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.