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

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 25 and 26 June be approved.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 8 September.

Motions agreed.

IPP Sentences

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recommendations in the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform entitled Ending the detention of people on IPP sentences: expert recommendations, published in June.

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

This Government welcome and share the Howard League’s determination to support those serving the IPP sentence, but we cannot take any steps that would put the public at risk. For that reason, we remain firmly of the view that the Parole Board must determine that a prisoner serving the IPP sentence is safe to be released, having regard to the statutory release test, and that the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare offenders for release. The report includes a range of additional, complex recommendations which we are exploring in full.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, wrote to a constituent in 2021:

“As IPP prisoners spend longer and longer in prison without any prospect of release, their mental health continues to decline, and they start to display behavioural traits which makes their release even less likely”.


So he gets it. The Howard League report, which has a foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, makes innovative recommendations as to how the residual prisoners—those who have never been released; there are about 1,000 of them—could make progress through the Parole Board systems. Will the noble Lord agree to discuss this with his new colleague and to make a formal response to the Howard League report, ideally in writing?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister, my new boss, shares my determination to do all we can for those serving IPP sentences and their families while ensuring that we do not take any steps that put the public at risk. Having visited prisons for over 20 years and met many IPP prisoners, I completely agree that a number of them need support with their mental health. That is why the IPP action plan is the right place to support those people, especially as we updated it on 17 July, and the progression panels with senior psychiatrists are already making a difference. In the last year, 154 IPPs have been released who have never been released before. But we have a lot more to do, and I will write to the noble Lord in due course.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister inform the House of how many of these prisoners are now refusing to engage with the processes required to satisfy the Parole Board’s current tests for release because they have lost confidence in the system? If they have, is it not time to think again?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Parole Board is the best way to determine whether someone’s risk is sufficient to be managed in the community. It is important that when IPP prisoners go in front of the Parole Board, they are prepared in a way to have a successful release. That is why the IPP action plan is the right way to go, and why we are seeing significant increases in the number of people released and rereleased. We need to make sure that the IPP action plan works but also—this is one of the things I am doing for most of my days—that our prisons are good prisons that rehabilitate people and that when they leave, they do not come back.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, can I commend the Minister’s approach? There are two sides to this story. One of them is obviously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the difficulties faced by people who are indefinitely detained, but the other, which the Minister has, thankfully, mentioned every time he has had to speak on this issue, is the interests of the public and public safety. Therefore, the action plan, which tries to balance those two interests, is exactly the right way to approach this.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. What is important is that the Parole Board is doing a fantastic job; its staff are fantastic public servants. The release decisions are steady: 45% of hearings over the past five years have led to a positive release. The reason why I think that this is going in the right direction is that these people are increasingly complex individuals. That is why the IPP action plan is working; we need to keep the pressure on. One thing that I bring from my experience of running a business is improving everything, having targets, having real focus and holding people to account.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister well knows, much of the pressure on our prisons, including on IPP prisoners, comes from the constant probationary pressing of the panic recall button. I know that the Minister’s folder will say, “Don’t say anything negative about probation”, but might he consider something in the Sentencing Bill that allows the power of recall to rest with the courts and not with probation officers, who, as we discovered on Thursday in HMP Belmarsh, are sending people back with such excessive frequency that it is unjust?

[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.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Sorry—a lot of us are very keen to speak up on this matter.

The six recommendations in the report are a brilliant way to ensure that IPP prisoners can be looked after properly and released safely. One recommendation that particularly struck me was one that I had moved previously: recommendation 4, which recommended that the aftercare duty provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act be extended to all ex-IPP prisoners. If someone happens to be sectioned under that section, many safe and timely ways to give additional help to high-needs individuals are available so that they can be released safely and remain in the community. Why not give the rest of them the same multiagency support as they would have received had they been incarcerated in a mental hospital?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We have 233 IPP prisoners in secure mental health hospitals. From having been to the hospitals and met the individuals, I know that the care that they get from our nursing professionals is exceptional. It is also important that when they come back into the prison system, they have a soft landing and not a hard landing. That is an area that I am working on as we speak. Also important is that when people leave prison, they go to an approved premises. We have a trial going on where we are extending them going there from 12 to 16 weeks but also having a dedicated individual psychologist to support them. That is already having gains now.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the current recall system for IPP offenders is confused, confusing, overly bureaucratic and irrational, and that it creates injustice and just increases the number of mentally ill people and those without any hope in custody? Would he please accelerate his efforts to mend it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question, and for the work that he and the noble and learned Lord Thomas have done on this area. It is really important, and the focus has been very helpful. Already, the documents are clearer and more focused. Senior managers now oversee all recall decisions. From 3 November this year, we are extending the post-recall timeframes to improve planning and decision-making. That is thanks to Shirley Debono, who has helped us on that as well. The multidisciplinary progression panels are the way to do this, because we need to make sure that everybody who is in prison on an IPP sentence has hope, engages with the action plan, gets out and stays out.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why IPP prisoners have to go to such lengths to prove that they are safe to leave custody before being released, while others in prison for similar offences do not? Does he agree that this difference in treatment is a further injustice against IPP prisoners, and that it is vital and urgent that we make progress in this area?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Parole Board are the experts in deciding who is safe to be released. The release tests that it has are robust and fair, but we need to make sure that when people are in front of it, they are in a really good position to be released and released safely.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.

In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides while also balancing the need to ensure that any reforms do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of Clare’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what the draft instrument before us today aims to achieve. The measures in this instrument are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls, as we anticipate that they will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases, rightly recognising the seriousness of domestic murders.

The current sentencing framework for murder, as set out in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced over 20 years ago, and multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it since then. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context.

Clare Wade KC was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases and establish whether the law and sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Clare for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of this review. That includes Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie and Poppy, who were tragically murdered by their former partners in 2019 and 2018 respectively. We commend their courage in continuing to share their stories, and their commitment to campaigning for change.

Although some of Clare Wade’s recommendations were accepted and implemented by the previous Government, a number remain outstanding. This instrument implements two of the outstanding recommendations. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare as part of her review, the murder occurred at the end or perceived end of the relationship, and in the majority of cases that appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. In all these cases the perpetrator was male. A murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.

Secondly, this instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed involved strangulation, all of which involved a male perpetrator and female victim.

The intention of this instrument is to expressly recognise these factors in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework. Sentencing in individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it will therefore continue to be for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. As the committee noted, we consulted with the independent Sentencing Council on the draft instrument, in line with our statutory duty to consult the council before amending Schedule 21 by regulations. We are grateful for the council’s feedback on the draft instrument, which we took into careful consideration. A full account of the consultation is included in the draft Explanatory Memorandum published alongside this instrument, including the points raised by the Sentencing Council and the Government’s response.

Alongside this important legislation, the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes being subject to thorough consultation.

Although Clare Wade’s review and the legislation before us today go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new Schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences.

We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take several years to complete, and we will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law but it is not a quick one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in this instrument.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into account when considering the length of time to serve and, in reality, as the Minister said, they will have a significant impact on custodial terms.

Such amendments should be introduced only where it is plain that they are needed, and I express reservations as to whether that criterion is satisfied in this case. Of course, the amendments were recommended by Clare Wade in her review of domestic homicide sentencing. I pay tribute to her for that review, but it has not left me convinced that these measures are necessary or desirable.

The review puts a spotlight on the fact that the homicide of a woman by a man is often the final chapter of a coercive relationship in which the man has regularly abused the woman. I can see the arguments that, in those circumstances, the previous history aggravates the final act of homicide by the man, but effect has already been given to that factor by the addition last year to the list of aggravating factors in Schedule 21.

These regulations were considered on 14 July this year by the Second Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. On that occasion, as has been repeated today, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said that the draft instrument was

“central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/7/25; col. 1.]

The justification put forward appears to be that this will augment deterrence. The Opposition spokesman then referred to reasons why the previous Government had not taken forward these measures and to reservations expressed by the Sentencing Council, but indicated that the Opposition would not oppose the measures. I believe that the comment on these measures by the Sentencing Council was that they were “unnecessary” and “counterproductive”.

In this House, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made no adverse comment in relation to the measures, so I will briefly express my personal reservations. Schedule 21, which dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has had the unintended and unfortunate indirect consequence of approximately doubling sentence lengths across the board, contributing significantly to prison overcrowding. Adding to that list of aggravating factors will augment this effect and, as I said, should be contemplated only where there are compelling reasons.

The reason given for making strangulation a factor that augments the seriousness of the offence is stated, on page 21 of the Wade review, as being because

“strangulation includes additional suffering and greater harm”.

When one considers the many different ways in which a man may kill a woman, I question whether there is justification for singling out strangulation as, in itself, so increasing the horrific effect of the murder of the woman as to justify a result that may be several further years of imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I hope that noble and noble and learned Lords will appreciate that, due to some personnel changes in the department over the last couple of days, I may not be as familiar with or as expert on this as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who would have been here today.

The observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, on prison capacity is important. Due to the existing length of murder sentences, these changes will not increase the prison population for at least 13 years after they come into force and will not reach a steady state until 2052 for strangulation and 2062 for the end of a relationship. This will be factored into our long-term capacity planning. Also, Clare Wade KC found that many domestic murders, invariably those committed by men against women, take place at the end of a relationship, when the perpetrator perceives that they can no longer control the victim. Further analysis of the sentencing remarks in these cases also found that, in some instances, the sentencing judge appeared to consider the provocation or distress caused to the perpetrator by the breakdown of the relationship as mitigation for the crime. This factor will ensure that the perpetrators in these cases take full responsibility for their crimes.

The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sandhurst, referred to Clare Wade’s recommendations. It is important to recognise that the Government are not taking forward the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review’s recommendation to disapply the 25-year starting point to domestic murders. Implementing this recommendation would lead to significant inconsistency between domestic and non-domestic murders where a weapon has been taken to the scene. The review also recommended excluding sexual infidelity as mitigation, and excluding the use of a weapon as aggravation in domestic murder cases. The Government do not consider these recommendations to be necessary, as they largely involve putting a non-statutory position into legislation.

The Government recognise that application of the factor and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish it will depend on the circumstances and available evidence in a particular case. If evidence of the factor cannot be established to the criminal standard, the aggravating factor will not apply. The Government recognise that, in some cases, establishing whether the victim and offender had been in a relationship and whether this was connected to the murder may increase the length of some legal proceedings. The sentencing framework is clear that the statutory aggravating factors are not exhaustive; the sentencing judge is able to consider any relevant factors in terms of aggravation, including pregnancy and stalking. The end of a relationship factor in particular is not necessarily intended to acknowledge the vulnerability of the victim; it is intended to address the link between resentment at the end of the relationship on the part of the perpetrator and coercive control.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to strangulation. Strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, which is particularly relevant in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. The review found that nearly a third of the murder cases involved strangulation—all of these involved a male perpetrator and a female victim—and highlighted that strangulation is a gendered form of killing that encapsulates the vulnerability of the victim and inflicts a high degree of suffering. I am sure that noble Lords will look forward to the process of the Law Commission’s review and keep a close eye on how it progresses, although it will take considerable time.

A number of today’s remarks gave general examples that are sobering reminders of the necessity of these reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is quite right to refer to victims being fearful of raising domestic abuse, even though it can sometimes be very severe abuse. I believe that the statutory aggravating factors introduced by this instrument are essential to ensure that our sentencing framework appropriately recognises the particular and wider harms that arise in cases of domestic murder. While it is for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case, we expect that these measures, along with Clare Wade’s recommendations already implemented, will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to perpetrators in these cases. This rightly recognises the seriousness of domestic murders, ensuring that sentencing in these cases delivers justice for victims and their families.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

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

As noble Lords will know, when this Government came to power, we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% of capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok on our streets.

This Government carried out a series of emergency release schemes to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review, with one clear goal: to make sure we never run out of prison places. The highly regarded former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May, and the Government accepted the majority of them in principle.

One of the specific areas we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for around 12% of our prison population—that is 10,772 foreign national offenders as of June this year—and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year.

The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and, where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their removal. I am pleased to say that in our first year of government, we have removed 14% more foreign national offenders than in any year that the previous Government were in office. But we must go further and faster, in removing individuals who have broken our laws and who have no right to be here.

The draft instrument before the Committee today implements the sentencing review’s recommendation to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison from 50% to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed.

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report.

As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State has a power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. This is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences, life and sentences of imprisonment for public protection are outside the scope of the scheme. Prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorism-related offence set out in Schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are also excluded.

The power to remove a foreign national offender under this scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals where it would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system—for example, where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime, including plans to evade immigration control and return to the UK or dealing in class A drugs in custody—or, finally, where there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal.

Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one-half of the requisite custodial period. This SI amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served 30% of the requisite custodial period. This means eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier.

At current removal rates, we expect this change to free up to approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will it help us to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public, it will also prevent taxpayers’ money being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than necessary.

Noble Lords will also know that the Government are seeking to go further still in the Sentencing Bill, which was introduced on 2 September, by removing any minimum custodial requirement, so foreign national offenders can be removed from prison immediately after they are sentenced. In line with the existing early removal scheme, this further change will apply to all foreign criminals serving a determinate sentence, except terrorists and prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, such as life, who will be excluded.

Until this change takes effect, this SI will ensure that foreign offenders with no right to be here can still be removed from prison for the purpose of deportation earlier. This will protect victims by ensuring that those individuals can never offend in this country again, and if they return in breach of a deportation order, they will be liable to serve the rest of their sentence.

Indeed, concern for the protection of victims is driving the changes we are making through the sentencing review and now the Bill as a whole. By ensuring that we never again risk running out of prison places, we will ensure that our criminal justice system can function effectively and sustainably, keeping us all safe.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions to this important debate about foreign national offenders in our prisons.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly referred to the crisis that we inherited and how having offenders in police cells is not acceptable. What we need is a sustainable justice system. Our prison population is still going to increase. We are building 14,000 more prison places—as I know we have said before, that is 500 more than the previous Government did in 14 years—but we need those extra prison places.

When foreign national offenders are deported, what is clear is that they are not welcome back. Although deportation policy sits with the Home Office, for me, it is clear is that, if they return, they will be locked up and will finish their sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rightly referred to our desire to deport more of our foreign national offenders. We have increased that figure by 14%, but we know that more can be done. That is why this legislation will be helpful.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will be interested to know that, before the Recess, I went to HMP Huntercombe, which is a prison for foreign national offenders. It was clear that, although the governor knew that he could refuse to remove prisoners, the new foreign national offender team that we have in the prison—as in 91 other prisons—was making a big difference in supporting foreign national offenders leaving early, as well as encouraging them to do so. That is starting to make a difference, but it is clear that the Sentencing Bill is needed to help us get a sustainable justice system; that Bill has within it immediate deportation post sentencing.

A quarter of our foreign national offenders are on remand so have not yet been convicted. I am aware that the previous Home Secretary—I have not spoken to the new Home Secretary since she has moved across Westminster—was looking at Article 8 as well.

The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. By removing them from the country earlier, we will better protect victims from their reoffending. This will also help ease a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government, keeping the public safer and ensuring that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime.

Motion agreed.

Prisons: Early Release

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the long-term impact of schemes for early release from prison on public confidence in the justice system.

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

The previous Government introduced the end of custody supervised licence scheme, which released over 13,000 prisoners without any impact assessment. It is clear that this Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. We introduced SDS40, which was safely implemented thanks to our hard-working staff. A full impact assessment was published for our measure. We are now embarking on long-term sentencing reforms to place prisons on a sustainable footing so that we can protect the public and maintain public confidence in the justice system.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Rather than ending automatic early release of prisoners, many of whom now serve only 40% of their sentence in prison, would it not make more sense to shift to a system of earned early release, whereby prisoners can earn the opportunity to be released early based on good behaviour and completion of training, education, work and rehabilitation programmes? Does the Minister not agree that such an alternative approach would go further in restoring public confidence in the justice system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord has obviously been studying the plans that we have been looking at, especially the Texas model, which I think he refers to. There are two ways of looking at how we can incentivise prisoners to behave when they are in prison and engage with purposeful activities and education. One is the Texas model, which I describe as going down the hill: for every week they are well behaved, they get time off their sentence. The other is going up the hill: if they behave badly, they can get extra days. The model we prefer is the latter. It is clear that if prisoners assault officers they should, via adjudication, receive extra days. I am a big believer in incentives and in looking at other examples internationally. The Texas model is one where I think we all recognise that there has been a dramatic reduction in reoffending of those released from prison.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that when a prisoner is discharged, particularly in early discharge, they have somewhere to stay when they have left prison? Secondly, can he assure the House that every effort is made to reinforce the conditions of their discharge, so that the general public can be sure that people who have been discharged from prison will be properly supervised and their behaviour will be kept under review?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government was very chaotic. Far too many people left prison and were recalled very quickly, which meant that more victims were created. The SDS40 scheme was far more stable and organised, and probation colleagues had the time to find accommodation. The noble Lord is completely right: accommodation is one of the key factors in ensuring that when someone gets out of prison, they stay out. We have far too many people still leaving prison with NFA against their name, and that is totally unacceptable. The £700 million extra funding that we have secured for probation is important. A lot of that will go on accommodation, tagging, extra staff and technology.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, as I have suggested on a number of earlier occasions, the Government’s proposed policy on early release is flawed. Does the Minister now accept that the Government should expressly address whether technical or minor breaches of licence conditions by non-violent offenders should not result in recall to prison, whether for 28 days or otherwise? That would go a considerable way towards relieving pressure on our prison capacity.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The crisis we inherited in the justice system meant that, had we not acted, we would have run out of prison places, on the basis that the previous Government built only 500 prison places when the population of prisons increases by 3,000 a year. That is why, by the time of the next election, there will be more people in prison than ever before. On recall, it is important that our probation professionals use their judgment based on risk. When people leave prison, we need to give them all the tools possible so that when they get out, they stay out. I do not want them having a return ticket back to prison; I want them to have a one-way ticket. That is why accommodation and all the support services we put around people will ensure that there are fewer recalls.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the real route to public confidence in the prison system is, first, not to have overflowing prisons and lengthy court delays before trial, bequeathed by the last Government to this Government, and secondly, not just to lock people up for longer and longer but to ensure that the Probation Service is effective at reducing risk and protecting the public, as well as rehabilitation?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that probation is where the heavy lifting in the justice system needs to be done. I would like to let your Lordships’ House know that last week I was in a women’s prison, where the average length of stay of a woman was 46 days. There was also one very ill woman who, on average, tries to take her life over 20 times a month. We are dealing with people who are both very ill and very complex, and often the best way to reduce reoffending of these people and deal with their offending behaviour is to punish them in the community and support them in the community.

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

My Lords, the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to “public confidence”. On the basis that the Government are right that early release schemes have been essential to save our prison system from collapse, would that not be the ultimate disaster for public confidence? As well as working on their response to the Leveson report, will the Government now urgently implement David Gauke’s proposals for a presumption against short prison sentences, for more community sentences and for more early release on licence? Should the Government not also encourage a review of the sentencing guidelines with a view to bringing prison sentences here down to the level of those imposed elsewhere in Europe?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The review that David Gauke and his panel undertook will form a very important part of the reform of the criminal justice system that we need. We need a sustainable criminal justice system, and that includes the review that Sir Brian Leveson has published today. On short sentences, it is important that the judiciary still has the power in exceptional circumstances to send people to prison for short sentences. Victims must come first, and the worst thing for victims would be for us to allow prisons to run out of places. We cannot run out of prison places, and the action that we are taking will ensure that we have a sustainable prison system.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the Probation Service is properly resourced to manage and supervise prisoners on discharge?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

At the moment, the Probation Service is really struggling. It is struggling because of the workload of staff and the lack of integrated technology—staff spend far too much time doing admin rather than spending face-to-face time with offenders. When it comes to resourcing, when I leave this place eventually and go back to running my business, I would like the Lord Chancellor to support me in negotiations, because the amount of money that we managed to secure for probation, £700 million, is a really important amount—nearly a 45% increase. That, along with the other reforms that I am planning to do on probation, will go a long way.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, nothing undermines public confidence more than miscarriages of justice, and there is no bigger miscarriage of justice than IPP prisoners. Can the Minister kindly explain why these people are not being given the same opportunity for early release as the people we are talking about today?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend has done fantastic work championing the cause of IPP prisoners. It is clear that people should be released when the Parole Board determines that they are safe to be released. We are using all the levers at our disposal to make sure we do everything we can so that IPP prisoners get released from prison and stay out of prison.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, how does the reoffending rate of those released early compare with that of those released after full term?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The early release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government had a high reoffending rate. On the controlled SDS40 releases, while we are still analysing the figures, the themes that I am seeing show that the reoffending rates were no higher than we normally see. My overall plan is to reduce reoffending rates generally, which is why I am pleased I managed to get that into my job title.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has accused the Government of watering down the criminal justice system at the expense of victims’ safety. What assurance can the Minister give to women, given the PM’s commitment on VAWG, that abusers will receive and serve custodial sentences?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are not abolishing short sentences entirely, and judges will retain the power to hand down sentences of under a year in exceptional circumstances—for example, to provide a victim of domestic abuse with a period of respite. I know this is particularly vital to safeguard victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Breaches of protective orders linked to VAWG, such as stalking and domestic abuse protection orders, will also be excluded from the presumption against short sentences.

Prisons: Mothers and Babies

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many mothers are in prison with their babies, and what consideration they are giving to making alternative arrangements for them to serve their sentences or for their children to be cared for.

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

At the end of March 2024, there were 38 mothers and 36 babies in mother and baby units. There are currently six mother and baby units across the women’s prison estate in England, providing specialist accommodation and support services. These enable mothers, where appropriate, to have their babies with them in prison. Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but this Government have a clear goal of reducing the number of women in prison.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. As well as the 38 mothers with babies he refers to, there are more than 200 pregnant women in prison. Typically, babies are parted from their mothers in prison at 18 months. If these mothers are no risk to their babies, are they really a risk to anyone else? Should they be in prison at all? Does my noble friend the Minister think there are better arrangements that we could make for mothers with babies serving custodial sentences—for example, secure mother and baby homes in the community?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

To answer my noble friend’s question head-on, whether these women should be in prison is a matter for sentencers to decide in each individual case. However, we have embarked on major changes to the sentencing framework, including to short sentences, to which 75% of women are sentenced. This will help to reduce the number of women, including pregnant women, in prison. On his question about arrangements for women and their babies, just last week I was in the mother and baby unit at HMP/YOI Eastwood Park, speaking to the mums there. In my view, the facilities and support offered were exceptional, and I am grateful both to the staff and to the third sector organisations, such as Action for Children, for providing that support. We need to maintain those standards of care in custody, but the real answer to this question lies in tackling the structural problems that lead these women into the criminal justice system in the first place. That is what the Women’s Justice Board, which I proudly chair, seeks to address—early intervention, diversion from prison and community solutions—so that we have fewer women in prison, including their babies too.

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

My Lords, the six mother and baby units are successful. However, 17,000 children a year are separated from their mothers by imprisonment, harming both children and mothers. The impact of domestic abuse and drug addiction is overwhelming. Last Monday ITV News ran an article in which the noble Lord was interviewed and rightly described prison for many women as a “disaster”. So how quickly can we cut the use of prison for mothers of young children to a minimum and provide women offenders with the therapeutic environments they so badly need?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is exactly right: we need to do more and do it faster. That is why the Women’s Justice Board is acting very quickly and coming up with its answers in the next few months. For me, what is really important is the intensive supervision court model, which we are very enthusiastic about, especially the one in Birmingham that is just for female offenders. Instead of them going to prison, we offer the wraparound support services so that they can stay out of prison and stay in the community. This comes back to a subject that I am very passionate about, attachment. It is really important for mothers to be with their children so that they can gain the attachment that, if not secured in their early years, can cause significant problems later on. As someone who was brought up with hundreds of foster children in my life, I am well aware of the issues around attachment in young children.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, an experiment in Oxford some 50 or 60 years ago showed that a newborn baby cat, if blindfolded for more than about six to eight weeks, would remain permanently visually impaired thereafter. We know that the infant brain is developing faster in those first two years than at any other time. I congratulate the noble Lord on what he is doing in trying to improve the environment for women and their children. Does he think that more could be done and, if so, how would we do it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I have seen all the mother and baby units in our prisons, and they are stimulating and incredibly professionally run. I also know that many foster parents and families who look after children of mothers in prison do an incredible job. But we are dealing with women in the justice system, most of whom are victims, most of whom are very ill, most of whom are suffering from addiction and most of whom have mental health problems too. That is why it is important that the wraparound services that we have to support them do so and do so quickly.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful for the efforts of the Minister in this matter. He is very careful to maintain judicial independence and independence from sentencing, but is he convinced that the sentencers are invariably cognisant of whether a female offender is pregnant?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The experts who work in the justice system and social services are the best placed to decide how to support mums and their babies when they are in the justice system. We have recently introduced social workers in four prisons. That is a really important role, and I am looking to see how well it is going—but so far, so good. As I said in a previous answer, the complexity of these women’s lives means that we need an awful lot of support, but in my view that support is worth it, especially in those early years.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

For mothers in those units, how is the monitoring undertaken to make sure that they are not being given drugs through illicit routes to maintain their drug addiction? Are they routinely tested for substances to try to help them come off drugs and maintain better bonding with the baby as a result? Are they also tested for viruses that might be a problem if they decided that they wished to breastfeed?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am not familiar with the exact details on testing, but I know that we have mandatory drug testing in all prisons on a regular basis. I am also aware, from having foster children at home, that when we opened the fridge we used to be careful whether we got out the Calpol or the methadone. Too many drugs get into prisons and too many people who go to prison are addicted to drugs. We need to deal with that, and we need to do it quickly.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, as there is no women’s prison in Wales, can the Minister give an update on the residential centre in Swansea?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The residential centre in Swansea is something that we are considering. We have had the spending review and we are waiting for the allocation process. I know it has planning permission. We talk about it a lot with Welsh colleagues. Other residential and non-residential centres for women, such as Hope Street in Southampton and Willowdene, are really important, not just to help them recover, often from addiction and mental health issues, but as a safe space. A number of the women in the criminal justice system are there because of dysfunctional relationships; often they experience violence at home, so these need to be very safe places.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great difficulty here in that the penalties have to be applied equally to men and women despite their circumstances, which might be different. Is the Minister satisfied that it is more in the interests of children always to be with the mother in prison, rather than being outside that environment and being looked after more adequately by society?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Children always have to come first in these decisions. I have met a number of mums in prison who are with their babies, and it is the best place for them and their baby. It is a safe place, they are getting a huge amount of wraparound support and they are able to build really important relationships with their young children, but it is for the judiciary to decide who goes to prison.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to share what support is given to women once they leave prison and how long it is provided for?

[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.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

I end by saying that IPP was and remains an injustice. We have made some progress but not enough. We will work constructively with the Minister and, therefore, from these Benches, we look forward with interest to what he has to say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley and to every Peer who has brought such sustained focus to the imprisonment for public protection sentence. Their passion and the compassion of the families, campaigners and practitioners have quite rightly kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Member’s Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy it proposes.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who takes over the responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hear the mood of the Committee in wanting to move forward, and quickly. I share this sentiment, but we do not think that resentencing is the right way to move this forward.

Today I want to be absolutely clear. My priority is to address the IPP legacy safely, fairly and in a way that endures. Since taking office, I have met many IPP prisoners and their families. I have listened to victims and front-line staff, chaired round tables and campaign groups and walked the landings with governors and probation leaders. Every conversation has strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every available operational lever. Even yesterday I met an IPP prisoner at HMP Eastwood Park who has her parole hearing today.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on communication. It is absolutely vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made. Yesterday I was pleased to see multiple copies of Inside Time around the prison, but I will take that back to the department and consider how we can do more.

We are already seeing what determined practical action we can achieve. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 automatically ended the licence for 1,742 people, with hundreds more cases now moving through the Parole Board on an accelerated timetable. That is real progress: people rebuilding their lives, victims protected and the public kept safe.

Let us stand back and look at the wider trajectory. The total IPP prison population has fallen from 5,040 in 2015 to 2,544 today, with the unreleased cohort down to 1,012. Meanwhile, rigorous supervision keeps risks low. Fewer than 0.5% of all offenders under statutory supervision were convicted of a serious further offence last year. Those figures show we can shrink the cohort while maintaining the confidence and safety of victims.

We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second annual report on the IPP sentence, alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets: 90% of IPP prisoners in the right prison for their needs by December, for example, and sharper deadlines for parole and termination reports. It hard-wires accountability at every level. I know that Peers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and that the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform have serious reservations about the Bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved without pursuing what is proposed in the Bill.

We have a plan, and it is working. Early results from that plan are encouraging. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were safely re-released—the highest figure ever recorded. While recalls fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly there is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population, the Parole Board continues to release around 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm on risk and ambitious on progression, is exactly what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan shoulder to shoulder with colleagues across both Houses, with campaign groups and, crucially, with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever until each individual who can be safely released is safely released and then supported to stay out.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Howard League report. We are exploring in particular the ways to improve recall decisions and speed up post-recall review processes.

While I cannot back a resentencing exercise that would short-circuit the Parole Board’s vital public protection role, I will champion relentless evidence-based progress. Let us channel the energy of the Bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will, with the House’s continued challenge and support, allow many more IPP offenders to complete their sentence and move on with their lives.

I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for Amendment 1 on the creation of an expert advisory committee, which would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may, rather than must, carry out. I understand the desire to provide the Lord Chancellor with advice on this matter.

However, as raised at Second Reading, my concern remains that the creation of an expert advisory committee risks giving false hope to those serving the IPP sentence, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement its recommendations. This is only confirmed in my regular meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and a wide range of respected organisations have considered the issue of resentencing, yet there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise in a way that would not involve releasing offenders the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public.

I recognise the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to address this issue by limiting a resentencing exercise to those currently in the community in Amendment 2. This would avoid the issue of prisoners being released without the Parole Board’s direction that the release test is met.

I respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which means they will have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release, or two for those sentenced when under 18, rather than 10. They also know that even if their licence is not terminated at this point, it will be terminated automatically if they are not recalled in the subsequent two-year period. Those in the community have, of course, met the Parole Board’s release test, but only on the basis that they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place in the form of licence conditions.

This amendment would remove those licence conditions much earlier—potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been in prison for a significant period of time should have the resettlement support from the Probation Service, and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Garnier, that licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board.

Amendment 3 would restrict the resentencing exercise to IPP offenders who are 10 years over their tariff, both in custody and in the community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for this amendment. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their tariff has expired.

Resentencing IPP prisoners who have served 10 years over their tariff would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. For this cohort in particular, the independent Parole Board will have repeatedly determined—at least every two years since the offender reached the end of their tariff—that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not met the statutory release test. For that reason, all those serving the IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community, they would have been recently released either for the first time or after being recalled. They need continued oversight to manage their risk and support from the Probation Service to progress them towards licence termination.

Amendment 10 would restrict a resentencing exercise to those serving a detention for public protection—DPP—sentence. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant force for change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges faced by those serving a DPP sentence. That is why those in the community now have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board two years after their initial release and will therefore also have their licence terminated automatically a year earlier than those on the IPP sentence, if the Parole Board does not terminate it at the end of the qualifying period. There are now fewer than 30 individuals serving DPP sentences in the community and currently fewer than 100 in custody.

The IPP action plan includes a specific focus on DPP offenders, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be comforted that there are more frequent reviews by psychology services and that the Parole Board prioritises listing these cases for consideration. However, our position remains that, as with those serving an IPP, those serving a DPP sentence should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. This is the only way we can ensure that the public and victims are best protected.

Finally in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom I thank for these amendments and for his thoughtful contributions to our IPP round tables, relate to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July 2008. The sentence was amended to give judges greater discretion over its use and to limit it to offenders who received at least a two-year tariff. Again, I recognise the purpose behind the amendments, but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2008 cohort irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of their risk. Our view remains that IPP prisoners should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments, or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders, for the reasons I have set out.

These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individuals serving the IPP sentence. Unfortunately, they do not address the Government’s public protection concerns and would put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and, with the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, there is already a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way.

The changes implemented are expected to reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds. I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and, as I have set out, I believe the IPP action is the best way to achieve this.

To conclude, I should like to give two final examples of the progress made to support the IPP population. First, the approved premises pilot, which has recently concluded, extended the time for which IPP offenders could remain in an AP from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in four APs. At one, 23 out of 26 men moved on successfully after their placement ended. We also saw a 7% decrease in recalls at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that pre-release work, combined with training for staff and extra support, has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community. If we can successfully replicate this across the approved premises estate, the impact could be significant.

Secondly, we are taking action to enable swift re-release following recall where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This summer, we will see the publication of the progression panel policy framework, which will ensure that a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender who is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the Risk Assessed Recall Review process, which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early re-release. These panels also help prisoners prepare for release, which aids their resettlement into the community. Measures such as these will help individuals progress through their sentence towards having it terminated.

I hope noble Lords are reassured by some of the updates that I have provided today. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can, as hard as I can, to support IPP prisoners so that they can get out of prison and stay out.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I was very pleased to forewarn him of my speech, to give him more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very serious matter, especially bearing in mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of this debate.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s answer, because it is very much more of the same that he has given us on two other occasions: he does not wish resentencing to be part of the move forward. I still really struggle to turn around and understand how the Minister cannot convince himself that it is the right thing to do for those groups of individuals that I have pointed out today—colleagues have supported me—who really do not create any sort of risk to the public. Those people who are already out on probation and have been released by the Parole Board are a perfect example, never mind the kids and others.

Nevertheless, all we can do is our best to encourage a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. This Minister is genuine, he is honest and he is doing as much as he feels he can to give hope and support to this victimised group of more than 3,000 individuals. I sincerely hope his words will lead to even more actions than have been done today as he moves away from the Chamber.

But it is a bit of a struggle when, only a week ago, we saw an individual who was finally released out into the community but was arrested within 24 hours and sent back into prison again—and released again and sent back into prison again. Or we might end up with a guy who is now mentally unstable, created by the system, and who has been trying to get out of prison. With your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution, only to find that not long thereafter he is sent straight back into the same prison, which creates the same mental instability. It does not work and, no matter what the Minister says, it certainly has not given us the answers to the hundreds of problems associated with IPP sentences.

I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I am proud of each and every one of them. Their contributions were fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well informed, and I thank them on behalf of all those prisoners for what they have said and what they are trying to do. There is no doubt that we have got our message across but, in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, given the way the debate on these amendments has gone—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—I propose to say only a few words about Amendment 7, which is, as I understand it, the only live amendment, so to speak. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who, as is always the case, has given us a lot of food for thought.

There is no doubt that the mental health aspect of the IPP issue is very real, not least because, as I said at Second Reading, my concern is that there will be prisoners who have developed mental health problems while in prison and indeed because of the sentence itself. I think I said that that was a stain on the British state and, if so, I was right to do so.

My noble friend Lord Moylan is therefore right to highlight the issue of mental health. That said, it is not immediately clear to me, looking at the words of the amendment, that the conditions in (6B) and (6C) are necessarily the right conditions to be imposed in this context. Of course, I appreciate that this amendment was tabled to raise the issue rather than to focus on the particular words. I therefore look forward to what the Minister has to say about Amendment 7.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, the second group of amendments clarify the Bill’s clauses and make important changes to the wording. However, the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. I will respond to all the amendments in turn as I want to set out the Government’s position.

My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 4 sets out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle, but it is already established by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is required.

My noble friend’s Amendment 5 would allow a resentencing court to retain the IPP sentence where the offender might properly have received a life sentence and where, at the time of resentencing, they constitute a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. Crucially, this would not prevent the resentencing of those who do not fall within these parameters and whom the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released. This is because the test being applied by a resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board’s statutory test.

My noble friend’s Amendment 6 would provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended licence on release, if it deemed it necessary. Noble Lords are aware of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act that allow for licence termination. This amendment would still involve the release of IPP prisoners who have previously been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test. It would therefore not address our fundamental public protection concerns about undertaking a resentencing exercise.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendment 7, and acknowledge her empathetic consideration for the individuals serving IPP sentences who require additional support for their mental health, especially the 233 individuals in secure hospitals. The amendment would allow a resentencing exercise to substitute an IPP sentence with a hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed, whereas this amendment would lead to a hospital order being substituted when an offender currently has a mental disorder. As with earlier amendments, this amendment would remove the IPP sentence irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of an individual’s risk. Instead, the individual could be released by a mental health review tribunal. This process may not fully consider the risk posed to victims and the public.

IPP prisoners, like any prisoner, can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be transferred to secure mental health hospitals if this care is required, and I am currently working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported towards release when that care is no longer required. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about disengaged IPP-ers, as I refer to them, and hospital returnees. It concerns me that, for example, they may be returned to a category B local prison, which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I am very keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for Amendment 8. Although the Government do not support the Bill, I understand the intention behind her amendment to assess the impact on services if the Bill were to become law. There is, however, already a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act for the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders. The annual report is expected to be published by Summer Recess and will show the progress that has been made.

Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan on 26 April 2023, there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. Additionally, when I became a Minister, 70% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prison for their needs. This has now increased to around 80% and HMPPS continues to make improvements in this area. This will help more of these individuals progress towards a release because they will be better able to access the support they need.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 9, would reduce the licence period of one year for those who were subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment does not define what would constitute an invalid recall, and my noble friend is perhaps referring to an unlawful recall, which would likely be the legal interpretation. If, however, he is suggesting scenarios where further information comes to light and the reasons for recall should be reconsidered, there is the risk-assessed recall review—RARR—process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was slightly confused in the summation. The implication, if you were just listening in and did not know about this subject, is that, largely, people were given IPP sentences originally because of sexual and violent acts. That is not accurate. Maybe the Minister could clarify what he meant by that. One of the arguments that I was putting forward—maybe the Minister could reflect on this—is that the dangerousness we keep hearing about from different Governments’ versions of the MoJ is often associated with a deterioration of behaviour because of poor mental health created by the sentence. The Minister says that the Parole Board are the only people who can assess whether the behaviour is dangerous or not but, in the instances of mental illness, would it not be better for a clinical assessment? Hospitals have to make decisions all the time about releasing people based on whether they are dangerous or not. They are in a much stronger position, surely, than the Parole Board, which does not necessarily understand mental ill health.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

HMIP did a report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionately. I believe that the Parole Board has the right skills and experience to make these often very difficult and complex decisions. On the make-up of the cohort of IPP prisoners, I will write with the exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, this Committee has not materialised in the way that I would have preferred. Not least, it has not led towards what I hoped was going to be a vote or, maybe more importantly, the Minister finally agreeing to move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohort that we have highlighted so carefully and fairly.

While I have that disappointment, I think it is fair to say that we have done one thing that IPP prisoners will be grateful for. We have yet again raised awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and among the wider public. There is therefore no way to say, “We will do something”, and then do nothing. There is no escape for us in this House to ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day.

Once again, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Davies. The expertise that they have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and their support is, as always, very much appreciated.

I shall finish where my noble friend Lord Davies finished, and the Minister has just said it: it is in your hands now, sir. It is no good being a nice man with a good heart whose will is there to try to make these changes if we then find that we are back in 12 months or two years and nothing has moved and the number of people who have committed suicide has gone from 100 to 110. It is now on the Minister’s shoulders, and I look forward to working with him and others to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades now.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The previous Government added just 500 net spaces to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply.

When we took office, we were left no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. This enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end of custody supervised licence scheme. But we knew this was a first step.

Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places. In the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary, but not sufficient in itself, to avoid the capacity issues that we have faced in the criminal justice system for many months. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male custodial estate across England and Wales was forecast to run out of places by November this year. Alongside the Government’s long-term building strategy and sentencing reform, this grave projection requires immediate action, particularly in respect of the current use of recall.

Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency release. This review suggests that recall should be rare and a last resort, replacing standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted this recommendation, which requires primary legislation to implement.

A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations. However, it will take time to take effect. The impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before spring next year. We therefore remain in a critical position until then. Our custodial estate stands as a reservoir filled to the brim. Any further influx risks overflow, with serious consequences for the system and society alike. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand.

The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year, without a corresponding growth in offending rates. With more people in prison and under community supervision serving longer sentences, recall rates have naturally increased. When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of a fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation. It is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. During this time, the Probation Service will put in place robust risk management plans and stringent licence conditions for their release. After this period, they are automatically re-released. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board. Our latest data shows that at least 48% of all recalls are fixed term rather than standard.

This order provides for the mandatory use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. We estimate that this will be able to create an additional 1,400 prison places. It shall apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of fewer than 48 months, except where they are under the age of 18 at the point of recall, are convicted of terrorist or national security offences or pose a terrorist risk, are managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—or are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence. These offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision. In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed.

It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, including the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions. Offenders face re-recall to prison if they breach licence conditions or their risk escalates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I will write if I miss any answers to specific questions, but I will try to answer them all here.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some important and interesting points around the Prison and Probation Service being in a mess and blame. I am not in the blame game—I am in the “fix it” game—but we all recognise the complex problems that we have across the whole justice system. It needs a thoughtful, long-term vision.

On the issues in the courts, the Leveson review will be published shortly. The Government are going through this important process to address the problems that the noble Lord raised, but, in the meantime, a record number of sitting days have now been funded in the Crown Court. That is still not enough, though; we need a sustainable system.

The Gauke review has been published and will, I hope, soon lead to legislation. We talk about sentence length. The progression model described in this review is very interesting. It is aligned with the Texas model: if you behave well, you have a certain release point, but, if you behave badly, you stay in prison for longer. I am interested in how incentives work in prison because the model is well proven in other jurisdictions.

It is not just about the Leveson review and the Gauke review; it is also about the spending review. The Treasury has given us a substantial amount of money to build new prison places, so that by the end of this Parliament we will have more people in prison than ever before. There is also investment in probation, with an extra £700 million for more staff, accommodation, tags and technology. We need these three reviews, but we also need long-term culture change and a sustainable plan.

I am glad the noble Lord talks about HMP Berwyn— I can also see it from my house. I know quite a lot about what is going on there, because a foster child who used to live with our family is a prison officer there and tells us regularly about what is going on. The noble Lord is correct that there are still recruitment gaps at HMP Berwyn; the retention rates and the average length of service of a prison officer there, and in other prisons as well, are too low. That is why I am implementing the prison officer training review, which I carried out before I came into Government, to make sure that we recruit great officers who learn the skills quickly, alongside the more complex skills required, and who stay. One of the things that we have lost over the years is the long- term skills base that the service had for many years.

I think I am one of the few Ministers who has visited HMP Parkhurst recently. It has a full complement of officers, with a very different employment set up—it makes a big difference when you have enough staff; that is very clear. When a prison has enough staff, we can get enough prisoners into activities, education and so on.

The ask of probation is significant, and noble Lords and noble and learned Lords are 100% correct that this is where the heavy lifting needs to be done. It is about investing in recruitment, training and technology. If we do not get this right, we will keep having problems in our prisons as well. I agree that we need long-term reform to solve this problem. In the short term, it is important that we do not run out of space. We need a sustainable justice system. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that I certainly have the vision and energy to get this done. The satisfaction is not for me but for the officers and probation staff, so that they can be enabled to do the job they came into the service to do.

My noble friend Lord Lemos raises some very important points around short-term measures. They just prove that the system is unsustainable, and this has been going on and on. We need to make sure that the staff who work in the Prison and Probation Service have far more consistent leadership and policy-making from us so they know what they need to do, rather than it changing all the time. We need to make sure that capacity is sustainable, and that we have enough probation and prison staff to do the job.

The organisation needs a strong vision, but within that vision, victims need to come first. That is why the role of victim liaison officers and the victim contact scheme is really important, but we need the resources. The noble Lord is quite right that we need to invest in probation. That is why the 45% increase in funding to £700 million is really important.

What is happening with technology? This morning, I was a dragon: we had our first technology “Dragon’s Den”, where I sat in on seven presentations from some of the most developed technology companies in the world. We had someone from New Zealand and someone from America, as well as UK-based technology companies, presenting their solutions to some of our problems. Some of those were about what we can do to improve what happens in a prison, but most of them were about probation, and that is exactly where we need to invest in our technology.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, raised very important points around the concerns about the 28-day recall and what happens when someone is released after that. It is better than the emergency releases, which were less controlled, and 28 or 14 days give us time, hopefully, to find accommodation and the medical support that people need. However, we do not want to have as many recalls as we have now; he is completely right about that. Public safety has to be our priority, but we also need to ensure that probation staff are focused on those at highest risk, because they are probably more likely to be recalled. I agree that we need rational thinking, but we need space in our prisons to ensure that the reforms coming down the track can take effect, so we cannot run out of space before then.

Recalls have doubled since 2018. The noble and learned Lord is completely right that the number is far too high, but I believe we have high levels because too many people are leaving our prison system addicted, homeless, mentally unwell and unemployed. Having been on the employment side of this work for more than 20 years, I know that it is incredibly difficult to employ someone who may be very talented but is ill and homeless. It is about having a sustainable system and reducing the number of recalls over time, but we will do that most appropriately by setting people up when they leave prison to succeed rather than to fail.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not want to be difficult, but why should we not pursue the suggestion, even in advance of the Gauke review, of not recalling? Is it completely impossible not to recall people for minor breaches of a sentence for a minor offence? Why can we not get on with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

This recall works by using MAPPA levels 2 and 3, terrorist offences and so on, but, in the longer term, recall will form part of the discussions around the Gauke review and the sentencing Bill. However, it is important that we have recall as a tool for victims of domestic violence whose perpetrators are ignoring orders against them.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I intervene to emphasise the point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, have made. In the case of offenders who commit a minor breach of their licence and have not been sentenced for a violent offence, there is surely a compelling case for not recalling them at all—there are other means of dealing with them through the Probation Service—so that we do not have a situation in which someone who has been in prison for fraud, for example, is stopped for a road traffic offence and sent back because they have breached the terms of their licence. It does not seem to make any sense in this context, and this could be done more or less immediately.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I support the noble and learned Lord in that. There are recalls for failure to keep appointments, such as tagging appointments. If the Minister were to lay down a rule that people were to be tagged before they left prison and not wander around the countryside until they fail to make an appointment for that purpose, it would do a great deal of service.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Our probation officers are experts in managing risk and their decisions determine whether someone is recalled, but it is important that we look into examples where it seems that someone should not be recalled. We need to have diversion options available too; the breaches may be minor, but they might not be from the victim’s point of view and may be part of other offending behaviour. IPP offenders, for example, can sometimes be recalled if their behaviour is similar to their original offence.

I hope noble Lords agree that this order is necessary to address the critical capacity issues faced by our prisons in the immediate future and is an appropriate bridging measure to avert a crisis before longer-term solutions are implemented. This draft instrument is a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s approach to ensuring that our criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively. I trust that your Lordships will recognise its necessity, and I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Bill do now pass

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

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Bill Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice and I particularly recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman since 2022. The Lady Chief Justice recalled him yesterday as one of the very best criminal judges of his generation. I am conscious that many noble and noble and learned Lords will have known and worked closely with him. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis and his children and to all those who knew him.

I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have contributed to debates on the Bill in this House. Despite its short length, it has prompted careful and detailed consideration from Members of this House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have, throughout its passage, provided constructive challenge. I am grateful to the officials who have been involved in its preparation and passage. The Opposition Front Bench, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, have engaged constructively on the Bill, for which I am grateful. I pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who have all been generous with their time in both their scrutiny of the Bill and their engagement with me. Finally, I thank the team who have supported me on this Bill, in particular Katherine, James and Jack, to whom I am very grateful. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I add my note of sadness at the news of the death of Lord Justice William Davis recently and add my condolences to those of the Minister to his family upon his passing. He was a judge of great distinction. He led the Sentencing Council, which is the subject of this Bill, with very great distinction as well. He will be greatly missed.

Turning to the Bill, we made it clear that we did not agree with the Bill: we did not agree with the principle or that the proposed guidelines of the Sentencing Council threatened the notion of equality before the law. We believed, as is clear, that this was not a sensible use of emergency legislation and that the disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor should have been resolved without the need for legislation. We were concerned that the Bill had the potential to damage the Sentencing Council. In the event, we did not succeed in securing the withdrawal of the Bill, or in amending the Bill, which had Conservative support, so it will now become the law.

However, we can take two strong positives from the debate around this Bill. The first is the Government’s commitment to the Probation Service and to the importance of pre-sentencing reports in giving guidance to judges and providing consistency in sentencing. The commitment has been to having more reports of higher quality, backed up by increased resources. I thank the Minister for his kind words to me and others in opening this short debate; I say from these Benches what a credit he has been to his department and to this House in coming fresh to the House with his very strong commitment to the sentencing system and the Probation Service. His presence on the Front Bench has been a breath of fresh air for us all, and we are very grateful to him.

The second positive has been the recognition around this House of the enormous value of the Sentencing Council in giving independent, well-researched advice on sentencing to judges, with a view to promoting consistency not just in sentencing but in the approach to the factors that judges need to take into account in sentencing. I add my gratitude to Members around the House—both those with experience of acting in criminal cases and those with no experience of the criminal law or of law at all—who have stressed the importance of these issues to the development of the law and our criminal justice system, and, perhaps more importantly, to the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has the right, but not the duty, to reply.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Bill passed.