprises vulnerable individuals being treated for misuse of the hardest substances.

The principle behind Amendments 131 to 133, from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, clearly reflects the reality of the situation. We heard an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, which merits consideration. We also heard an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who of course has great experience as a Minister in this field. We remain, however, not fully convinced that this group of amendments would have the desired effect.

There is a large question mark hovering over the whole Bill: the general enforceability of the new orders it introduces. We have explained that we do not agree with the decision to suspend sentences under 18 months—that is, 18 months because the Government have opposed our guilty plea amendment—but if the Government are to make this all work, the new orders they impose have to be effective. As I have said before, we are not convinced that they will be.

As I have already argued, the Government’s new drinking establishment entry prohibition requirement realistically is unenforceable. Public event attendance is too vague and too broad. The Government’s approach to new orders is largely deficient. We do not think they should be taking on new responsibilities, even if there is a need for them, as is the case with gambling addiction, when they have demonstrated an incapacity to plan for the existing responsibilities that are being imposed.

The onus, therefore, is on the Government to demonstrate that the noble Lord’s well-intentioned amendments can be accepted, if possible, and then implemented. We would like this to be the case, but only if possible. Gambling addiction and addiction in general require attention from our state, but the state must first prove itself competent. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which raise important issues around tackling gambling harms and the harms caused by other addictions. Just last week I met a prisoner at HMP Wormwood Scrubs whose life have been devastated by gambling harm. Although the data on gambling is limited, I understand that this is an important issue impacting the lives of offenders and their families.

Amendments 70 and 78 would introduce new community order requirements: one prohibiting an offender from entering a gambling establishment, and one introducing a mandatory treatment requirement. I wholeheartedly share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to supporting offenders whose lives are impacted by gambling. I assure noble Lords that courts already have the power to prohibit offenders serving a community or suspended sentence from entering gambling premises. They can do this through a prohibited activity requirement.

However, I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the menu of community requirements under close review. Clause 17 introduces a power to add or amend community requirements using secondary legislation. This will provide further flexibility to ensure that the framework is kept relevant to the offending behaviour.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, speak to the wider issue of how the criminal justice system can support and treat those whose offending is driven by addiction or mental health needs. I know this issue is close to noble Lords’ hearts and I agree completely that alongside effective punishment we have a duty to rehabilitate offenders with gambling addictions and other needs. We must provide them with the right support throughout the criminal justice system to rebuild their lives. I hope it will help your Lordships for me to set out the ways in which we are already doing so.

Pre-sentence reports help the court identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental ill-health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be considered at sentencing where they are relevant to the offence or the offender’s culpability. Courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to someone’s offending. Where appropriate, courts may consider mental health treatment requirements, funded by NHS England as part of a community or suspended sentence order, where mental health has been identified as an underlying factor. The use of these requirements has increased significantly in recent years.

Alongside this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, homelessness or unemployment. We also work closely with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for offenders and aligned with prison and probation services. This includes increasing the use and effectiveness of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community and suspended sentences.

For those in prison, there is already a statutory duty for prison governors to provide health services in custody, with our approach guided by the principle of equivalence of care to patients in the community. We are ensuring that prison leavers remain in treatment on release by strengthening links to prison, probation and treatment providers.

Finally, support for those with gambling-related harms in the criminal justice system will be bolstered by funding from the statutory gambling levy. The Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of this. I will also reach out to representatives in the gambling industry and will look to host a round table with them next year to better understand the impacts of gambling harm and what more we can do.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, also tabled Amendment 108, which would give new powers to set licence conditions prohibiting offenders from entering a gambling establishment. I want to be clear that the provisions in Clause 24 will support our aim to give practitioners a full range of tools to manage and support offenders. Existing powers enable probation to set additional licence conditions related to gambling, including prohibiting offenders on licence from gambling or making payments for other games of chance.

Probation also has an existing power to request an additional licence condition, directing offenders to undertake activities to address their gambling activities, where necessary and proportionate to their risk. HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. We will be looking at issuing operational guidance to practitioners on effective usage of gambling-related licence conditions, alongside implementation of the new conditions set out in Clause 24. I would very much like to harness the considerable expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on this topic. I hope that he will be keen to work with me and my officials as this work develop0s.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for his Amendment 101. I reassure him that probation practitioners carefully consider what licence conditions to recommend as part of their supervision and management of an offender. They can tailor conditions to the specific needs of the offender, in line with managing public protection.

Although there is no formal process for representations, this is not considered to be necessary. Probation practitioners draw on a range of information when applying licence conditions and discuss conditions with offenders as part of release planning. They must ensure that licence conditions are necessary and proportionate, and they can grant necessary exemptions to licence conditions for rehabilitative purposes. This will be the same for the new conditions.

I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for allowing the Committee to debate these important subjects, but I hope I have explained why the Government do not agree that these amendments are necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that we have an opportunity to simplify and make more accurate decisions in the justice system. We have to grasp this, and we have to grasp it quickly. AI is one of the most important factors that we need to embrace. My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we do the procurement process correctly and that we do not take so much time that we miss the opportunity. I have been fortunate to work with a number of colleagues within the Ministry of Justice who are AI experts. In fact, in meetings I have, people ask for the AI team on probably a far too regular basis thinking it is going to solve lots of problems. Essentially, when you have multiple bits of paperwork and staff in the offender management unit are literally dealing with boxes and boxes of paperwork, it is unfair to expect them to get it accurate 100% of the time. I would like to walk into an offender management unit and see computer screens rather than boxes of paperwork. One of the things that I have been interested in, coming from a business environment into government, is the opportunities across government for embracing AI—I think we will end up delivering much better public services as a result.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lord, we heard that, in the seven months April to October this year, there have been 91 mistaken releases, which is 13 a month. How many of those 91 had been convicted of sexual or domestic abuse offences and whose victims would have been unaware that they were now loose?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will not be giving a running commentary on the numbers, but we will be publishing the breakdown of all that detail in the normal way in July next year. It is important to recognise that 91 released in error is too many. We need to learn from what Dame Lynne Owen’s review finds out and act upon it, but we also need to get going now. That is what we have done. We have had the first board meeting of the justice performance board. We have set up the urgent warrant query unit, which is going to be helpful because we recognise that is where a number of the issues occur. The digital rapid response unit has gone into Wandsworth and—this is where the AI element comes in—it has already recognised that there are four common points of failure that it thinks AI will significantly help, although it will not help all those issues. We have an awful lot to do, and it is a challenge I am looking forward to embracing.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset how sorry I was to learn of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She will be much missed around the House. She was a powerful champion for victims.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill, but I must say that it does not live up to the expectations one might have of a Sentencing Bill. It is not a plan for safer streets or a stronger justice system; it is, in essence, a plan to release offenders early because our prisons are full. The Government present this as a reform, but much is, in truth, a knee-jerk reaction to the challenge of managing prison capacity, and it is one that risks public safety.

The centrepiece of the Bill is the presumption that any sentence of 12 months or less will be suspended, so, in practice, short custodial sentences will all but disappear. Figures suggest that around 43,000 offenders will avoid prison altogether. Among them will be repeat burglars, serial shoplifters and sex offenders. This is not sentencing reform; it is surrender. How can any Government who claim to be tough on crime defend that?

The Government say this will apply only to “non-violent, non-sexual” offences, but as any practitioner knows, many assaults, domestic abuse cases and sexual offences fall at or below that 12-month threshold. Those offenders will now walk free. To allow this will be a profound failure of the state’s duty to protect its citizens—unless it has the unintended effect, of course, that courts increase nominal sentences to override the presumption. Will we in fact see an increase in the number of immediate sentences of 15 to 18 months? That would be an unintended and perhaps unfortunate consequence, but we know how human behaviour reacts.

The Bill also reduces the time to be served in custody. For most offenders, automatic release will come after just 33% of the sentence—five months of a 15-month term. The rest will be served in the community, supervised, in theory, by the hard-pressed Probation Service. It has been predicted there will in fact be an immediate 6% rise in crime. As Cicero said: to what good? That is not sentencing reform; it is a policy of early release with rising crime the consequence.

We are told that this is about rehabilitation. Are those who make up the 6% to be treated as rehabilitated? Worse, what new money is to be invested in probation, treatment or community infrastructure? There will simply be a prison system operating at 98% capacity, with Ministers desperate to empty it.

The Probation Service will bear the weight of these changes. As we know, it is already overstretched, under- staffed and struggling to manage risk. The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that an additional 580 officers will be required each year, at a cost of £30 million a year—funding that simply does not exist in the current settlement. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, on which I served, has demonstrated, reducing numbers in prison does not mean a saving: the running costs of prisons will remain the same. Will the Minister explain where in the ministry’s budget the money will come from? Will it be from defence legal aid fees or the budget for our crumbling courts? Can we have answers?

Clause 11 goes further still by removing from the courts key aspects of sentencing and transferring them to probation officers. They are not judges, are not judicially trained and already work beyond capacity. They will now bear responsibility for deciding how much rehabilitative activity an offender must complete. That is a big shift of responsibility. Sentencing—the determination of punishment—is, and should remain, a judicial function. It is a matter for judges applying the law in open court.

How can we have a Sentencing Bill that, in effect, removes an important plank of sentencing from the courts and the public eye? How will the public know that punishment is being imposed consistently and in proportion to the offence in question? What safeguards will prevent political or managerial pressure—I emphasise managerial pressure—from influencing those decisions? Policy will be made and put into effect behind closed doors. An important part of a sentence in a given case will not be given in public.

That is not reform; it is the start of the separation of powers being dismantled. It hands quasi-judicial authority to an exhausted service, doing so without additional resources, oversight or accountability. If the Minister believes that probation officers should exercise the functions of judges, he should say so openly to Parliament. To make such a change under the guise of efficiency is constitutionally wrong.

The Bill introduces a host of new community restrictions on offenders, including bans on entering pubs, sporting events or defined geographical areas. On paper that may sound straightforward, but how will it work? Who will be responsible for enforcement? Will it be the licensed trade, the police or venue owners themselves? Who will be told? In a big city pub, who is to know? The Bill gives no clarity, indicates no resourcing and gives no accountability framework; it simply assumes that someone, somehow, will make it happen. Probation officers, who are already overstretched and under- resourced, are expected to monitor compliance, enforce restrictions and manage breaches. The Bill provides no guidance on how that will operate. How will it work?

The Bill was not in the manifesto, which referred only to sentences that

“make sense either to victims or the wider public”.

The proposals in the Bill do neither. They will undermine public confidence in the justice system—confidence that is already eroded by early release schemes, court delays, and prison overcrowding and escapes. Every element of the Bill points in one direction: leniency driven by necessity. We suggest that that is not how to develop important policy. The prisons are indeed overcrowded, and previous Governments have failed to manage that successfully, but the public expect that those who break the law will be dealt with properly and punished, and that those who pose a threat will be detained. However, henceforth, an offender could serve one-third of a sentence, breach licence conditions, be recalled and still be re-released early.

Only yesterday, or the day before, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner sounded the alarm and wrote to the Lord Chancellor. Under Part 2 of the Bill, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner pointed out, offenders recalled to custody will now be automatically re-released after just 56 days, with no review by the Parole Board. This will include convicted abusers after recall for contacting or stalking their victims, yet they will go back into the community with no fresh assessment of danger. This is complacency. It places victims at avoidable risk.

The Bill requires rigorous scrutiny. It blurs the line between rehabilitation and release. It hands judicial powers to the Probation Service and places public protection second to administrative convenience. We are not told how it will be funded. We are told it is modernisation. In truth, it is a risky experiment with public safety.

We on this side will carefully examine every clause in Committee. Our position is clear: sentencing exists to protect the public, to deter crime and to deliver justice to victims, and it is for judges. The Bill fails on all those counts.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken today, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for moving this debate so that the House can scrutinise this important matter. The Law Commission has produced a meticulous scoping report on financial remedies. It has put forward four clear options but has not come to a final decision, and that is a pity.

Few areas of law touch more directly on ordinary lives than family law. Marriage is an institution that we on these Benches firmly support. Breakdown is always distressing for those involved. It is the law’s task to bring fairness and finality to support families making this difficult transition. I have a genuine interest in the topic. During my first 20 years or so at the Bar, financial provision and other family matters formed a substantial part of my practice—I am a little out of date, but I know where they are all coming from.

The Law Commission’s report is sobering. It shows that the framework, established in 1973, is no longer enough. The Act was drafted for a different social world and people need certainty. The system may be fair in individual cases, but it is opaque to those who must live under it. It cannot be right if the outcome depends on the postcode or philosophy of the individual judge, or if it is simply too difficult to understand the cases. Uncertainty drives parties towards litigation and expense, and it undermines confidence, as we have heard, in the rule of law itself. These challenges must be met. There must be enough flexibility, but predictability for everybody except the exceptions.

On these Benches, we urge the Government to take seriously the Law Commission’s invitation to select a clear model for reform and to embark on the detailed work necessary. It seems to us plain that we cannot wait for the Law Commission to produce a full report—we must get on with it. The work is done; there are practical decisions to be made, and there are enough people who can pull that together. There must be clearer statutory guidance, improved transparency on outcomes, and clarity, in particular for those who cannot afford lawyers.

The recent judgments have illustrated the strength and strains of the system. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, yet it also exposed the complexity of the current case law. Reform should set out principles accessible in statute.

The material now has been put before the Government by the Law Commission. This important report must not gather dust. The Government must act. I wait to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, what course the Government will take. The report must not be put in the “too difficult” box. The Government must bring forward a Bill. I suggest that this could be done in the next Session or certainly the one after—there is no reason not to. There should be pre-legislative scrutiny and, I hope, a broadly cross-party approach. One thing is certain: we must not let a search for perfection be the enemy of the good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I hesitate to interrupt, but does the Minister not appreciate that marriage is a status but non-marriage is not a status, and that the time has come for the two to be looked at separately: divorce on the one hand and how you look after those in other relationships on the other? The Law Commission has done a lot of work and the ground has been laid. We can go down parallel paths, but they should not be linked and heard at the same time. I see everyone else in this Chamber nodding.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because our assessment is that looking at these matters piecemeal will run the risk of creating new disputes and injustices. In the end, it is about making sure principally that children are protected when the relationships from which they are born end up dissolving.

I assure the noble and learned Baroness—

Trials: Timeliness

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I can understand why it could be seen that the responses to the riots had been prioritised, but there are many reasons why those prosecutions took place very quickly. The first is that many of the cases were straightforward and could be dealt with in a magistrates’ court; the second is that, in relation to many of them, the evidence was very strong and people pleaded guilty; and the third is that the decisions involved were made by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the independent judiciary. The Government made sure that they had the resources if they needed them, but no pressure was put on them to decide how to do it.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Recent data from the Criminal Bar Association shows substantial regional variations in trial delays. What specific steps are being taken to reduce these geographic disparities in trial delays?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an interesting point. For example, the delays are much worse in central London than they are in Wales. There can be all kinds of reasons for that. I have already said that a trial, as the noble Lord knows, is a complicated factor. There are difficulties because you cannot just, for example, ship cases out to somewhere else; we cannot send a whole lot of London’s cases out to Cardiff because of the effect on victims, witnesses and defendants and the movement around of people within the prison estate. But it is important to look to see where lessons can be learned from other parts of the country and to see whether they are doing things that could be imported to other parts of the country so that we can do better there.

Accidental Prison Releases

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The checklists that we have made more robust are the same checklists across all prisons, but the number of releases per prison varies dramatically. HMP Gartree averages two releases a year, whereas, as I previously said, in Wandsworth it is 2,000. That is why the digital team last week went into HMP Wandsworth, to look at opportunities for some quick fixes to embrace digital technology.

The AI team went in and, to give a couple of examples, they thought that an AI chatbot would be really helpful, along with a cross-referencing for aliases, because we know some offenders have more than 20 aliases. We have given the team the green light to get on with examples like that.

The noble Lord is exactly right that this is about how we deal with this information, and how we make sure it is accurate when we are dealing with often very complex people in a very complex situation.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Further to that answer, can the Minister confirm how many prisons still rely on manual, rather than digital, release date calculations, why that is so and what plans there are to move to a digital system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The process is a mixture of paperwork and computers and digital. In an offender management unit, there are literally boxes and boxes of paperwork, all over desks and on the floor, that follow offenders around the various prisons that they go to.

My and the team’s solution is very much digitally based, but we need to make sure we link that across the whole justice system, and the Home Office as well, because a number of the errors can be caused not just in the prison but in the courts too. So, longer term, it has got to be right that we look at a digital solution across the whole justice sector.

Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on her first appearance. I welcome the fact that such an experienced lawyer now holds this position.

I turn now to the substance of the debate; the Minister has explained everything in such lucid detail that I can go straight to the two points that I want to raise, without going into the background. The limit was fixed in 2008 and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, observed, the limit is being raised by only 30% whereas, unfortunately, inflation has been very much higher. We have the privilege of having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here in the Room, and he will no doubt be very pleased to see that the Ministry of Justice is taking such good care of the scarce resources of the country.

When the previous Labour Administration were in power in 2008, they thought that the limits set out then were fair and reasonable and reflected the public position at the time. Is there a reason why we cannot have the same position today and therefore raise the amounts? As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told, there has never been a payment of the maximum amount, and only very few payments of the lesser amount. Is there therefore a real difficulty in being parsimonious—which is no doubt appreciated by His Majesty’s Treasury—in relation to these amounts? Could this be looked at again?

That takes me to my second question. The Ministry of Justice is in the unfortunate position of having a number of instruments and other pieces of legislation where limits are set, and it is very important that these are kept under regular review. There have been occasions when the ministry has failed to do so. Does the ministry now have a proper schedule for reviewing this and making certain that we do not have a very long period of time, such as that which has elapsed since 2008, before this kind of limit is reviewed? It may be that the Minister will want to take some time to investigate this, but I hope that there is a system in place for such limits to be looked at.

Those are my two observations. I again express what a great pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place and dealing with such an important subject.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

Our legal system is based on the principle of fairness. This country prides itself on its judiciary. Trial for serious offences by judge and jury is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The law exists to right wrongs and to create and maintain a system in which honest subjects can live their lives under the even-handed protection of the law. However, those who suffer miscarriages of justice under the same system must be compensated fairly. A legal system without the means of self-correction is devoid of trust and justice.

We on this side of the Committee support the measures brought forward today. Compensation for those wronged by the system must be fair and proportionate. It is not just that those wrongly convicted and imprisoned have not had the maximum compensation increased for nearly 17 years; the onus is on the justice system to correct its mistakes and increase compensation payments as time passes. It was in the same spirit that, as my honourable friend in the other place the Shadow Minister for Justice noted, the former Lord Chancellor removed the compensation guidance that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. The justice system must be seen to correct its own mistakes, which is what this instrument aims to do. This is why we support it.

IPP Sentences

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Sentencing Bill implements the independent sentencing review. IPPs were not in scope of that review because it focused on sentences that are still on the statute books. I do not want to repeat myself, but the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare those people for release. I am really pleased that the noble Lord and others enjoyed the visit to HMP Belmarsh on Thursday; we had a really good opportunity to meet a number of prisoners, including an IPP prisoner.

What is also important, as the noble Lord mentioned, is our Probation Service. It is where the heaving lifting in the justice system is done, which is why I am proud that we are increasing the funding for probation by £700 million—a 45% increase.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the current system is failing both prisoners and the public. It keeps prisoners in indefinite limbo, as we saw on our visit to HMP Belmarsh last week. It offers no clear route to safer release. My question is specific: what is wrong with the proposal for a two-year conditional release process?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for coming along on Thursday. The Parole Board is the best body to decide who is safe to be released, because public protection is our priority. If we went with the Howard League’s suggestion, it would mean people being released without their risk being assessed, which is not something that we are prepared to do.

Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and congratulate her on her appointment. She brings much experience of the criminal justice system, and I am sure she will be invaluable to the ministry. I am grateful, too, for the compelling opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his illuminating exposition. Indeed, we have heard many powerful speeches.

The multicultural society in which we live contains individuals with myriad languages and dialects. More and more individuals need access to interpretation services in our courts. The use of those services grew by nearly 6% between 2023 and 2024. This presents challenges that the Ministry of Justice, as this report makes clear, has failed to address.

The Ministry of Justice’s most recent data shows that, comparing the last nine months of this Government against the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of unfulfilled requests for court interpreters has increased by just under 24%. Worryingly, in the same time, the number of complaints about inadequate standards has increased by 48%. I will come back to that. The Minister’s predecessor’s decision to ignore advice to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee had conducted a thorough review of court interpretation and quality assurance services was flawed.

It is very regrettable that those on the front line have a negative view of court interpretation services. The Magistrates’ Association rightly pointed out that inadequate interpretation can lead to miscarriages of justice—that should be obvious to us all—as defendants cannot properly understand the legal options open to them. I highlight the evidence of Dr Windle that far too many trial interpreters have qualifications equivalent to an A-level. That is simply hopeless. The profession must be staffed by sufficiently skilled, trusted and properly paid interpreters. The observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in this respect are invaluable. The Government must listen, learn and adopt.

Even more alarming is the lacklustre quality-assurance framework. The company responsible for quality assurance conducts assessments by watching from public galleries, but interpreters in closed cases and family court sessions are shielded from accountability. The Ministry of Justice cannot in those circumstances be getting a true picture of quality. This report recommended that the assessment process should include access to whispered communications between defendants and advocates during trials. Such communication, as any practitioner knows, is integral to court proceedings. This important point was not addressed in the Government’s response and we on this side keenly await clarification.

Further, the report rightly pointed out the lack of transparency and the dearth of data available regarding the outcomes of the assessments of court interpreters. We do not know how many concerns regarding interpreters are escalated to judges, nor how many interpreters are removed from the ministry’s register. So the public cannot hold this important public service provider accountable, nor be confident that the rule of law is upheld consistently.

The Government responded by saying that they required longer to act on the recommendation to release this data—if at all. I emphasise that. This weak response must be seen as shirking accountability and hiding behind data privacy. Given the significance of interpretation quality for the delivery of justice, when will the Government commit to acting on this powerful report and what steps are they taking to ensure they are best equipped to do this?

The most direct recourse for users of interpretation services is access to a functional complaints procedure, not least because it is the practice to dismiss interpreters after they have incurred three complaints. It was therefore worrying to read that the process is not considered fit for purpose and that complaints, despite their sharp rise in recent months, appear grossly underreported. The report labelled awareness of the complaints system as “low”. That too is serious. If stakeholders—those involved—are not even aware of its existence, how can interpreters be held accountable? Worse, many of those aware of the complaints system cannot engage with it satisfactorily. It is available only in English or Welsh. I echo the report’s warning that this “must be urgently addressed”. Those most in need of help are least equipped to access it.

The Minister’s predecessor pledged to explore ways to increase awareness and methods of flagging complaints in the language of users. How exactly will the Government be doing this? They must outline the steps and methods being considered for a new complaints procedure that is accessible in different languages. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said, the Government must abandon their complacent approach to these issues.

The problems are exacerbated by the striking disconnect between the Government’s stated view of their delivery quality and reality. The report highlighted this as an overarching theme of divergence between government and those on the front line. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Government are not confronting these problems. They must set out the precise additional steps they have taken and will take to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. Existing channels are insufficient. How will the Government resolve this information asymmetry? Otherwise, they risk wilful blindness to the true extent of the justice system’s challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made important points about data and information asymmetry.

It was a serious oversight on the ministry’s part not to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee’s findings had been reported to it. We are now in a position where the ministry has commenced retendering while unaware of the true quality and delivery of these services.

There are too many areas where the response does not go far enough. The Government must take further action to improve the quality of court interpretation services and reform their complaints system. If not, complaints will continue to soar. They must foster genuine engagement with legal professionals and front-line workers and listen to their concerns if they are to deliver justice for all.

Finally, I invite the Government to address and take seriously what the noble Lord, Lords Carter of Coles, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, a former Lord Chief Justice with great experience, had to say about the future use of voice recognition technology and translation software, at the very least for major languages. In that respect, of course, the ministry should also pay heed to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the thoughtful observations of my noble friend Lord Mott. There is a lot of expertise in this Room and the Government would be foolish to ignore it. The Minister has plenty to take away. We wish her well and we look forward to her reply.