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.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for the careful consideration that he has given to this and for his expression of concern at the effect that adding these two aggravating factors could have on sentencing.

It has been explained that the instrument adds two statutory aggravating factors to Schedule 21 for judges to consider when imposing a minimum term for murder. The first is when the murder is connected with either the actual or intended end of an intimate relationship, while the second is when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, judges will of course be entitled to consider all factors and take all factors into account when sentencing for murder. Those will include anyway the fact that a relationship is coercive or controlling and the degree to which the murder reflects the coercion or control—in this case, generally by a man over a woman.

I know that we all welcome the further Law Commission review that is promised, but it is a fact that these reviews take a considerable amount of time; that is inevitably the result of the care that the Law Commission gives to such considerations.

In one sense, this instrument does very little. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences. One can see that a statutory aggravating factor does have that effect—and that is the intended effect. However, how far sentences would be increased is not capable of assessment; neither is there any clear evidence of how far such sentences will be increased because of an aggravating factor.

The facts are that the social background against which this instrument is presented is that coercive control is now recognised far more widely than it used to be; and that the effects of factors such as those mentioned in this instrument are more widely recognised and taken more seriously. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences proves unfounded, not in the sense that there should not be a recognition of aggravating factors but in the sense that such aggravating factors are increasingly recognised by judges in any event.

The two factors added by this instrument around coercive relationships were particularly important, as has been said, in influencing the 2023 review of domestic homicide sentencing by Clare Wade KC and in framing her recommendations. In the domestic abuse context, which is the context we are considering, they are particularly significant. They are also significant in the light of the Government’s stated determination, on which they are plainly acting, to halve violence against women and girls, which is a major ambition.

The first change recognises that actual or threatened relationship breakdown can, and often does, play a role in promoting extreme domestic violence. I accept that the extent of deterrence that follows from that is uncertain, but it sends an important signal to the potential perpetrators of domestic violence about the effect of coercive control.

The second change recognises the particular significance of strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation in domestic violence, particularly by men on women. We recognised that during the passage of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when I, along with the Government, signed a cross-party amendment to introduce the new offence of non-fatal strangulation. In the debates on the then Bill, we took account of a great deal of evidence of the high incidence of strangulation in domestic violence cases, as well as of the distressing fact that so many cases where non-fatal strangulation occurs ultimately lead to the perpetrator escalating that violence to, ultimately, fatal violence and murder.

The fact is, therefore, that judges will continue to weigh up all relevant factors in assessing minimum terms of imprisonment to be served by those sentenced to life for murder. There is merit in highlighting these two factors because they can only send an important signal to the actual and potential perpetrators of domestic violence—and, indeed, to the victims of such domestic violence because, of course, victims are often frightened out of reporting domestic violence even when it is an attempt at strangulation. The evidence that that can escalate to murder in due course is important; it is important that potential victims, as well as potential perpetrators, should know of that signal. In my view, that is a powerful reason for supporting this instrument.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are welcome, and I say that notwithstanding the concern that they may add to the prison population, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips.

The instrument introduces two new statutory aggravating features in determining the minimum term for murder: first, where the offender is engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the victim; and, secondly, where the murder has involved sustained and excessive violence, sometimes referred to, in depressing jargon, as “overkill”. By contrast, importantly, it conversely explains a new mitigating factor, putting it on a statutory basis. It recognises that an offender’s culpability may be reduced where the victim has engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the offender.

These additions reflect a long-overdue evolution in the way the criminal courts have recognised domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened our understanding of harm so that it embraced emotional, psychological and economic abuse, but, until now, the sentencing framework for murder has not fully reflected the complex dynamics that can exist in abusive relationships, whether in the context of the abuse suffered by victims before their death or the potential impact of long-term abuse on an offender’s culpability.

We on this side welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these changes promptly—that is, ahead of the Law Commission’s broader review of homicide. These changes send a clear message: domestic murders are not isolated or inexplicable acts but, often, the tragic endpoint of long-standing abuse.

However, I note the concerns raised by the Sentencing Council, particularly around the interaction between new statutory factors and the existing, established judicial discretion to take such behaviour into account. The council has rightly warned that codifying these factors may risk creating ambiguity or inconsistency in sentencing, particularly if guidance in respect of it is not clear. There is also a risk that difficult evidential issues—in determining, for example, whether a relationship was “intimate” or whether coercive control occurred—could inadvertently complicate proceedings or place additional burdens on the families of victims or on prosecutors.

To mitigate this, we urge the Government to ensure that clear and robust sentencing guidelines are published alongside, and at the same time as, these changes; that the Government provide training for judges and practitioners to apply the new factors consistently; and that there is a commitment to monitor the impact of these amendments, particularly on the outcomes of trials and sentence lengths in domestic homicide cases.

To conclude, subject to those caveats, these regulations are positive, necessary and a welcome reform. They better align our sentencing framework with the reality of domestic abuse and send a strong signal that such crimes will be treated with the seriousness they deserve. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and brief introduction to what is, in effect, a relatively simple instrument. It comes against a background, as he explained, of the appalling shortage of prison places that the Government inherited and that has only got worse, inevitably, during this Government. The overcrowding that has been the result of that shortage and the crisis that has given rise to the early release scheme have to be ended as quickly as possible; for example, the use of police cells where there has been simply no space for custody within our prisons is unacceptable, and there has been an unholy scramble for places for prisoners wherever they might be found across the estate. That is the inevitable result of a prison system running at 99% of capacity.

The consequences of the prison shortage have been outlined by the Minister, and the clear goal of the Government has been to reduce prison numbers over time, although they rightly accept that that will take a great deal of time. I know the Minister is concerned to concentrate on shorter sentences and rehabilitation, but I am grateful to him for putting the numbers on this instrument—that it is expected to save 500 prison places a year, which is a significant number.

However, in one sense, this instrument is directed at an easy target, because the deportation of convicted foreign offenders, who are liable to be deported anyway, is generally justified in principle for all the reasons the Minister gave and is widely supported. It may also be said that our national Government have little interest in what happens to deported prisoners after they are deported, so that if they leave our prisons earlier than envisaged at the time of sentence, that does little harm, but the instrument rightly excludes some serious offenders from the ambit of the reduction.

However, I note the regret of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at the lack of review of the need for changes in this early removal scheme. The committee was concerned at the lack of information given to Parliament as to both the number of foreign national offenders likely to be affected by these changes and the treatment that such deported offenders would be likely to receive in their home countries following deportation. The committee reported that

“it would have been helpful for the EM to include background information … on FNO sentences and the treatment of deported prisoners in their home countries”.

It helpfully dug out a considerable quantity of additional information that was within the public domain that it found helpful, and it reported on that.

As a general point, the interest that the United Kingdom Government have in foreign national offenders should not cease altogether when such offenders are deported. At whatever stage, the Government and Parliament have an interest in considering the fate of deportees after they left this country and any continuing risk that they might present if they should return to the United Kingdom—or to United Kingdom citizens abroad, of course. Hence, the overall conclusion of the committee was that, while it recognised the urgency of the need to reduce the pressure on prison capacity, as we all do,

“the information provided with such instruments should … facilitate full scrutiny by Parliament. This means there should be a discussion of the risks as well as the benefits of the measures and adequate background information to understand the full effects; preferably, supported by an analysis of … similar changes”.

It is clearly the committee’s view that Parliament had not had that kind of information to the level of detail that we should have done.

I endorse that conclusion. However, subject to those caveats, I broadly support the measure to enable deportation at an earlier stage of prisoner sentences following sentence.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today. I begin by affirming that we on this side strongly support the principle that foreign nationals who break the law in our country also break the trust that we accord them and that they have no right to remain here. This order is therefore a welcome step which builds upon reforms that the Conservative Government made in January 2024 to advance the point at which foreign nationals could be removed from prison and deported from 12 months to 18 months before the end of their custodial sentence. The instrument before us today expands on this, increasing the maximum removal period for foreign offenders to the later of either 30% of their custodial term or four years before their earliest release date. This is estimated to result in some foreign prisoners serving only 10% of their sentences before being deported, down from the current 25%. That, as I have said, is a welcome step, but it is not enough.

By the Government’s own admission, this reform will free up, at most, just 500 places. The taxpayer currently spends upwards of £500 million annually just on housing and feeding imprisoned individuals who neither need nor deserve to be here. Five hundred fewer places in our prisons accounts for just 5% of that total cost. That is before we consider the forecast growth in the prison population. Does the Minister really believe that these numbers reflect effective policy? Perhaps what is more worrying is that since this measure has been introduced, the Government have changed their tune. On 10 August this year, the Secretary of State announced the Government’s revised position that foreign offenders should be deported immediately after receiving a custodial sentence. Earlier in the year, we tabled an amendment to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which called for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of an offence. While it is always gratifying to see the Government following our lead, their slowness to adopt this belated measure will have real-life impacts for the law-abiding people of this country. It will take time to implement and require more time-consuming legislation. In the meantime, more offenders are charged without the prospect of immediate deportation. The taxpayer will pay for the privilege, so I ask the Minister to lay out a timetable towards immediate deportations of convicted foreign nationals.

Similarly, there is nothing preventing the continuation of the endless cycle of appeals and repeals that cause delay. It seems as if every week a foreign criminal has his deportation order blocked under the doubtful guise of human rights. In the long term, without protections against human rights manipulation, this statutory instrument could end up seeing the same number of offenders removed each year as under current policy, just a little bit earlier. That is not effective policy. Can the Minister outline how this will be avoided?

That is why the Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act in all immigration-related cases. No delays or obstructions in legislation would be used for means for which they were not designed. Swift, effective removal is what we require.

To sum up, we believe that this statutory instrument is a first step, albeit a small one, towards the shared goal of the removal and deportation of foreign offenders.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a similar question when we last spoke about this very serious issue. As I shared then with the House, I also have a personal connection in that the brother of a friend of mine was killed at Hillsborough. The noble Lord asked about parity of arms. Our manifesto commitment was to

“provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths”

at inquests. That is a commitment that we will fulfil. We are currently exploring how best to deliver on that commitment and the House will be updated in due course when we reach that stage. I can say to the noble Lord that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to make it a legal requirement to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by Select Committees, coroners and public inquiries. There is now an up and running website where the infected blood scandal recommendations and the Grenfell Tower phase 2 recommendations can be seen, and where the Government’s progress in meeting those recommendations can be monitored.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I ask in plain terms: what will be the obligations of candour imposed under this new law? What will be imposed on public servants? In short, what will they be obliged to do and say that they are not currently? If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have been quite clear that, under the duty of candour, public officials will be bound by that duty, with criminal and professional consequences—the noble Lord is shaking his head. What I also said is that we think there needs to be a wider cultural change and there need to be other programmes put in place to achieve this. If I can provide more detail, I will happily write to the noble Lord, but I think that we are being very genuine and explicit in the ambition that we have set forth, that a duty of candour will be at the core of all public officials’ roles.

European Convention on Human Rights

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point and is right. I think that we are repeating the same question in different ways, if I may say so. We have committed to addressing Article 8 rules within our own domestic legislation and there is the issue about the margin of appreciation, which I have referred to in answer to earlier questions.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged today that the convention on human rights needs to evolve. Nine EU member states recently called for reform of the European Court of Human Rights—not the convention—and the court’s approach to the application of the convention. Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom will join those states in calling for such reform of the court’s operations? If not, why not?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can quote from my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor’s speech in Strasbourg in June, where she acknowledged the letter—which was of course signed by EU members; the UK Government were not invited to sign that. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend said that there should indeed be an

“open conversation about the future of the Convention”

and that the UK wants to play its full part in that.

Prisons: Mothers and Babies

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The general rule is that babies can stay with mothers in prison for up to 18 months, but there is flexibility so they can stay longer if required. It is really important that when women leave prison with their babies, they have somewhere to live and a wraparound support network. That is why it is important that we give them a soft landing when they leave prison. This is where probation comes in and where the £700 million in extra funding that we have will be really important to make sure that we get that first night accommodation, because we do not want anybody leaving prison with no fixed abode.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Prison Reform Trust’s 2025 report found that two-thirds of mother and baby units are operating above safe capacity. Can the Minister confirm how many mothers are currently held in standard, non-MBU prison accommodation with infants due to those shortages? What urgent steps are being taken to address this?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Having been chair of the Prison Reform Trust, I should know the details of that question, but I do not have them to hand so I will write to the noble Lord with the exact details. It is really important that we keep monitoring what happens in mother and baby units, because the children are our priority. We need to make sure that mum and baby leave there in a very safe way.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add a few sentences to what the right reverend Prelate said. I preface that by noting that, when we built the Sentencing Council, the legislation was discussed and agreed. It was clear when this Bill was introduced that discussion and agreement were needed. I find it very disappointing that we have not been able to get together to find a satisfactory way to deal with this legislation other than by dropping it—I regard that now as gone.

I think it important that Ministers appreciate what the right reverend Prelate said. It is plain that pregnancy and maternity are characteristics, and one ought to ensure that all judges receive the same guidance as to obtaining pre-sentence reports. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are very keen that pregnant women do not go to prison, but they are not the law; the law is laid down by this unfortunate legislation. If there is one thing we can do to ensure that it does not wreak injustice, it is to allow the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate. There is a huge amount more that we should do, but, without a consensus and discussion between us, I do not believe that we can make any improvement. That is why I content myself with this very narrow point. We cannot be in a position where we cannot give guidance to courts that they should get a pre-sentence report to avoid sending pregnant women to prison.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the Bill’s progress in Committee. In particular, I acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. We have heard further thoughtful contributions today, not least from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.

None the less, from this side of the House, I wish to place on record our broad support for the principles that underpin the Bill. The use of pre-sentence reports, when applied rigorously, consistently and with due regard to the individual circumstances of the offender, is an essential part of a fair and effective justice system. They play a crucial role in informing judicial discretion, ensuring proportionality in sentencing and helping to reduce the risk of reoffending through appropriate rehabilitative measures. We welcome the intention of the Bill to strengthen and clarify the expectations around the preparation and consideration of pre-sentence reports. These seek to embed good practice across the system and to promote greater consistency in the court’s approach to sentencing.

However, while we on this side support the direction of travel, we remain mindful that sentencing is a complex and sensitive area of the law. It touches not only on legal principle but on human lives, social outcomes and the effective operation of our prison and probation systems. In that context, I will take a moment to acknowledge a specific concern raised by noble Lords in Committee: the lack of clarity around the term “personal characteristics” as it appears in the Bill. This is not a small point. If the legislation is to provide clear and workable guidance to practitioners, including report writers and the judiciary, we must be precise about what we mean. Any doubt or uncertainty in this area risks inconsistent application. It undermines the very consistency and fairness that the Bill seeks to promote. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on these concerns and consider whether further definition could be usefully provided.

More broadly, I echo the view expressed at earlier stages that, with just a little more time and careful consideration, we could strengthen and improve this legislation further. There remain questions that would benefit from additional scrutiny, and we should proceed with care. We must get this right, not only in the interest of justice but for the confidence of the public, the judiciary and those working on the front line of our criminal justice system. We on these Benches remain committed to working constructively with the Government, with noble Lords across the House and with all those who bring experience and insight to bear on this important issue.

I will turn briefly to the amendments in the first group. As for Amendments 1 and 7, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, we recognise that Amendment 1 seeks to provide clarity about the range of matters that the sentencer may take into account. We invite the Government to consider these during the Bill’s journey through the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I may be brief, having made my general observations in respect of the previous group. So far as this amendment is concerned, in appropriate cases, pre-sentence reports are of course necessary—but not in all cases. The probation officer is usually the best person to alert the court to the possible benefit of obtaining a report, or not obtaining one, in a given case. In some cases, the sentencer will also want a report, whether or not the probation officer has indicated that a report might assist. We on this side are of the view that we do not need this amendment.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about pre-sentence reports. A long time ago, I had much experience of defending in the Crown Court, so I know that such reports are of extreme and important value. However, I have to say—for the first time, really—that I agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, who just said that he does not see the need for this amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I do not see it, either, I am afraid. I know that the noble Lord needs to be satisfied by the Minister, who will no doubt follow what I have to say, but, in my view, the Government’s policy on pre-sentence reports is clear: they are in favour of them, and we need to improve them because they have been allowed to go downhill in the past number of years. I agree with that. My view is that this amendment is not something that should divide the House.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

Speaking for myself, I would have no idea of the dynamics at work within that family. When I see a Bill which suggests that a pre-sentence report, which is desperately needed in a case like that, should omit race, religion and cultural background—the fact the poor girl could not speak English and so on—it seems absolutely disgraceful. I support all the amendments that have been spoken to in this group.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading and for that I apologise. On this side of the Committee, we support the direction of travel of this Bill. We agree and endorse the principle that all those before the criminal courts should be treated equally and without special treatment. We have heard, however, compelling arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and other speakers about the difficulties with the drafting of this Bill and the way it is framed.

What I will say about the amendments is on the basis that, while we support the purpose of the Bill and in particular stand by our amendments in the third group—we believe they will bring to Parliament its proper role when it comes to guidelines—we see that there are issues with the terms to which these amendments are directed. Having said that, I can deal quite quickly with the amendments, without any disrespect to those who have spoken in support of them.

We believe that Amendment 1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would detract from the Bill. We refer to our amendments in the third group and say that what is contained there would enable Parliament to address the points the noble Baroness made in practice. Similar arguments apply to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We do not favour this amendment and believe it goes too far in reversing the purpose of the Bill. We listened with great respect, as I have already said, to the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which we think have great force. We can see that there could be unforeseen and unintended—perhaps they are foreseen, but they are certainly unintended—adverse consequences. With this and the other amendments, we await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply.

We would make similar observations in respect of Amendment 4, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and Amendment 5, which we believe, to the extent that it adds to the Bill, detracts from its message and is a move in the wrong direction. On Amendment 6, again from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we advance the same reasons as we have done in respect of the other amendments, and his Amendment 4.

On Amendments 11 and 12, we have nothing to add to what I have said before, but we believe that the Government must address the arguments advanced to ensure that the Bill is clearly drawn and does not have unintended adverse consequences that simply make the situation worse. We invite the Government to look carefully at this and, indeed, the aims of Amendments 12 and 13, although we believe that the Bill is right to focus in the direction that it does.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also raised important specific points in relation to specific matters. Again, we will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but we see merit in the view expressed by the Constitution Committee, not in respect to those amendments in particular but, of course, in relation to other amendments. That is all that I propose to say at this stage in respect of this group.

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

I thank noble Lords for the careful consideration that they have clearly given the Bill, and I hope that I can reassure them on many, if not all, the points made. I also appreciate their kindness to me in their wise assumption that I am in the presence of some of the world’s experts on this subject, and I am not one of them—but I hope that I address all the points that noble Lords have raised.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that I am very grateful to her for the work that she does in supporting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and I am happy to continue to engage with her on that subject. I have already had a meeting with the group as well.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government are seeking to ensure that the sentencing guidelines do not lead to differential treatment before the law. To do that, the Bill prevents relevant guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offenders’ different personal characteristics. A non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of personal characteristics is included in the Bill, including race, religion or belief or cultural background. This list was developed with reference to the content of the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline.

Before I set out the Government’s position, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his contribution to this debate, which I will ask the team to consider fully ahead of Report.

Amendments 1, 11 and 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would replace reference to “personal characteristics” in Clause 1 with reference to “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act 2010. We have considered the proposed change to the wording carefully and, while we understand the logic behind referring to the set of protected characteristics provided for in the Equality Act, I am not persuaded that this would meet the Government’s policy objective.

The revised imposition guideline refers to members of a “cultural minority” within its list of cohorts for which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. As cultural background is not a protected characteristic provided for in the Equality Act, if the Bill was to be amended in the way proposed, the council would be free to provide within its guidelines that cultural minorities received preferential access to pre-sentence reports, in turn risking differential treatment before the law. The use of the broader term “personal characteristics” in the Bill ensures that our policy intent is met and that all the issues raised by the imposition guideline are appropriately addressed. I am happy to carry on the conversation with my noble friend and look forward to our meeting later this week. I therefore urge her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the Bill’s current blanket restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offender’s different personal characteristics. Instead, the amendment would require sentencing guidelines to include references to personal characteristics when they are also considered to be related to an offender’s personal circumstances. I am mindful that there has already been extensive debate in this House and in the other place about the Government’s use of the term “personal characteristics”, but I hope that it may nevertheless be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s approach.

The Government acknowledge that the concept of “personal characteristics” is a broad and flexible one that is not intended to have an exhaustive definition. However, to put it simply, personal characteristics refer to who or what someone is. They are things that one cannot, or should not, be expected to change; the Bill sets out some illustrative examples such as race, religion or belief, and cultural background. On the other hand, personal circumstances are more temporary and contingent. They are more about what someone is doing, what they have done or what has been done to them.

The Government completely accept that the line between characteristics and circumstances may not always be clear and that some attributes, such as pregnancy, could reasonably be described as both a characteristic and a circumstance. Ultimately, however, I must stress that the Government’s objective in bringing the Bill forward is to ensure equality before the law by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines that risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. The Government remain of the view that the reference to “personal characteristics” in the Bill is the most robust way of meeting this objective; I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 4 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would loosen the Bill’s restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports referring to offenders’ differential personal characteristics. It would do this by allowing sentencing guidelines to include such references where the Sentencing Council considers that this would prevent inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Although the amendments are well intentioned—I fully agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing what we, as parliamentarians, can to tackle inequalities in outcomes across the justice system—we are not persuaded that these amendments are appropriate, for two key reasons.

First, they risk undermining the Bill’s fundamental objective of ensuring equality before the law by ensuring that sentencing guidelines do not include any provision that risks differential access to pre-sentence reports. Secondly, the Government remain of the firm view that it is for Ministers and Parliament, rather than the Sentencing Council, to consider how best to tackle disproportionate outcomes across the criminal justice system; it is not something that we should seek to address using differential treatment before the law during sentencing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his speech highlighting the issues around racial bias and disproportionality in the justice system. We recognise the issues that he spoke about, but, as I have said, we believe that these are matters for policy, not the Sentencing Council, to address.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, work is continuing at pace on the review commissioned by the Lord Chancellor of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the criminal justice system. This will be key in helping decide what we must do to address disparities; the House will be updated in due course. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this is an issue the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address, and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

I acknowledge the wider comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the need for legislation, including whether we could postpone this legislation until after David Gauke has published his review. I remind the Committee of the timelines. The guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April. We sought to address this issue via constructive conversation with the Sentencing Council. As the Sentencing Council did not agree to change the guidelines, we introduced legislation to address the specific concerns that we had around equality before the law. That is why we had to act in the way we have: with primary legislation.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would provide a list of non-exhaustive examples of instances where sentencing guidelines could recommend that sentencers consider requesting pre-sentence reports. Although we have carefully considered the case for adding these criteria to the Bill, we are not persuaded that this is necessary, for two key reasons.

First, I re-emphasise that nothing in the Bill restricts sentencing guidelines from advising, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. Sentencers will therefore retain discretion to decide whether a pre-sentence report should be ordered, considering the specifics of the case before them.

Secondly, I am mindful that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant provision that meets the spirit of this amendment, and it will be unaffected by the Bill. I agree with the Lord Chancellor’s remarks in the other place that the council “got things right” in the paragraph of the revised guideline that states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements”.


I agree that PSRs should be used more widely. My work in supporting the Probation Service needs to go hand in hand with this ambition. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have spoken at length on my amendment in the last group. My amendment here is to suggest, as I believe is completely uncontroversial, that sentencing guidelines about sentencing reports must promote greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. Whether that is a matter for the sentencing guidelines or for sentencers generally, the need for more and better pre-sentence reports is of extreme importance. I believe that everything the Minister has said on this subject since his appointment shows that the Government agree with that position. So I propose to say nothing more about that.

Amendments 3 and 8, to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has spoken, are non-controversial. Whether they are treated as probing amendments at this stage perhaps matters little, but we are trying here to get across the principles. I do not think there is any need for me to say more on this group.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will first deal with the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary; probation officers should be left to get on with their jobs. The Bill does not prevent them addressing matters likely to reduce offending and we should have some confidence that they will share this view when it is necessary and appropriate. Why would they wish not to go down that route? That, after all, is what their job is about: preventing reoffending.

We do not believe that Amendment 8 is necessary, but we are sympathetic to where it goes. Again, this is on the basis that our amendments in group 3, which will bring the guidelines before Parliament, are accepted and acted on, so that Parliament gets to look at what is actually happening in the guidelines themselves.

Again, we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but, although reports are necessary in appropriate cases, they are not necessary in every case. It is the probation officer who is best placed to alert the court in cases where a report is not proposed. A probation officer will be in court and can speak to defendants before sentencing in court.

In my experience, having sat in the court myself as a recorder for many years—and even, many years before that, having appeared in Crown Courts on quite a number of occasions—a probation officer is best placed to alert the court to the benefit of obtaining a report, or saying that they actually do not need one in a given case. However, that can be left to Parliament when it looks at the guidelines, if it gets the chance to do so.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about probation and reducing reoffending—topics that are very important. I would like to use this opportunity to shine a light on the important work that probation practitioners do to support the sentencing process. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the processes that are already in place.

I will speak first to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This would require the Sentencing Council to include references to the factors most likely to reduce reoffending in its sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports. While I cannot support this amendment, as it would remove the Bill’s prohibition on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports being framed with reference to offenders’ personal characteristics, I agree that the role of probation in supporting reducing reoffending is an important one.

The purpose of a pre-sentence report is defined by section 31 of the Sentencing Code as being a report which

“is made or submitted by an appropriate officer with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender”.

A completed pre-sentence report will therefore provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk, alongside targeted assessments of individuals’ needs, by confidently articulating suitable proposals that balance the needs of public protection, punishment and the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing.

Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the probation practitioner writing the pre-sentence report will obtain information from both the defendant and external sources in respect of mental health, drug and alcohol needs and services, accommodation, finances and youth justice contact, as well as consideration of wider circumstances that could be indicative of additional vulnerability or complexity for the defendant.

A pre-sentence report will always include an assessment of the risk the defendant poses and to whom, including the risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis. In making the sentencing recommendation, the pre-sentence report’s author must also consider the purposes of sentencing under the Sentencing Code, including the reduction of crime, and reform and rehabilitation.

The Probation Service has always had to balance public protection with rehabilitation, and striking the right balance is a long-standing part of the culture of the service, which is reinforced by the messages and expectations set not just by senior operational leaders but by me and other Ministers. I hope I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that rehabilitative principles have always been, and will continue to be, at the heart of the pre-sentence advice provided to courts, and that she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, proposes imposing a requirement on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports to promote a greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. I share the noble Lord’s desire to see greater use of pre-sentence reports. As I have set out, a good PSR assesses the offender’s behaviour and the risks they pose, and recommends sentencing options tailored to those risks and needs. We know that the number of pre-sentence reports has declined, with a 44% reduction over the last decade.

There have been several reasons for this, but it may well be that judicial perceptions of probation’s capacity to deliver PSRs may influence that decision. Judicial confidence in probation is a key priority for me and for the Lord Chancellor, and I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the steps we are taking to maximise probation’s ability not just to deliver PSRs but to deliver them in a timely way and to a high quality.

First, we are continuing to invest in increasing staffing levels in probation. Last year, we recruited 1,000 new trainee probation officers, and this year we have raised that target to 1,300. That continued investment in staff is helping us fill vacancies, including in probation court teams, where last year we increased our target staffing levels.

Secondly, we are taking steps to increase the capacity of probation staff providing advice to courts. We are beginning to roll out a new digital service, prepare a case for sentence, that links to HMCTS systems and which means that listing information about upcoming cases comes straight to probation staff, rather than having to be looked up and rekeyed into the new system. This in turn will help probation court teams do the right preparation in advance, so they can identify cases in which a court is likely to need further information and have that ready on the day if the court requests a report.

We are also improving access to video-link facilities to promote greater use of remote interviewing, so that, where an offender is remanded in custody and the court adjourns for a pre-sentence report to be written, probation staff can easily carry out an interview to inform the report. Through measures such as these, we can better focus probation staff’s precious time on providing the court with the right information, rather than on chasing up data from partner agencies or having to react to court requests at short notice.

Thirdly, we are trying to maximise the different opportunities for courts to request pre-sentence reports. For example, the PSR before plea scheme allows for a pre-sentence report to be written early on in certain cases where there is an anticipated guilty plea, and it is likely that the defendant will be sentenced in the magistrates’ court.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord about the Government’s commitment to increasing probation’s ability to provide the best possible advice to courts, and that he will be happy as a result not to press his amendment.

Amendment 8 is intended to prevent sentencing guidelines restricting the contents of a pre-sentence report or interfering with a court order. I take this opportunity to briefly reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nothing in the Bill as currently drafted, nor sentencing guidelines themselves, will do this. Following the Bill’s passage, sentencers will retain their current discretion to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases. All the Bill does is ensure that the content of sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports does not provide for differential access to pre-sentence reports for certain groups over others.

The Bill also does not impact the types of sentencing options available to the court. Sentencers will retain their discretion to impose the sentence that they consider most appropriate, based on the specifics of the individual case before them and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

9: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(4B) Sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports must be submitted to the Secretary of State by the Council and the Secretary of State must give effect to those guidelines by regulations.”

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be a bit longer on this amendment than I have been hitherto. I shall speak to Amendments 10 and 17 while moving Amendment 9, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar.

The draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council could have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. Undoubtedly, this state of affairs has been damaging to public confidence in the justice system. Unfortunately, this Bill does little to address the underlying issues. It only partly addresses the problem, leaving many concerns unresolved, and it risks creating new problems down the line.

This Bill would prevent sentencing guidelines referring to personal characteristics when a court is considering whether a pre-sentence report should be requested. However, it only resolves the issue presented by these particular guidelines and does not provide Parliament with the power by regulations to amend or reject guidelines more generally, failing to prevent this or a similar situation occurring again.

The Bill is a necessary but not sufficient or adequate step in ensuring equality before the law. While a step in the right direction, it does not offer a comprehensive solution, and the amendments that we advance look to rectify this flaw. These amendments would ensure that in future sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight. They would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses before they come into force as definitive guidelines. We submit that that is a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring parliamentary oversight on sensitive sentencing matters.

Without these amendments, history may repeat itself. The same council will be free to bring forward, as it wishes, ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would now have sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the system. Taken together, Amendments 9,10 and 17 would create an important safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. We commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendments 9, 10 and 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Sentencing Council to submit sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to the Secretary of State, who would then be responsible for placing these guidelines before Parliament for approval.

As noble Lords will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has been clear that this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. The Government are therefore currently reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council and its powers for developing sentencing guidelines. In doing so, we are fully mindful of the recent developments on the imposition guideline, which have brought us to debating today’s Bill.

I acknowledge and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his comments. In conducting the review, the Government are particularly mindful of the special role that the council plays in bridging Parliament and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice. There are of course significant policy and constitutional matters to carefully consider, alongside considering what recommendations arise from the wider independent sentencing review.

While I acknowledge the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling these amendments, I am not convinced that it would be proper to legislate on this in a piecemeal way, recognising that the amendments capture only sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am also not convinced that using this fast-track legislation is the best way of going about this. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, but I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government are keeping all options on the table. Once the review of the council is complete, the Lord Chancellor and I are clear that we are willing to further legislate on this in a more comprehensive way if necessary.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. The concerns raised today underline the vital necessity of ensuring that our justice system remains fair, impartial and subject to proper democratic accountability.

The three amendments we have just been considering seek to address what we see as a flaw in the current system: the lack of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny over sentencing guidelines that have profound implications for equality before the law. The draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council risked entrenching a two-tier justice system. They would have treated defendants differently based on identity rather than the merits of their case; that was unacceptable. Without these amendments, it could happen again.

I am grateful for the excursus given on the consultation process in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which was interesting and helpful. However, government must be looking forward to how we manage this process in the future, so that Parliament, if appropriate—and we believe necessary—has the last word on the sentencing guidelines. They are in part for the judges, when they have to give practical effect to what is set out in them, but the fact that the council is an independent body and consults quite widely before the guidelines are promulgated should not mean that Parliament cannot have a look at them and then step in if it believes it appropriate. That is not to tread on the constitutional independence of the courts, because it will be before any sentences are pronounced under the guidelines. It will be just a step in the process, and they will then go to the courts for implementation.

We invite the Government to look at the approach we have advanced, even if the drafting may be imperfect as it stands. The principle at stake is simple: sentencing policy is too important to be left entirely to unelected bodies. Parliament must have the final say on matters that affect the foundational principle of equality under the law. These amendments have the aim of ensuring that, at the very least, guidelines on pre-sentence reports could not come into force without the explicit approval of both Houses. That is not an unreasonable burden; it is a basic safeguard of democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, my two amendments in this group, Amendments 15 and 18, cover two separate topics. The first relates to the public sector equality duty and seeks to provide that:

“Nothing in this section shall require the Council to issue guidance about pre-sentence reports that is not consistent with its duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010”.


As your Lordships will be aware, that section provides for the public sector equality duty, which is a duty to work towards eliminating discrimination based on protected characteristics, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between those with protected characteristics and others who do not have such characteristics.

I raise this issue in Committee because it has been suggested in some quarters that the public sector equality duty might have been compromised or broken by the Sentencing Council’s proposed imposition guideline, which has now been paused. This is a probing amendment to explore what the Government consider to be the position. Our understanding is that paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Equality Act disapplies the equality duty from those exercising a judicial function, or citing on behalf of someone exercising a judicial function, which would apply to the Sentencing Council, so the public sector equality duty is not engaged at all in the sentencing exercise or in the ordering or commissioning of pre-sentence reports—which is, of course, a judicial function, because it is the judge who makes the order.

It would be helpful to ensure that these discussions are not conducted in the shadow of the misunderstanding of where the public sector equality duty applies and where it does not. On the substantive point, which is independent of the jurisdictional point that I have just raised, as to whether the paused imposition guideline would have been in breach of the public sector equality duty if it applied, we would argue that a guideline that had as its plain aim the elimination of inequality in sentencing could itself be found to be discriminatory—and we would not accept that it could.

Amendment 18 is the second amendment in my name in this group. It calls for an independent review of the operation of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, within two years of its passing. In calling for this review, I suggest that it is important to keep the work of the Sentencing Council generally under review, in the light of any applicable legislation. That is particularly so if this Bill becomes law because it is likely to be overtaken, or at least supplemented, in large part by reforms to be introduced both as a result of the Gauke review that is to report extremely soon and, no doubt later, as a result of the Leveson review into the criminal courts and their wider working. There will therefore be a constant need for review to ensure that contradictions do not arise or that any such potential contradictions are eliminated between this legislation and further reforms.

On a broader basis, it is important to monitor the success or failure of the attempt to address inequality of outcomes in the sentencing process. I know that the Minister is aware of and alive to the inequality of outcomes and determined to address it. I know that he regards our objections to this Bill on the basis that it does not do so as perhaps ill founded; nevertheless, it is important to keep under review whether the Bill actually hampers the addressing of inequality of outcomes.

On the second point as to why it is important to monitor progress, the Government are dedicated and committed to ensuring that pre-sentence reports are more widely available and in future more thoroughly prepared, and the resources being applied to the Probation Service are dedicated in part to that end. Therefore, it is important to monitor the effect of any such improvement in the availability and quality of pre-sentencing reports on reducing reoffending and, ultimately, reducing the number of people in custody. That justifies having a review after two years of the operation of this Act.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. On the noble Lord’s first Amendment, Amendment 15, we would not for our part want the Sentencing Council to go down the road of issuing guidance inconsistent with its duties under the Equality Act.

As for Amendment 18 and the review, we do not have a view on this matter. I note that with practically every Bill that comes before this House there is a call for a review at some point, whether it is one year, two years or five years down the road. The Sentencing Council must by now be well aware of public concerns and the concerns of legislators, and it would itself want to know how things are going. It is quite likely to call for a review if so minded. We are neutral on that topic.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to ensure that any guidelines about pre-sentence reports issued by the Sentencing Council are fully compliant with the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the Bill’s key aim is to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law. It does this by removing the effect of the changes the Sentencing Council introduced in its revised imposition guideline, which provides that a pre-sentence report will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, with reference to their personal characteristics, and prevents the council from reissuing guidance to the same effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the Bill impacts the Sentencing Council’s obligations to comply with the public sector equality duty in developing sentencing guidelines. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 18, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require an independent review to be arranged by the Secretary of State into the changes made by Clause 1 of the Bill to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am mindful that a very similar amendment was tabled during the Bill’s consideration in the other place, and I do not want to repeat in full the debate there, but I hope it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s position.

While I recognise it is of course important to carefully ponder the Bill’s effects, I stress that the direct changes it makes are limited in nature. All this is about is ensuring that offenders do not receive preferential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. This gets to the heart of ensuring equality before the law, which is a principle which does not need to be reviewed.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill will prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving domestic abuse, young people or pregnant women.

While I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw this amendment, I hope that I can reassure him that there will be ample opportunity in this House to discuss matters with regard to the Sentencing Council in future, once the Lord Chancellor’s review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council is complete.

Ex-offenders: Reintegration

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I absolutely understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is making. Last year, the Government recruited 1,000 new probation officers; in the current year, we aim to recruit 1,300 officers and my understanding is that we are on target to achieve that. Of course, it takes two or three years to train probation officers so that they can get the relevant experience and confidence, and that process is ongoing. We absolutely want to revitalise the Probation Service. That is absolutely central to our ambitions for greater use of community sentences in future.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the most recent Probation Service data showed that around 40% of homeless ex-prisoners reoffend within a year, compared with 19% of those with stable housing. Can the Minister please explain, first, what data-driven adjustments are being made to improve outcomes for ex-prisoners, and, secondly, how the Government intend to track the success of reintegration programmes and collate the data?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question and the answer lies in housing and accommodation. At the moment, there are three tiers of possible housing options available to prisoners. Community accommodation services are in either tier 1, 2 or 3. The key to resolving the issue is to get prisoners into one of those tiers of accommodation and then moving out of it as appropriate and, in the case of the third tier, after 12 weeks. Of course, moving out into settled accommodation requires the availability of that accommodation, and that availability varies across the country. Many other parts of society are competing for that accommodation. So we are very aware of the point that the noble Lord has made and the Government are doing their best to address restrictions on the housing that will support offenders when they leave prison.