Sentencing Bill

Lord Bishop of Gloucester Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I declare an interest as Anglican bishop to His Majesty’s prisons in England and Wales. I, too, pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, not least in her role as Victims’ Commissioner. I want to echo so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, have just said, which has lifted my spirits.

There is much to welcome in this Bill. For example, as has been said, we know in general that short custodial sentences do more harm than good, so I am delighted that we are now seeing some evidence-based policy-making rather than policy shaped by media headlines. We also need to clarify our long-term vision and aims. As a Christian, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God and is created to live in interdependent relationship, and broken relationship sits at the heart of all brokenness. Strong relationship sits at the heart of all that is good and transformative. I thank the Minister for his introduction, but I am dismayed that we are setting the context of this Bill as overcrowded prisons and a current crisis. Surely our long-term vision and big picture is not simply about more prisons or even decent prisons, but ultimately about strengthening communities so that people flourish in a network of healthy and safe relationships.

I am therefore hugely concerned by the piecemeal selection of David Gauke’s recommendations from his independent sentencing review and our failure to look at that big, long-term picture. For example, including victims in the statutory purpose of sentencing is welcome, but, if we want to respond well to victims and reduce the number of victims in the future, we need to pay attention to where relationship has been broken in people’s lives as well as in their offending. When sentencing, the place of trauma needs to be addressed for offender as well as victim. It is interesting that many people are both, and I wonder where that leaves us when we talk about putting victims first.

There needs to be scope to be attentive to the underlying reasons for people’s behaviour, not least in an endeavour to break the cycle of reoffending and fractured communities which is costly: physically, emotionally and financially. In wider society, there has increasingly been a push, as we have heard, for longer sentences and more punishment. The review found that

“punishment … has been given disproportionate weight and … there has been insufficient focus on reducing crime”,

and it stated that custody should be a “last resort”. The Bill does not address these criticisms. We are failing to ask what will enable a reduction in reoffending in the individual and bring transformation not only for them but for those who are impacted by their choices. We must include reduction of crime in the purpose statement, as recommended by David Gauke.

Creativity with community sentencing could be life-changing, but, sadly, even the proposed changes are set within such a punitive framework and tone. This is pandering to public opinion, not changing it. On that note, measures to name and shame people completing unpaid work as part of their community sentence need greater scrutiny. I am sure that the last thing the Government would intend is harmful consequences for thousands of children and young people whose parents are completing their sentence.

I applaud the skills and professionalism of our probation officers, and I am glad to see the rehabilitation activity requirement replaced by a probation requirement. But, to be effective, resource must continue to be increased, such that money currently wasted on inappropriate prison sentences is redirected to the recruitment, training and retention of dedicated probation staff and, indeed, prison staff. If prison sentences are going to be restorative, the recruitment, training, valuing and retention of prison and probation staff are vital.

All this is set against a backdrop of severe financial challenge. We need to spend financial resources differently, and that brings me back to the need for clarity about vision and aims, and what long-term good looks like. Although HMPPS has mission and purpose statements, I urge us to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. That would bring much-needed clarity to all parts of the criminal justice system and wider stakeholders, and would reduce confusion, if we are truly committed to reimagining and building an effective, well-functioning prison system.

I will seek amendments to the Bill to define in legislation the purpose of imprisonment. In recent days, we have seen yet again intense media and political attention on prisons, but we need to reduce the political heat and seek cross-party solutions. I am dismayed by much of what I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We must shape public opinion rather than follow it. Is the Minister prepared to face down the media on matters of principle and evidence? Sadly, we saw the exact opposite of that earlier this year when we had before us the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. There was bluster and knee-jerk reaction, and we saw the independence of the Sentencing Council put at risk, as we have heard more about today.

The Government refer to the position of the Sentencing Council as a “democratic deficit”, yet the independent sentencing review makes plain that politics has been a driver of the current misuse of prison. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not addressed that charge and, notably, have ignored the recommendation to introduce an external advisory body to help Ministers to make sentencing policy, plan prison capacity and invest the money needed wisely. There is nothing in the Bill to give assurance that our planning and management of the overall prison population is going to be significantly better than it is now, or that we have grasped the significant changes needed, because we have failed to articulate the big aim and clarify what good would look like for victims, offenders, families and wider society in the long term.

If we had a well-functioning prison system with good headroom and capacity, low rates of violence and self-harm, and people coming out of prison less likely to offend than when they went in, this Bill might have been sufficient. Instead, it is a long way from the radical and bold thinking that is necessary to reset the appropriate use of prison.

Beyond the doors to the Chamber is a statue of Queen Victoria, positioned between the figures of Justice and Mercy—two key attributes, I believe, of God, who is in the business of reconciliation and transformation. If we allowed mercy and justice to truly dialogue, the Bill could be transformed. We need a joined-up public health approach to the criminal justice system that puts relationship front and centre. The Bill contains some good elements, but I urge the Government to listen more carefully to the Gauke sentencing review in the round, as well as to the many who call for the Minister to go further.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Bishop of Gloucester Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this group comprises Amendments 90 to 92 in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate not just for adding her name to these amendments but for her commitment to fairness and evidence in sentencing and criminal justice generally, which she has shown over a great time in this House. I am also grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for its help in preparing and presenting the amendments.

Together, the three amendments would establish a new panel on sentencing policy—to be called the independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending—to advise the Government on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The new panel would be completely different from the Sentencing Council, which is an independent body that exists for a different purpose: to advise judges on sentencing within the framework of the law passed by Parliament.

The amendments would implement recommendation 9.1 of the independent review of sentencing, chaired by David Gauke, which has inspired the greater part of this Bill. The independent review was keen to get away from the focus on punishment in sentencing, and the further idea that punishment meant immediate imprisonment or incarceration—in the face of all the evidence that imprisonment is often ineffective in reducing reoffending.

The review highlighted the inescapable fact that the increasing use of imprisonment and the imposition of ever-longer sentences have led to the prison capacity crisis that this Bill is partly directed at addressing. The report recommended the establishment of an independent panel to focus government on maintaining a sustainable approach to sentencing. The review saw this independent panel as an external body of experts that would give the Government access to evidence-based expertise and give both the Government and the public impartial advice on what works in reducing reoffending and therefore cutting crime. These amendments would implement and take forward that recommendation. It must be the hope that the amendments and the new panel would bring about a change of approach, on the part of the press and the public, to sentencing and the treatment of offending in general.

Amendment 90 would establish the new panel with a duty to report annually to the Lord Chancellor, who would appoint its chair. Importantly, Amendment 91 would require the Lord Chancellor to refer government policy proposals on sentencing and reducing reoffending to the panel where such proposals had significant resource implications.

The panel would advise the Government on the evidence drawn from research, both in this country and internationally, on what works in reducing reoffending, as well as on the value for money and likely effect of government proposals. The Lord Chancellor would be bound to respond to the reports of the panel and to lay both the reports and the response before Parliament. It is to be hoped and predicted that Parliament and the public would be better informed about the thinking and evidence behind sentencing policy, which is often misunderstood.

These proposals mirror those by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, the think tank Transform Justice, the Sentencing Academy, the Prison Reform Trust and the Centre for Justice Innovation. They represent a missing item on the agenda of sentencing reform. I urge the Government to accept these proposals. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I will make a few brief comments; I am aware of time, and there is a lot to get through. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I thank him for his kind comments.

When it comes to sentencing, I have believed for many years that we need more independence and not less. My own submission to David Gauke’s sentencing review focused on this, and, as has been said, followed the Justice Committee’s recommendations—I ought to underline that—in its own inquiry on public opinion and the understanding of sentencing.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for using language about “a change of approach”, because it is important that we get away from making legislation based on a public narrative that is not based on evidence—so-called penal populism. How do we enable the Government to remain focused on maintaining a sustainable approach to custody and facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation without the constant pressure from that public narrative, which is affecting the way we do our sentencing? The aim of these amendments, which uphold the principles of independence, is to support Ministers to make objective, evidence-based policy in the midst of all the pain and loss that come through crime.

A couple of years ago, I was in the Netherlands looking at its criminal justice system. Ministers there were horrified at how the public can so affect the way that Ministers act—at how people can beat a path to the door of Ministers, which then affects legislation. The Netherlands has decoupled the way Ministers make legislation and the independent factor, which is what we want to do here. I wholeheartedly agree with these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. Collectively, they seek to introduce an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. The stated purpose of this panel is to facilitate greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on prison and probation resources. I am sure that all noble Lords support that aim, and the idea of creating an independent body to help the Government in developing better policy in this area is an interesting concept that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to.

These amendments seek to implement recommendation 9.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review by Mr David Gauke and others, a document that has inspired many of the provisions of the Bill. Should the Government decide not to support this recommendation, they should make plain their reasons and justification.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Bishop of Gloucester Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

52: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Purposes of imprisonment(1) Where a court is imposing sentence the court must have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.(2) The Secretary of State must have regard to the purposes of imprisonment when exercising the Secretary of State’s duties under this Act. (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) the purposes of imprisonment are—(a) the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to re-offend in the community,(b) the rehabilitation of prisoners under safe and decent conditions to reduce re-offending,(c) the deterrence of prisoners and others from committing further offences, and(d) the just punishment of prisoners, including provision to achieve justice for the victims of crime.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would define the purposes of imprisonment in law and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am bringing back this amendment on Report as I do not think it was adequately addressed in Committee. Amendment 52, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would define in law the purposes of imprisonment and require the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes of imprisonment.

We know that depriving someone of their liberty is an action taken by courts with caution and care. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s strategic objective is to carry out sentences given by the courts, in custody and in the community, and to rehabilitate people in our care through education and employment. However, there is no statutory or other provision that directly addresses the fundamental purposes of imprisonment. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Indeed, if we had this legislative definition, it would actually have brought into focus issues we have been talking about in debates so far. In Committee, the Government disagreed that a definition in statute was needed. The noble Lord, Lord Lemos, stated:

“The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1399.]


I respectfully disagree that the purposes of imprisonment are set out in law in this way.

At present, the public expresses little confidence in the courts and prisons, in part as a result of the lack of clarity around the purpose and use of imprisonment. A clear parliamentary statement on this issue would serve both prisoners and victims well and provide clarity at all levels of decision-making for those involved with and within the criminal justice system. This amendment holds together clarity around the reduction of offending and justice for victims. With this in mind, I beg to move.

Briefly moving to other amendments in this group, I have added my name in support of Amendments 71, 72 and 73, which I know will be well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Suffice it to say, I am in full support of the proposal to set up an independent advisory panel on sentencing and reducing reoffending. I am also in full support of Amendment 98 in this group.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support Amendment 52, and I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.

Although Section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020 sets out the purposes of sentencing—namely, punishment, reduction of crime, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation—it does not provide guidance to judges on whether imprisonment is the appropriate sentence, nor on what should occur once an offender is in prison. This lack of guidance on the purpose of imprisonment is all the more damaging in the light of the greater push for longer and longer sentences of imprisonment which we have seen over the last 30 years.

In rejecting this amendment in Committee, the Minister said:

“The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and … in Sentencing Council guidelines”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1399.]


With respect, Section 57 of the 2020 Act does not mention imprisonment at all. By contrast, the amendment we are debating is focused entirely on the purpose of imprisonment, so as to give the sentencing judge guidance on whether that is the appropriate sentence among the different sentencing options available.

In addition, and importantly, this amendment would indicate what should occur once the offender is in prison so as to fulfil the statutory purpose of imprisonment. There is currently a major gap in our legislation addressing that critical issue. This helps to explain the shameful statistic that 80% of offending is reoffending. The amendment would chime with the rest of this excellent Bill in helping to reduce that reoffending rate as regards those released from prison, since they would have benefited from clear statutory purposes behind their sentence of imprisonment, and in turn would have benefited from a corresponding obligation on the Secretary of State to deliver treatment regimes in prison consistent with these new statutory purposes of imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. They speak to the fundamental questions about the purpose of the criminal justice system, and I recognise that a sincere desire to improve it underpins them.

Amendments 71 to 73 raise important points about transparency and evidence-based policy-making. The Government fully appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments. An independent body could offer valuable insight and security, and it is a concept that requires careful consideration. The Independent Sentencing Review recommended establishing an independent advisory board in the longer term. It noted that it could help ensure a “strategic, evidence-based approach” to the use of custody and provide transparency for the Government and the public. We are therefore considering this recommendation carefully. As I hope your Lordships will understand, creating such a panel requires detailed thought to ensure that it fits coherently within the wider criminal justice system, and I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are carefully considering this recommendation in detail.

In the meantime, we will continue to publish comprehensive data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences on a quarterly basis. Ultimately, our shared goal is a fair, sustainable justice system that protects the public and reduces reoffending. The Bill is a key step towards that, and I hope this reassures noble Lords.

I appreciate the sentiment of Amendment 52 proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as well as the thoughtful contribution from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is necessary. This is because the five existing purposes of sentencing must already be considered by the court when imposing all sentencing disposals, including imprisonment. We are not aware of any gap in law or practice that would justify introducing a separate purpose of imprisonment into statute.

I also share the ambition to ensure that time in custody is used productively to support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending, expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Fox, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whom I thank for his service with the independent monitoring board. I have dedicated many years of my working life to this, setting up work- shops in prisons so that offenders leave custody ready for employment.

However, making participation mandatory for every custodial sentence would be impractical and, in some cases, counterproductive. Prison populations vary widely, and rehabilitation works best when voluntary and tailored to individual needs. Many prisoners face educational trauma, neurodivergence and mental health challenges or are nearing retirement age. Some prisoners have many or even all of these issues. A blanket statutory requirement would risk undermining genuine engagement.

That said, we are not standing still. Last year, over 50,000 prisoners took part in education, marking a 10% rise year on year. We are expanding digital tools such as Launchpad to increase prisoner access to educational content, and I look forward to showing the noble Baroness some of the work in progress on a joint visit.

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as to the importance of employment for rehabilitation. That is why we are increasing work opportunities through prison industries and opening workshops with employers such as Halfords, Greene King and Marston’s. Our new Working Week pilot in five prisons will further boost purposeful activity and strengthen links with businesses to improve employment prospects on release. We publish prison performance data that includes attendance and progress in English and maths and the percentage of prisoners in purposeful activity in each prison in the prison performance framework.

This takes me on to the need for legal aid to lodge deportation appeals, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment. I recognise and pay tribute to his long-standing experience, expertise and contributions in the area of legal aid, both as a Minister and as chair of the commission to review legal aid and access to justice which bore his name. I reassure my noble friend that legal aid is already available to appeal a sentence and in the other circumstances set out in the amendment. I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary.

I recognise that this legislation makes changes to the early removal scheme. We are working closely with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Home Office to make sure that the new arrangements take account of the need for some prisoners to have access to legal aid. We will of course also continue to keep under review the overall effectiveness of operational processes regarding access to legal aid in prison.

I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 98 and for writing to me setting out her considered effort on this. Repealing this would remove an important safeguard that, although used very infrequently, remains an option for the courts as a last resort and out of concern for the defendant; for example, if an individual could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected. I know that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would like more transparency on the use of this measure. The Ministry of Justice currently publishes court remand data within the criminal justice statistics. However, source information on reasons for remand is not currently available. We are continuing to monitor and assess the quality of the data captured on the reasons for remand. This will enable us to publish more detailed data in the future, which I think will be helpful.

The Mental Health Act, which has now received Royal Assent, ends the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. This is good news. This reform ensures that remand for own protection is used only as the last resort for a short period and where no reasonable alternatives have been found. It has been found by the High Court to be compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am grateful for my noble friend’s challenge on this. I want to go further and am in the process of organising a cross-government round table to discuss how we can reduce the number of people who are remanded for their own protection. I would be delighted if my noble friend would support me in these endeavours. I thank noble Lords for raising these important points but respectfully ask that Amendment 52 be withdrawn.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I have listened carefully, especially to the Minister, and I am disappointed that he has not accepted my Amendment 52. The purposes of sentencing do not go far enough and bringing clarity to what prison is for would not only assist public understanding but provide clarity in decision-making and purpose for those working with and within the criminal justice system. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.