Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Bishop of Gloucester Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as Anglican Bishop for prisons. I am grateful to be speaking in this Second Reading debate. I too greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols. Having said that, I do not believe this is a debate we should be having at all. I do not believe this rather theatrical legislation is necessary.

In a world of sufficient resources, as has already been said, there would be comprehensive pre-sentence reports for everyone, to which careful attention would be paid in court. If we have to prioritise PSRs, then it makes sense to prioritise those we know are especially vulnerable, or where there is evidence of disproportionate outcomes from the justice system. Will the Minister comment on why he thinks there was such shock at this apparent two-tier justice with regard to ethnicity but not the other cohorts in the guidance, such as young adults and pregnant women? Do the Government believe the issues raised in the landmark report by the current Foreign Secretary almost eight years ago are now a thing of the past? Is there no role for judges in mitigating the issues raised in that report?

The use of the Sentencing Council guidelines apparently to feed a culture war is distressing. The allegation of two-tier sentencing based around race, religion, belief or cultural background is damaging to public understanding. This is already shaped heavily by media headlines and the shocking and extreme cases of violent crimes, which are not the norm. Public understanding of why and how criminal sentences are handed down is severely lacking, as evidenced by the Justice Select Committee in 2023 and a recent Prison Reform Trust report detailing a citizen jury exercise. My own experience of talking to teenagers in schools is that more information about sentencing results in more considered responses and a greater sense of engagement with what we are trying to achieve, which surely goes beyond mere punishment.

At the heart of the Christian gospel is a God who holds together both justice and mercy. We need a big long-term vision. Surely long-term vision must be about transforming lives and communities, and that includes victims as well as offenders, recognising that many offenders are also victims.

If we are committed to the transformation of society, we need to take account of the impact of sentencing on families and the wider community. I am not saying that people who commit crimes should not receive punishment, but I am saying that sentencing should be much more than this and give the best possible outcomes for society.

In a recent judicial critique focused on sentence inflation, four former Lords Chief Justice, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, highlighted that people in prison are individuals, not statistics, and that the

“consequences of imprisonment on people’s lives—in prison and upon return to the community—need to be considered in the whole”.

They go on to say:

“Evidence suggests that what happens during and after a sentence, including rehabilitative interventions and resettlement support, is more important than sentence length”.


If we are to treat people in the justice system as individuals, that surely includes taking into account people’s circumstances, such as whether a woman is pregnant, and their characteristics, such as neurodiversity. I echo what was said about characteristics. We cannot pretend that circumstances and characteristics do not matter. Wise sentencing is threatened by this am-dram politics, and the Bill risks taking us backwards, not forwards. I firmly believe that we need less political control over sentencing, not more.

I urge the noble Lord to revisit the House of Commons Justice Committee’s 2023 recommendation of the establishment of an independent advisory body on sentencing. I would propose an additional step: a commitment from the Treasury, set out to Parliament, where Ministers propose to expand or lengthen custodial sentences against recommendations from the advisory board, thus resetting the relationship between politics and justice, including the public purse.

There is more I could say—much more—but I will end by engaging with the Government’s own rationale for this legislation. The Justice Secretary says that inequality in society is a matter for policy and not for the judiciary. How, then, will the Government create an equal society over their term of office so that these guidelines become redundant?

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Bishop of Gloucester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

There is real public interest in getting this right, and it is a financial interest as well as a societal one. First, custodial sentences are expensive: far more expensive than community sentences. Secondly, there is a great deal of evidence that community sentences are more effective than custodial sentences in cutting reoffending. So, if it is right—and I think it is—that good pre-sentence reports lead to more community sentences and to less custody, a central subject of the Gauke review, that is likely to lead to significant savings to the public purse and to a healthier society, with an overall reduction in crime.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I will not repeat the arguments I made at Second Reading. However, as other noble Lords have said, I still do not believe that we need this Bill—and even less so, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, given that the independent sentencing review will be published imminently. That should be the means for us to deal with the underlying principles raised today, and I do not know why this is not being paused and put on hold. I am also deeply concerned that the Bill may pass in a matter of days, while we go on waiting for decisive action flowing from the Lammy report, which stands at eight years and counting.

On the specific amendment in my name, Amendment 16, I will endeavour not to repeat all the important points that other noble Lords have made. I am simply seeking to minimise the harm to the unborn child and the wider family, and I hope that the sentencing review will give the opportunity to look at all this afresh.

I am grateful to organisations that have been advocating for PSRs for pregnant women, including Level Up and Birth Companions, and academics including Dr Shona Minson. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others, for supporting my amendment.

The Bill provides that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to an offender’s personal characteristics. It therefore removes any direction in any Sentencing Council guidelines for sentencers to obtain a PSR before sentencing a pregnant woman or a mother of a child. This means that an existing protection included in the current mitigating factor for pregnancy and the post-natal period, published in April last year, which directs sentencers to obtain a PSR before sentencing—and indeed adjourns sentencing until one is available—will now become unlawful.

In the absence of clear directions for courts to obtain a PSR for pregnant women and mothers who face a potential prison term, and whose children will be impacted by their incarceration, there is no guarantee that magistrates and judges will order PSRs for these women. The Government have put in jeopardy the now widely acknowledged need to urgently reconsider the incarceration of pregnant women and those who are primary carers of young children.

I do not want to rehearse the many reasons why incarcerating pregnant women and primary carers is dangerous, but I will give just a few key facts, which we have heard many times before. Pregnant women in prison are seven times more likely to suffer a stillbirth, twice as likely to give birth prematurely, twice as likely to give birth to a baby that needs specialist neonatal care and five times more likely to miss vital midwifery appointments due to staffing issues. Then, there are all those children deeply affected by the incarceration of their mothers and the removal of their right to family life when their mother is taken from them. Some 19 out of 20 children are forced to leave their homes when a mother goes to prison.

In 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry, The Right to Family Life: Children Whose Mothers Are in Prison, recommended that judges must not sentence mothers or primary carers without a pre-sentence report. It is critical that courts are directed to obtain a PSR before sentencing a pregnant woman or the mother of a dependent child.

Of all female defendants prosecuted at court, 14% were prosecuted for indictable offences. That means that the vast majority of women in court who are accused of low-level non-violent crimes are sentenced by magistrates: hard-working volunteers who nevertheless undergo less than four days of training. Women in these courts are often represented by underpaid, overworked criminal defence practitioners. Without formal guidance on PSRs, the fate of pregnant women and mothers is in the hands of people who are very dedicated but may sentence them to prison without recognising the damage this causes.

I began by saying that I did not wish to repeat arguments made at Second Reading. I must say, however, that in tabling this amendment, I hope it to be, essentially, a stop-gap measure on a misguided Bill which should not have been brought in the first place and leaves me deeply perturbed.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the APPG for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and I apologise for not being present at Second Reading. I did, however, watch this at home on the Parliament channel.

I will speak to Amendment 11 but support the whole of this group of amendments. I am, however, in two minds about the Bill. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, during his opening address at Second Reading, I felt that he was right. Everyone should be treated equally; there should be no preferential treatment for some. However, I know from my past experience that equality of treatment does not come automatically to everyone. Sadly, the evidence supports this.

I state at the outset that I have no legal experience. I am not a lawyer or an expert on technical legalistic language, and I am somewhat overwhelmed by the experience around me, but I will swallow hard and continue. We have heard some pertinent contributions this afternoon about whether the words “personal characteristics” should replace “protected characteristics”, as defined in the Equality Act 2010. I hope to make the case for “protected” over “personal”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

There is no research, and this Bill has been brought forward on a premise that, from my experience, is wrong. It is that the provision of a pre-sentence report means that the judge will go easier upon the defendant. I think that is wrong and, without research, I do not see how you can bring this Bill forward.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I appreciate that the Minister is in an interminable situation, but he did not actually respond to my key point, which is that there is an existing protection including the current mitigating factor for pregnancy. I drew attention to what was published in April last year, which already directs sentencers to obtain a PSR before sentencing and to adjourn sentencing until one is available, but this Bill is now making that unlawful. That is my key point.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Again, I apologise for not being too repetitive, but I am very keen on making sure that I am accurate in everything that I say. I will write to the right reverend Prelate.