Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I speak to Amendment 36, and will also speak to Amendment 39.

Amendment 79 in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is in this group. As rapid consultation during the course of this afternoon’s proceedings has revealed that none of us is entirely clear what we wanted to say, I hope that it is not too late to de-group it. There will be the opportunity to come to it on one of the days next week. I am sorry if that causes a problem to any colleagues. Otherwise, I will just let the Minister reply as if it had been introduced.

Amendment 36 and 39 deal with income reduction orders. They are complex and not very practical, I would suggest. These orders were not, I understand, recommended in the independent sentencing review. They are not easy to achieve; they can impose additional and unpractical burdens on the court system, which as we know is overstretched, and on HMRC and benefits administration. A lot of fines are imposed by the court; they are the most common criminal sanction, but payment is persistently low. In 2023, 49% of fines remained unpaid after 12 months, despite the requirement that they are set at an amount which can be paid within a year. If that rather simpler system cannot reliably recover half of what is imposed within a year, the more complex income reduction order is not likely to be more successful.

The IRO penalises a person for finding employment by making deductions from their earnings each month. This poses the risk of discouraging individuals from engaging in employment or, at any rate, formal employment. They may move into low-visibility work or decide they are better off not working at all. The impact of court fines is disproportionately severe for low-income households. People with court debts are very likely to live in social housing and very likely to be unemployed, strong indicators of economic precarity. The fines system, particularly additional court charges, rigid payment plans and deductions from insufficient benefits, often escalate the total owed beyond what is affordable for people on low means. I do not need to spell out the path that some people may follow.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, what is the projected collection rate for IROs, and how does it compare with the current 50% unpaid at 12 months for court fines? How will the system track fluctuating incomes, PAYE changes, zero hours and self-employment, and resolve disputes without adding to the burden on the court? What employment impact assessment has been conducted—I am going to come back to employment in a moment—given the Minister’s well-known support for hiring people with convictions to cut reoffending? How will IROs avoid pushing low-income households further into poverty?

I said that I would come back to employment. Our Amendment 39 raises the dangers, as we see it, of income reduction orders hindering the good things that we want to see—offenders taking up employment and training and achieving housing. If the net income with which an offender is left is too low for these various activities, the net benefit would be a disbenefit as we see it. I beg to move Amendment 36.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I did not quite follow what the noble Baroness proposed about degrouping, but I draw attention to what it says in the Companion, which is that

“de-grouping is discouraged once each day’s groupings have been published”.

But I may have misunderstood.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

No, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is quite right. I had only realised it shortly before we came to this group. “Discouraged” means no in House of Lords language, I think. So I wonder whether the Minister can regard me as having spoken to what is set out in quite a long amendment, because I am sure he will have words to answer what my noble friend would have said, had he been here.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That sounds sensible.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 3 is of course a novel sentencing tool, and it is entirely correct that the Committee should probe its design with some care. Many of the amendments before us seek reassurance that the scheme will be fair and proportionate, and indeed that it will be workable in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her amendment, draws attention to the basic question of impact. An income reduction order must not be set at a level that undermines an offender’s ability to work, train or maintain stable housing. If these orders are to be effective, they must support rehabilitation, not jeopardise the very stability on which it depends. The noble Baroness’s amendments highlight that there is a risk here that requires very clear scrutiny.

The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst raise a series of questions about the architecture of the scheme. As drafted, the Bill establishes broad powers to reduce an offender’s income, yet it leaves almost all the crucial detail to regulations that we have not yet seen and that may in due course prove insufficiently robust.

Amendments 37 to 44 ask the Government to place in the Bill the essential elements that will govern how these orders operate in the real world. They begin by posing the most basic question of all: what do the Government mean by “monthly income”? Are we assessing gross or net income? How are fluctuating earnings to be treated? What of the self-employed or those on irregular or zero-hours contracts? It is very difficult to see how a fair and consistent system can be construed without clear statutory guidance on these points. If Parliament is to authorise a mechanism allowing the state to deduct a portion of a person’s income month after month, it is surely right that we also understand with precision how that income is to be defined, what thresholds will apply, how caps are to be set and which factors the court must take into account before imposing an order.

Amendment 44 goes to the heart of our concern that the Bill as currently drafted lacks the necessary clarity about the conditions under which an income reduction order may be imposed. Leaving this almost entirely to secondary legislation again risks undermining both transparency and fairness—surely qualities that are fundamental to the integrity of such a system.

These amendments illuminate the substantial gaps in the present drafting and ensure that Parliament does not sign off on a broad new power without understanding how it will work in practice and what safeguards will accompany it. I look to the Minister to provide the clarity that has so far been somewhat lacking. For our part, we do not oppose the principle of creating a more flexible and enforceable means-based penalty. But, before we take such a significant step, we must be satisfied that the framework is sound, that the protections are clear and that the consequences, particularly for those on the margins, have been fully thought through. I hope the Minister will address these concerns.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the principle that victims’ rights, safety and experiences must be considered. Included already in the statutory purposes of sentencing is the protection of the public. In practice, courts make an effort to take victims’ interests into account. The explicit addition to Clause 4 raises an interesting principle, and the amendment serves, perhaps, as a useful reminder of the centrality of victims in our justice system. We look forward to hearing the Government’s response to Amendment 45.

Amendment 45A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would place in statute the purposes of imprisonment and require both the courts and the Secretary of State to have regard to them. The first of these principles is

“the incapacitation of prisoners in order to restrict their ability to re-offend in the community”.

I simply observe that the purposes of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are to the opposite effect. They raise presumptions in favour of the release of prisoners into the community, rather than their incapacitation to restrict their ability to reoffend. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.

I note that Amendment 45A would reinforce principles already central to sentencing and prison policy, which can only be good for public confidence. If it can lead to improvements in rehabilitation and public protection, then all to the good. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the four aims proposed in Amendment 45A.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for bringing forward Amendment 45 in his place, and for the spirit in which it has been proposed. The Government share the noble Lords’ goal and dedication to ensure that victims are properly protected within our justice system. That is why Clause 4 makes it clear that the protection of the public explicitly includes victims of crime. This is a significant and, I must stress, intentional step forward. Although I wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intentions and commitments, I do not believe that the additional wording proposed in the amendment would add substantive value to what is already being achieved by the changes we are making in the Bill.

Clause 4 will make it clear that courts should consider the protection of victims as part of sentencing. That is very important. This amendment would simply restate what is already made explicit by Clause 4. Of course, the Government’s commitment to protecting victims is not limited to the changes we are making in Clause 4. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked me to comment on the centrality of victims to the justice system. I am so happy to do that that I rewrote this speaking note this morning, with the help of the officials.

The Bill contains other important measures that will protect victims. As noble Lords know, we are introducing new restriction zones, which will limit the movements of offenders instead of the movements of victims. We are also creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing so that domestic abusers are more consistently identified. This will help prisons and probation services manage offenders effectively and ensure that victims are better protected.

We are taking many steps outside the Bill to protect victims. We are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts—a very important cause, with which I have been associated for many years—with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has made an important contribution to this debate by raising whether the purpose of imprisonment should be defined in legislation. I spent many years chairing the agency board of HMPPS, and one of my jobs was to set the strategy. We spent a long time debating precisely this point and how we should frame it, so I understand the issues the right reverend Prelates seek to address.

Although I agree wholeheartedly that our debates should be guided by principles and evidence, and not by headlines—the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that one of the most important duties of new legislation is to win public confidence; I entirely share that sentiment— I am afraid that I respectfully disagree that a definition in statute is needed. The purposes of sentencing, including imprisonment, are already set out in statute and reflected in Sentencing Council guidelines. These principles should guide our courts every day and provide the flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances and emerging threats. With those comments in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has made a good case for his reliance on Clause 4 in its reference to victims. The wider issues raised in Amendment 45A ought still to attract the Government’s interest as we proceed with the Bill, but on the basis of what has been said in this short debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a full assessment of how the courts are using their existing powers to make parenting and financial orders for young offenders. These powers are already available under the Sentencing Code but in practice are used far less than Parliament had originally intended. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that more than 1,000 such orders were made in 2010, yet only 27 have been made in recent years. That is a striking decline, which raises serious concerns about whether important statutory powers designed to support families and address the causes of youth offending are being neglected or overlooked.

The purpose of these orders is not to punish parents but to support them, to help restore discipline and stability in the home and, ultimately, to prevent the next crime before it happens. Through assessing their effectiveness and making recommendations to increase their use, this amendment seeks to strengthen parental responsibility and engagement in the rehabilitation of young offenders. Children are of course among the most vulnerable in our society and it is our responsibility as lawmakers, indeed as parents, and ultimately as adults, to ensure that when young people offend, there is structure, support and the necessary resources in place to prevent them reoffending. I suggest that this amendment is a measured and constructive step towards achieving that aim.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is not in his place, but I will just mention his Amendment 87. The amendment addresses a very different but equally important aspect of youth justice: the question of transparency in cases involving the most serious offending by those under 18 years of age. The amendment would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing where a young offender received a custodial sentence of four years or more. To receive a custodial sentence of over four years is telling of the crimes committed. I appreciate that anonymity has been a protective safeguard for most children within the justice system, and of course rightly so, but where an offence of such gravity that it warrants a substantial custodial sentence has been committed, there is a strong public interest in transparency and accountability. So I would welcome the Minister’s response not only to my own amendment but to that tabled by the noble Lord.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for raising these important issues. Obviously, the Bill focuses on the adult system, but I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate these amendments about the youth justice system, about which all of us are concerned. However, our position is that neither of these amendments are necessary.

Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to assess the effectiveness of certain orders available when dealing with a child under the age of 18. This includes parenting orders, and costs, fines and other financial orders. I am very happy to acknowledge the importance of these orders, as stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. They are very much part of the toolkit for dealing with youth offending and youth justice and have an important role in supporting greater responsibility for a child’s offending—excuse my voice; the NHS’s work in restoring my mellifluous tones is not quite complete yet. Whether they are used in a particular case is best determined by the court with access to professional advice from the youth offending team. When we were discussing this prior to this Committee tonight, we recognised the importance of youth offending officers having a view on what would be most effective in working with parents who should be doing more.

It is right that the court retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support the child’s rehabilitation—so we are not opposed to that—and that it has access to information on their individual circumstances. However, as the Minister said at Second Reading, we will be reviewing the position on youth sentencing separately in light of the changes that the Bill will introduce in due course, and we will be very happy to return to these important matters then. Therefore, although we do not agree that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment of these orders, I can confirm to noble Lords that we will consider this matter.

Amendment 87 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has set out the issue. I thank the noble and learned Lord, but let us be clear that the most serious childhood offences which result in longer custodial sentences are dealt with in the Crown Court. Here, it is at the discretion of the independent judge whether to impose restrictions to protect the identity of a child defendant. Reporting restrictions exist to protect vulnerable child victims, witnesses and defendants. They are very important. Being named in the press can obviously have a significant negative impact on the safety, prospects and opportunities of a child. That said, in all cases, judges have discretion to lift reporting restrictions once a child has been convicted, or before, where they are considered unreasonable—for example, in the well-known case of Axel Rudakubana, who was 17 when charged with the Southport murders. The Government’s view is that our existing system strikes the right balance between the fundamental importance of open justice and proportionate safeguards for children. With that in mind, I ask the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord not to press their amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been a very striking decline in the use of parenting and financial orders since 2010?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We are conscious of that and we discussed it in our pre-briefing this morning, and we want to find out what that is all about. The important point to make at this stage, without jumping to conclusions, is that we want this to be part of the armoury, but we want youth offending officers to have discretion about what will really work with the parents. Anyway, you have got me on one of my favourite subjects, so I should get off it.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am obliged to the Minister for getting on and then getting off this topic. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. He will probably not be surprised to learn that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support Amendment 77. I note the noble Lord’s commitments, but it would simply be a foolish burden to impose more administrative obligations on the public sector. It cannot be right to bar the use of a private enterprise where appropriate; the emphasis must be on “appropriate”. That should be for the Probation Service, as the commissioning body, to determine, with the Ministry of Justice having oversight.

Of course, our justice system should not be privatised, but the single issue here is delivery. This does not mean there are not benefits to be gained from working together with the private sector, especially as the current system is hugely overburdened. We should be welcoming prudent collaboration with private companies that specialise in supplying such services to community sentences, but only where it is right to do so because they are the right people and they pass the test of competition. We should not be needlessly blocking off an avenue that helps ease this strain.

This amendment is not necessary. The Probation Service is currently in the process of regaining control of community sentences. Private community rehabilitation companies had their contracts terminated and their responsibilities transferred to the Probation Service by the last Conservative Government. Community sentence oversight and management is already in the hands of the public sector, while private and volunteer suppliers provide support services. That is how it should continue.

We are in a situation where the public sector has responsibility for running and delivering the community sentences and, at the same time, can make use of the efficiencies of the private sector for supply on the ground where appropriate. Banning public sector involvement is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. It would come at the cost of placing undue strain on the Probation Service. If the ministry determines that prison officers should fit tags—here, I move from one topic to the other—because it is operationally sensible, then that should be done. If it deems that it is not appropriate in one prison for one reason, it can divide it up, but let us leave it as it is.

We cannot support either of these amendments. We agree that there is merit in demarcating the Probation Service’s remit and ensuring that it remains a public service, but prisons are not in the state to be taking on board more responsibilities at this time. Rather than attempting to legislate powers into the public sector, we should allow services to be dynamic. We should allow the Probation Service and the Prison Service to make their own decisions on the most appropriate basis. They are the ones who must react to changing duties and capacities. Sometimes this will require contracting out to the private sector; sometimes it will not. Merely attempting to close off an option for ideological reasons will not help best delivery of the services we need.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Barber for introducing them in his absence, giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the issues they have raised.

I appreciate that my noble friend’s Amendment 77 is founded on concerns that unpaid work will be privatised. To be completely clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I assure him that the privatisation of unpaid work is absolutely not being considered. The Government are clear that unpaid work must be robust and continue to pay back where it matters most: in our communities. The Government remain open to a full range of potential projects that help our communities. Were any of those to have any private sector involvement, it would be within the realms of the current requirement for the Probation Service to retain ultimate control and supervision. This requirement is unchanged and, as I say, we have no plans to change it.

For example, it is already possible for a private company to influence the type of projects offenders may complete through nominating suitable projects, such as graffiti removal in a local community. In these scenarios, the unpaid work would always be overseen by the Probation Service and the work undertaken would always serve a community purpose—I stress that point. We do not intend to privatise the delivery of unpaid work, but we should encourage joining up with local businesses and charities to determine how best to expand projects further and to deliver work that has the greatest community benefit. We believe that there is sufficient operational guidance already in place to support delivery in a way that benefits charitable, state or not-for-profit organisations and guards against exploiting any offenders for private profit.

Turning to Amendment 135, I will address the concerns that my noble friend raised. It is important to be clear that it is the responsibility of the electronic monitoring field and monitoring service provider, Serco, to perform the duty of installing and monitoring the output of electronic monitoring devices. I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the commitment to probation being seen as a public service. He also noted that this community rehabilitation company was brought back into the public sector by the last Government; of course, it was also the Conservative Government who put it in the private sector, where it failed, in the first place.

I recognise and deeply appreciate the vital role that the Prison and Probation Service performs. I stress that, as my noble friend Lord Timpson said, we see it as crucial to the success of these reforms. We want it to be able to focus on recovering from the challenges it faces and on becoming genuinely world-class.

The Ministry of Justice has recently launched a pilot to test the fitting of electronic monitoring devices before offenders leave the prison gates, instead of at a home visit. This goes to my noble friend Lord Barber’s third point. We are doing this so that we can begin monitoring them immediately, in the crucial period just after leaving custody. The approach is initially being tested in six prisons. I therefore reaffirm to my noble friend and the Committee that it absolutely remains the responsibilities of Serco to install tags at these pilot sites and of Probation Service staff to manage the prison leavers to whom they are applied. The pilot will be subject to proper evaluation so that we can take forward the operational learning and evidence it generates to inform future practice.

I hope that that reassures my noble friend that the changes we are making do not change the responsibilities for applying the tags. With those reassurances in mind, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. On Amendment 77, I noticed that he placed proper emphasis on payback to our communities from the unpaid work we are discussing, but I would hope that proper consideration is also given to payback to prisoners who face this form of punishment during their terms.

This is comparable to other community work schemes in many ways, and in previous job creation programmes there have been strong emphases on the quality of training provided and the safeguards against displacement and substitution of paid jobs. Those are important considerations that need to be taken into account in considering the programmes we are discussing in respect of prisoners.

On Amendment 135, I note and am pleased to hear what the Minister says about Serco continuing to have that key responsibility. In the light of the response on both these amendments, I am prepared to withdraw Amendment 77 and not press Amendment 135.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I must confess that as I read the provisions of this Bill, it triggered a childhood memory. The late Dr Dolittle curated a number of very strange and unusual animals, which included the pushmi-pullyu: a gazelle with two heads, which faced in opposite directions at the same time.

Why would I be prone to such a memory on reading the provisions of this Bill? Let me begin with some quotations from the Government. First,

“sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 3/4/25; col. 211.]

Secondly,

“it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]

Thirdly,

“the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1378.]

Finally:

“It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1344.]


Yet Clause 1, in opening the Bill, says that the judiciary must apply a presumption, other than in very narrowly prescribed circumstances, so that even if a judge wished to impose a custodial sentence of a certain length, they would be unable to do so if it did not fall under a specified exemption or exceptional circumstances.

How did the Minister endeavour to bring this together in the first day of Committee? He said that

“it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”,—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]

following the “appropriate guidance” of the Sentencing Council. But this guidance is now to be in the control of the Government, by virtue of the Lord Chancellor’s veto, thereby potentially eliminating any sense of “independence”.

So I ask the Minister: in which direction is this two-headed Bill going to proceed? It cannot walk in two different and diametrically opposed directions at the same time. Is it towards the goal of judicial independence, or towards the goal of executive control? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, concluded by saying that these provisions were wrong-headed. I think they are even worse: they are double-headed, and that has to be resolved.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling these amendments. I am very grateful for their continued and constructive engagement on the Bill.

Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes to abolish the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The noble Lord’s prediction is correct: I put on record that we strongly believe that it is right to retain the council, in view of the continued importance of its work in developing sentencing guidelines. He does not look completely surprised.

Over time, the council has developed offence-specific guidelines covering hundreds of offences, alongside a series of overarching guidelines. These guidelines have helped bring greater consistency, transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process. We welcome that.

The council also holds an important constitutional position, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, within the firmament of our justice system. It bridges the interests and responsibilities of Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice, while protecting the important responsibility of judges and magistrates to make individual sentencing decisions—I think I am reflecting what the noble and learned Lord said. For these reasons, I am afraid we do not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I urge him to withdraw it.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas. They have indicated quite clearly their opposition to Clause 18 and propose an alternative approach to Clause 19. I am grateful for their careful consideration of this. Their concerns are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I know that they were experts in this field and their opinions therefore carry a great deal of weight with the Government. As the Minister made clear at Second Reading, in bringing forward these clauses we are aiming to maintain public confidence in the guidelines that the council produces, particularly in view of the sustained public scrutiny that the council has been under of late, which is partly reflected in these debates.

Events surrounding the imposition guideline, on which I do not propose to dwell but which obviously I need to reference, earlier this year highlighted an example of the issues that can arise where guidelines cover areas of policy that should properly be for Ministers and Parliament to determine. We are keen to avoid a similar scenario arising in future, and that is why Clauses 18 and 19 have been drafted to introduce approval measures that provide greater democratic and judicial oversight of the council’s work.

I recognise that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marks, are keen for more information about the intention of Clause 18. Put briefly, this clause will allow the Lord Chancellor to have a greater say over the guidelines that the council intends to develop across the year, ensuring that any plans are properly reflective of wider priorities across government and Parliament and with the wider public. As no noble Lord has so far mentioned this, I should stress that in preparing this clause we have had regard to similar provision that exists for comparable bodies across the justice system, such as the Law Commission.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

Will the Minister explain why the Law Commission, which is a body that looks at law reform for the Government, is to be equated with the independent Sentencing Council, which constitutionally balances the three interests? It would be very helpful to have that explanation. A second explanation it would be helpful to have is: is it intended that the business plan sets out in detail what is going to be in the guidelines so that the Lord Chancellor can look through it to see whether there is likely to be the kind of short sentence or two that occurred in this guideline that is unacceptable? It would be very interesting to know the Government’s thinking on both these points.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I take the point that the noble and learned Lord makes that the Law Commission is different. That is why I said that we have had regard to that. On the second question that the noble and learned Lord raises, perhaps I can come to that in just a moment.

Clause 19 provides that the council can issue definitive guidelines only if the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice each individually approve them. The amendments from the noble and learned Lords propose instead that the council should be free to issue definitive guidance unless both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice indicate that they do not consent. While I appreciate the sentiment and the spirit of compromise behind these amendments—which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, also referred to— I am afraid that we are not convinced that they would be the best way of securing the public confidence in sentencing guidelines that we seek. This is because they run the risk of definitive guidelines being published and implemented for use by the courts, even if the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, the Lady Chief Justice had indicated their discontent with them. We consider the current drafting of Clause 19 to be a practical and effective means of achieving our policy objective because it provides that the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must first be obtained before a definitive guideline can be published and implemented.

I emphasise that, in developing our current drafting, we have sought to reflect the distinct roles and responsibilities that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary, as well as the careful balance that has been established for sentencing policy and practice. In particular, we are clear that these approval measures do not interfere—I hope that this is obvious, but I will emphasise it anyway—with the judiciary’s responsibility for setting sentences in individual cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That is precisely why we want to engage in further discussion to try to take some of that forward.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I assume that the Minister is indicating that I should withdraw my amendment. This has been a fascinating, fluent and well-argued debate. Obviously, I have been beset by a surfeit of eminent jurists this evening; they certainly gave the lie to the saying that lawyers are the only people in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.

The interesting thing is that, although I agree with the noble and learned Lords on the Clause 18 and Clause 19 stand part notices, that is a logical corollary of the fact that I wish to see the abolition of the Sentencing Council and therefore do not find myself coming from the same position. So I am an example of a “push-me pull-me”: I find myself agreeing with their objective but vehemently disagreeing with their rationale and reasoning.

I will quickly say two things. I slightly take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because it was not just a slightly irrelevant mix-up at the beginning of the year; it was quite a constitutional tempest. It is very unusual for the Government to bring forward emergency legislation, in effect, very quickly as a result of the behaviour or conduct of an arm’s-length body. Serious constitutional ramifications arose from those decisions. Obviously, the Government solved that matter with cross-party support.

I totally agree with the very astute point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. There is a dichotomy at the heart of this Bill around the interference or otherwise of the Government and the imperatives they are giving to the judiciary. That needs to be resolved by the time this Bill gets Royal Assent.

With all those caveats being ventilated, and bearing in mind, as I predicted, that the Minister was very unlikely to agree with me, I will seek to withdraw my amendment.

I should also say that I of course meant the Times leader of March 2025 and not 2010, for the benefit of the official record; that was an error on my part. With that being said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for these important and thoughtful amendments. They seek to give effect to a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review, by David Gauke, which would involve creating an independent advisory body that would provide greater scrutiny of the impacts of policy and legislation on the criminal justice system. I absolutely understand the sentiments behind these amendments, and we recognise that this Bill represents a big change to sentencing in the future and that the Government will need timely advice from voices of expertise and experience. I have worked with some of the organisations the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to and hold them in the highest esteem.

The Government do not believe that it is right to legislate for a new statutory panel at this stage, but I will say a little about how we think we can take forward the spirit of this. There are already many advisory and oversight authorities for prisons and probation, many of them with statutory remits. However, we will certainly continue to consider whether the creation of a new advisory body is the appropriate mechanism to ensure greater scrutiny and greater effectiveness of the impacts and outcomes of policy and legislation in this area.

Although we are considering this recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review carefully—I hope I have made it clear that we take it very seriously—we do not support an amendment at this time. As I hope the Committee will understand, creating such a panel requires a good deal of thought about its purpose and responsibilities and how it could fit within the panoply of organisations that already advise the wider criminal justice system. It is already a Rubik’s cube.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are undertaking an ongoing review of arm’s-length bodies, and this sets out clear principles, including ministerial policy oversight, avoiding duplication—that is very important—and improving efficiency. So we are not clear that the creation of such a body in statute, as this amendment would do, would quite align with these aims. So, although we do not accept these amendments today, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and indeed the whole Committee that the Government will continue to consider this recommendation.

On the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the right reverend Prelate about improving the understanding of the press and the public, we are certainly in the market for anything that will improve their understanding of how the criminal justice system, particularly sentencing policy, works. So I hope this reassurance about the seriousness with which we take the spirit of David Gauke’s recommendation, and indeed the amendment, enables the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his response and his understanding. I am, however, disappointed that he is not prepared at this stage to commit to putting this recommendation into statute. It seems to me and the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Gloucester to be an important feature. If his concern is that we should continue to try to inform the press and public of what sentencing is about, and of what government policy on sentencing and reducing reoffending is about, then the formation of this body is very important. If the formation of this body is very important, why should it not be sanctioned by statute?

Sentencing Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for bringing this issue to the Committee. Effective probation practice depends fundamentally on local knowledge, local accountability and integration with wider services, including housing, health, substance misuse, skills and so on. In Wales, these services, in contrast to probation, are largely devolved. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the current arrangement or settlement best serves the people of Wales and whether the structures we have today genuinely allow probation to work in partnership effectively with the devolved landscape.

The noble and learned Lord has raised an important point. We on these Benches do not commit ourselves today to the specific mechanism set out in the amendment. Devolution of an important plank of the criminal justice function requires proper consideration, planning and, above all, collaboration—I emphasise that word in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said—between the United Kingdom Government and Welsh Ministers. We agree that that conversation cannot be avoided. It must be approached constructively with regard to the Welsh perspective.

Probation in Wales faces real pressures and deserves a stable and effective framework within which to operate. If the Minister believes that the current reserved model remains the right one, the Committee would expect him to set out clearly how it delivers coherence, integration and accountability, and how it is effective not in theory but in practice. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for initiating this debate, and we look forward to the Government’s response, probably not for just the one time.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his amendment and his thoughtful engagement on this issue and others. I know he has met my noble friend the Minister outside the Chamber to discuss these things.

The Government committed to undertake a strategic review of probation in their manifesto, and it is still our plan to review the governance of the Probation Service, looking at partnerships across England and Wales. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the Manchester model. I hesitate to agree with the suggestion that it is being imposed on Wales, but I have to say that I am rather a fan of the Manchester model. In fact, I regard myself as the progenitor of it—or one of them—when I was at HMPPS as its lead non-executive director. That is part of what is on offer, as it were.

It is important that the recommendations in this Bill are first implemented and that we bring stability to the Probation Service in England and Wales as it currently is before undertaking any structural review. The Government believe that this would not be the right time to consider factoring structural changes into the many changes to probation that will arise as a result of this legislation. I understand that the doctrine of unripe time is often a fairly feeble excuse for inaction, but I am sure that everyone in the Committee recognises that—if I can put it like this—the capacity for change in the Probation Service, with this Bill and the current situation, is pretty much maxed out.

The amendment proposes devolving the Probation Service, but not the equivalent in relation to sentencing or prisons. Devolving parts of the criminal justice system in this way would create a divergence between the management of offenders and the wider criminal justice, sentencing and prison framework across England and Wales. We know that poor handovers, weak communication or gaps in support during the transition from custody to the community are among the greatest barriers to successful resettlement, so we are concerned that some of the changes that might arise as a result of this would create friction in the way that I have suggested. Therefore, any framework in which prisons and probation are separately owned, funded or designed carries a real risk that the two halves of the process might fail to connect, particularly at a time of strain. When that happens, people leaving prison can all too easily fall through the gaps.

That is the heart of the Government’s view at the moment—that this is not a good time to impose structural change on the Probation Service. We want to be sure that we do not create the sort of risks and frictions that I discussed. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to support the local delivery of services by devolved and reserved partners in Wales. I hope that I have given the noble and learned Lord some reassurance, at least sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord who has responded. It is obviously sensible to devolve prisons and probation together—that is what we recommended—but the political reality of the way in which the Governments in Cardiff and London relate, particularly when they are of the same party, made me think at this stage not to put down prisons and probation. I shall rethink that for the next time.

I wish that people here would realise that there will be no effective change to the Probation Service until we can take some of the money out of prisons and put it into probation. I am sure that most people who think about it realise that the Government do not have any money and realise it has got to come from somewhere, and that imprisoning people for sensible and shorter times is a much better policy. I would like to see that done in Wales, and I am convinced it could be done, so I will think about the suggestion from the Minister that we should put down both on the next occasion.

I said that the Manchester model was being imposed, but it is really a Hobson’s choice. That is what I mean about it being imposed—“You want something, so we will give you a little bit to keep you quiet”. But it is not the right model, because Manchester is not a country; it is a city in England where people here make decisions on policy. Wales is a different country, a proud and ancient nation. That is the difference, and that is why the Manchester model is good for Manchester but not good for Wales.

In the light of all that has been said, I hope that I may return to this issue, maybe in a slightly different and wider form of amendment, as suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments may appear useful in a time where sentencing laws are revised with increasing frequency, as illustrated by this Bill. A call for transparency and data is also generally welcome. Both amendments reflect a desire to ensure that justice keeps pace with changes in law and society. I am sure that anyone can support that general intention. We would invite the Government to address constructively the concerns that lie behind these amendments.

However, it appears that there may be very real practical issues and difficulties about any such amendment to the Bill. To take one simple example, the Bill, when it becomes law in its present form, will determine that someone who is sentenced to 12 months or less should have a suspended sentence. At the point when the Bill becomes law, is everyone then serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or less going to seek review on the grounds that the sentence should now be suspended? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of practical difficulties around that possibility.

Then, of course, we are going to have people reviewing the Sentencing Council recommendations from time to time who will say, “Wait a minute: they used to recommend three years for what I did, but they are now recommending two. Could I please have a review?” While the amendments are well intentioned, it occurs that there could be an immense number of practical difficulties, putting aside even the imposition upon the courts to review sentences at regular levels.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for these amendments, which I understand are seeking to ensure fairness in sentencing outcomes and are clearly rooted in the commitment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, to ensure that justice keeps pace with society.

That said, it is important to recognise that mechanisms already exist to address perceived injustices, including criminal appeals and sentence reviews, and mandating a formal review every three years with accompanying data and recommendations therefore risks duplicating existing oversight functions and placing additional burdens on the justice system. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there are already pressures in our justice system and it is especially important that we ensure that any reforms that create additional burdens are proportionate, targeted and deliverable.

I note, however, that the recent Leveson review calls for a full review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to modernise how criminal records are disclosed. The Government are considering this recommendation and will update the House in due course. In addition to that, the Law Commission was invited by the Government to consider the law on criminal appeals. Its consultation closed earlier this year and the responses are currently being analysed. We can expect the Law Commission to report to the Government with recommendations next year. Given that those pieces of work are in train, I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance that those recommendations will be carefully considered. While we are sympathetic to the principle that fairness underpins these amendments, for the reasons I set out, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I must say from the outset that we on these Benches cannot support it. The power to remand a person in custody for their own protection—or, in the case of a child or young person, for their own welfare—is not one that the courts use lightly. It is already tightly circumscribed and deployed only where the alternative would expose an extremely vulnerable individual to serious harm.

To remove that safeguard entirely would be a mistake. There are rare, but very real, occasions when a defendant’s personal circumstances, exploitation by criminal gangs or acute safeguarding concerns mean that the only safe option, in the immediate term, is to keep them in secure accommodation. That judgment, made by a court on evidence and subject to challenge, is not one that we believe Parliament should now deprive them of. Where children are concerned, the imperative is even stronger. The court’s paramount concern must be people’s welfare, and removing this power risks leaving young people unprotected in precisely those situations where intervention is most vital. For these reasons, we cannot support Amendment 140.

We strongly support the principle underlying Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Far too many people spend far too long in remand—months and, sometimes, well over a year—awaiting trial or sentence. For all practical purposes, they experience incarceration in the same way as sentenced prisoners. They are deprived of liberty, separated from their families and often held in conditions indistinguishable from the sentenced estate. Yet those in remand do not have the same access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other forms of support that are routinely offered post sentence.

That is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly given that time spent on remand is overwhelmingly treated as time served for the purposes of the ultimate custodial sentence. If we accept that remand can form a significant part of an individual’s total period in custody, it cannot be right that this is, in effect, dead time, in which they are able neither to progress their rehabilitation nor to address the issues that may have contributed to their offending behaviour.

Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is a valuable contribution to a discussion that is long overdue. It does not prejudge the precise mechanisms or impose unworkable obligations on overstretched services, but it rightly challenges us to consider whether the current disparity is effective or conducive to reducing reoffending. The Government should engage seriously with the spirit of these proposals.

Taken together, the amendments highlight two themes that run throughout our debates on the Bill: the need to protect the vulnerable and the need to ensure that custody, whether pre or post sentence, serves a constructive purpose. I hope that the Minister will commit to further work in this area, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her amendment and for taking the time to discuss her related concerns with my noble friend Lord Timpson. I also thank her for her support for the Bill and its overall intentions—that is very much appreciated coming from someone with her track record.

Amendment 140 would remove an important safeguard which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, is very rarely used but remains an option for the courts as a measure of last resort and out of concern for the defendant. Eliminating this provision could leave vulnerable individuals without any viable protection, particularly where alternative care arrangements were simply unavailable or could not be implemented swiftly enough. We fear that those may be the consequences. Examples where it may be used include where it is the only option available to the court to keep someone safe, such as in cases where the defendant is a member of a gang and could be subject to repercussions if they were not protected.

I hope it will also reassure your Lordships that the Mental Health Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to, is now in the other place. It includes a reform to end the use of remand for one’s own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. This reform should ensure that remand for one’s own protection is, therefore, used only as a last resort in the circumstances I have outlined.

At this stage, repeal would leave a gap in the available provision. Courts must retain the flexibility to act decisively in safeguarding individuals when no other option exists. The amendment would risk unintended consequences for vulnerable defendants and undermine the protective function of the justice system.

Amendment 147, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for tabling, seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary, given that remand prisoners can already access those programmes where prisons run them.

There is also an important legal distinction here that I should highlight to your Lordships. Remand prisoners are held in custody pending trial or sentencing, and some have not yet been convicted. Of course, we recognise that people are spending more time on remand; therefore, as I have said, where these services are available and in the right circumstances, they should be able to access them. However, remand prisoners are legally distinct from sentenced prisoners, and we have to reflect that in the priorities for resources.

There are already mechanisms in place to support remand prisoners, including access to healthcare. At the moment, the Government have no plans to expand all rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support to remand prisoners. This would require substantial changes to prison operations and resourcing, and could divert resources from those already convicted and serving sentences. We recognise, however, some of the changes in the remand population. My noble friend the Minister and I would be very happy to continue to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about these matters but, given what I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so grateful once more to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, I have to say, I am disappointed in the responses from both Front Benches on this occasion. They were uncharacteristic, knee-jerk responses that do not display a broader understanding of the other laws of England and Wales that deal—or should deal—with vulnerable people.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, mentioned children. There are ample measures for protecting children under the Children Act 1989 and looking after them in more appropriate circumstances than in criminal justice detention. I remind the Committee that we are talking about defendants who are being detained not for the classic justifications that they would commit further offences, interfere with witnesses and so on, but for their own protection. Of course, the criminal justice estate is not a place of safety or protection for anyone.

I did not hear a reply to my question about how this can be justified under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister could drop a note on that and offer it to other Members of the Committee. There will not be too many to send it to because there are not many Members here, but I would be hugely grateful for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had it right when she talked about a Victorian hangover. There are too many Victorian hangovers in this area of law and policy, and I know that my noble friend Lord Timpson is well aware of that. The thrust of the Bill, in general, is about departing from such Victorian hangovers, such as social death and locking people up and throwing away the key. I urge further reflection.

If I am a member of a criminal gang who wants to turn King’s evidence but I am not charged with a minor offence, I will have to be put in a safe house, and there are schemes and measures to do that. But if I happen to be charged with a low-level offence that does not attract a custodial penalty, I am told that it is a last resort and that I am going to be locked up in a prison system where I will be more at danger from the criminal gang than I ever would be in a safe house. These are rather disappointing arguments from members of the Committee who, on reflection, may think again. I shall certainly return to this on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.