Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I want to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have already contributed to debates in this House on this matter, which have provided me and the Government with valuable food for thought. I am also grateful to the noble Lords with whom I have spoken about this Bill, who have shared their wise counsel and wealth of experience regarding the matters on which it touches.

I know that all noble Lords will be looking forward to my noble friend Lady Nichols’ maiden speech. I welcome her to this place, and I know we will all benefit from her vast experience in public service.

I will start by recapping how we got here, as I believe that it is important to understand the Government’s intention behind the Bill. The Sentencing Council’s imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline helps judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence. In deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where the court considers such a report to be unnecessary. Pre-sentence reports are used to give the courts more context for the offending behaviour in a given case to aid judges and magistrates in making informed sentencing decisions. The current imposition guideline makes it clear that pre-sentence reports offer valuable assistance to the court when it decides whether to impose a community or custodial sentence.

Under the last Government, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline. This guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year and includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It noted that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. In effect, this could have led to offenders receiving differential treatment in terms of access to pre-sentence reports based on their faith or the colour of their skin. These changes were welcomed by the previous Administration.

By contrast, both the Lord Chancellor and I have been clear that that would be unacceptable—not least for the victims, who put their trust in the criminal justice system. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law, a principle that has been at the forefront of our justice system and our society for centuries. This is the position that the Lord Chancellor communicated in person and in writing to the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor first used her existing power, meeting the Sentencing Council’s chair on 13 March to ask it to reconsider its approach. Unfortunately, the council declined to amend the guidelines significantly or re-consult on its approach. While the Sentencing Council remains of a different opinion from the Government, I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice Davis, for the engagement he has had with the Lord Chancellor and for the cordial conversations that I know we will continue to have.

I am very thankful that, following its engagement, the Sentencing Council has paused implementation of the revised imposition guideline while Parliament has its say. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have shared their expertise in this area with me. It is clear that the intention behind the Sentencing Council’s changes to the guidelines was an honourable one: to address the inequalities in our justice system. The issue of disparities in the criminal justice system is a serious matter, and one which this Government are determined to address.

However, this is a question of policy, one which must be addressed by government, accountable to the public and Parliament, and via the ballot box. As noble Lords will be aware, this issue has prompted debate here, in the other place and publicly on the correct roles and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council, and the Lord Chancellor is carefully reviewing and considering all options. I am sure that that will be discussed more in your Lordships’ House in the months ahead.

However, I want to be clear that this is beyond the scope of the narrow Bill at hand today. The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the justice system, and any changes to its function and powers must be considered carefully. I know that several noble and learned Lords have had roles on the Sentencing Council and its predecessor and will have valuable views to add as this is considered. It would not have been right to address this through this targeted and narrow legislation.

I am proud of our judiciary, and I know that they are the envy of the world: rightly respected for their independence, impartiality and fairness. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her oath to defend the independence of the judiciary very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that nothing we are considering in terms of the future of the Sentencing Council will change the Government’s clear commitment to defend the rule of law.

I turn now to what the Bill does. Clause 1 amends Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. This would mean that any existing guidelines on pre-sentence reports which are framed by singling out personal characteristics would cease to have effect.

The Sentencing Council will therefore not be able to make such provision in future guidelines. The changes made by this clause therefore prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained. That would risk differential treatment before the law and would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government’s objective is to help ensure equality before the law, so that offenders are treated according to their individual circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group. We have therefore used the term “personal characteristics” in the Bill to ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristic of an offender, and we have accompanied this by listing some characteristics in the Bill, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background.

However, this is a non-exhaustive list, intended to give context to the term. The Government intend that the Bill will also apply to a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy. We have also used the term “demographic cohort” in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, to help provide additional context to the meaning of “personal characteristics”.

I will now make clear what the Bill does not do. It does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases—for example, those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ ability to request a pre-sentence report. The Sentencing Code is clear that courts must obtain pre-sentence reports unless they consider it to be unnecessary. The Bill does not affect this presumption. The independent judiciary will retain discretion to make decisions about where pre-sentence reports are necessary based on the facts of the case. The Bill does not stop the Sentencing Council advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports should be sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances.

Also, as detailed in the Explanatory Notes, the Bill does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Recently, in R v Thompson, the Court of Appeal emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. In R v Meanley, the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants. In R v Kurmekaj, the defendant had a traumatic upbringing and vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. The court considered that these factors meant that a pre-sentence report should have been requested. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand.

I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports, which are a valuable tool for sentencers in appropriate cases. The number of pre-sentence reports declined by 44% between 2013 and 2023. The Probation Service is under a huge amount of pressure, which is indicative of wider capacity issues in the system. This Government have acted quickly to create capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that our hard-working probation officers have more time for vital work such as this. We have announced plans to recruit a further 1,000 probation officers in the coming year, on top of the 1,300 extra probation officers recruited in the last financial year. I am continuing to work with the Probation Service to ensure that it can deliver a high and consistent standard of service.

We are also working to better understand what drives disparities in the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Council has acknowledged that the causes of disparities in sentencing outcomes are “unclear”. Understanding the data is the key first step to deciding what we must do to address these disparities. The Lord Chancellor set out during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place that she has commissioned a review of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the justice system. On the timeline for the review, noble Lords can rest assured that we are working at pace on this and will update the House in due course. I assure your Lordships that this is an issue which the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address. However, this cannot be done at the expense of equality before the law.

In conclusion, by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill ensures that we all continue to stand equal before the law. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill and the principle that drives it—of equality before the law. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I start my closing speech by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord Etherton. Being relatively new to this place, I never got to know him, but it is clear how much he was deeply respected and admired. He has been described as a kind person, which is something that I hope one day would be my epitaph.

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions over the course of today’s debate. The depth of knowledge and experience in this House has certainly been on full display. It has also been a pleasure to be in this place for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Nichols of Selby. I warmly welcome her to this place and look forward to working with her in the years to come, as she clearly has a lot to contribute.

I thank noble Lords who have raised perceptive questions over the course of today’s debate and those who have spoken to me privately. I hope they will feel that I have addressed their points in my closing remarks. If I do not cover them now, I will follow up in writing to address their points. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, words matter. I hope that my closing words matter and are helpful in answering noble Lords’ questions.

As I set out in my opening speech, the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline risked differential treatment before the law. As we have discussed, this Bill is not about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. It is not about restricting the use of pre-sentence reports. In fact, this Government are committed to increasing the use of pre-sentence reports. Rather, it is about the very specific issue of the Sentencing Council issuing guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have asked why this Bill is necessary and whether it was possible to resolve the matter with the Sentencing Council without primary legislation. In response, I would explain that we first exhausted all other options prior to introducing this legislation. The imposition guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year. Ahead of this, the Lord Chancellor used her existing power to ask the Sentencing Council to reconsider. Unfortunately, the Sentencing Council declined to revise the draft guideline. It was right, at that point, to act quickly to introduce the legislation.

As a result, the Sentencing Council decided to put the guideline on pause while Parliament rightly has its say, and we are grateful to it for doing so. By acting quickly, we prevented a guideline coming into effect which risked differential treatment before the law. This legislation has been necessary to achieve that and to clarify this Government’s commitment to equality before the law.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have questioned the scheduling of this Bill. I reassure noble Lords that the dates for Committee and Report have been agreed in the usual channels in the usual way.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Mattinson have spoken about the importance of trust and consistency in the justice system. As the speed with which we introduced the Bill demonstrates, this Government are definitive in their stance with regard to equality before the law. The issues that have been raised with regard to disproportionality in our justice system are the domain of government, politics and Parliament. This Bill serves to reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

As my noble friend Lady Mattinson set out, we must work to preserve trust in our excellent legal system. I thank her for sharing her considered views on this. It is essential to victims that they are able to trust our legal system and know that everyone will be treated equally before the law. Implementing a sentencing guideline that could lead to differential treatment before the law puts trust in the legal system at risk, which is why we acted quickly to address this.

To address the question from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Wolfson, about what this Bill means for the future of the Sentencing Council, I reiterate that the Sentencing Council has done valuable work, bringing consistency to judicial decision-making. However, developments on the imposition guideline have clearly revealed a potential issue, where the council is dictating policy that is not this Government’s and that does not express the will of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor is therefore reviewing the powers and function of the Sentencing Council. It would not be appropriate to deal with that wider issue through fast-track legislation, given the significant policy and constitutional issues involved. It is right to take the time to consider more fundamental reform like this. The Lord Chancellor will be considering all options and I know that many in your Lordships’ House will have valuable experience to contribute.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords asked how this Bill interacts with the review of sentencing being led by David Gauke and ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. I reassure noble Lords that this Bill will not have any impact. This Bill is addressing the specific matter at hand regarding the Sentencing Council guidelines. The sentencing review is a wider review of sentencing, and we look forward to considering its recommendations in due course.

I turn now to the questions over the detail of the Bill, which were raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Bach and Lord Wolfson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. What is clear from this debate is the Government’s objective to help ensure equality before the law. We are clear that an offender should be judged by a court on an individual basis, according to the particular facts and circumstances of their case. It is not for the Sentencing Council to set out in guidance that judgments should be made on the basis of personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity.

The Government have used the broad term “personal characteristics” to make it clear that any reference to preferential treatment for particular cohorts is unacceptable. The Bill states that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, and cultural background, but these are examples and not a comprehensive list. “Personal characteristics” is intended to include a wide range of characteristics, such as sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status. This is broader than the concept of “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act, which is a closed list and not wide enough to address, for example, the reference in the guideline to being a member of a cultural minority.

After careful consideration, the Government have therefore concluded that the most appropriate and principled way to respond to the issues raised by the guideline is to use the broader concept of “personal characteristics” in the Bill. The term “demographic cohort” is used in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. However, the use of “demographic cohort” was not intended to, and I believe does not, narrow the definition of “personal characteristics”. A demographic cohort is a way of describing people who share certain personal characteristics. It is used in the Explanatory Notes to provide additional context to the Bill, but it would not be an appropriate alternative to the current drafting and would, in my view, raise further difficult questions of definition regarding what amounts to a “demographic cohort”. The term “personal characteristics” is used and understood in other contexts, and the Government consider it is the best formulation to address the issues raised by the guideline.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised concern over whether this Bill interferes with judicial independence. To be clear, this Bill does not in any way influence individual sentencing decisions. Individual sentencing decisions clearly remain a matter for the independent judiciary. However, as I have said previously, the issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system is a policy matter and should be addressed by Government Ministers. The narrow change introduced by the Bill targets aspects of the sentencing guidelines that relate to equality of inputs. We are therefore addressing a policy matter and are not encroaching on judicial independence.

It is regrettable that some of the recent debate has strayed into comments about individual judges and their decision-making. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be reassured that this Government will always support judges to do their jobs independently. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her duty to defend judicial independence very seriously. As a number of noble and noble and learned Lords have said today, we are very lucky to have a world-class and highly regarded judiciary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Nichols of Selby, have rightly raised concerns about probation capacity, which is something that I think about in my role on a daily basis. One knock-on effect of this is the consistency and quality of pre-sentence reports. This Government support the wider use and improvement of pre-sentence reports within our courts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that they can be valuable in all cases and for all defendants, regardless of their membership of a certain cohort, and should be obtained unless a judge believes that they are unnecessary. We are committed to ensuring that pre-sentence reports are available when needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what will happen to pre-sentence reports that are being prepared when the Bill comes into effect. I reassure her that there will be no impact on pre-sentence reports in the process of being prepared. This Bill is not about the ability of a court to request a pre-sentence report. The test remains that, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, a PSR should be requested unless it is considered unnecessary. This is about council guidelines and the need to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law.

We have publicly outlined the steps we are taking to increase capacity in the Probation Service to enable it to undertake more valuable work such as this. Next year, we will bring 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers on board, but as noble Lords are well aware, and I have spoken to a number of noble Lords privately about this, it takes time to train and induct new staff to allow them to become the brilliant probation officers we so highly value. I have a lot to do to help our fantastic probation staff achieve what we know is possible in the service.

To support our probation staff, we are embracing technology, including AI. Work is ongoing that is improving the flow of information—so critical to an accurate assessment of an offender’s risk—and new tools are beginning to strip away a probation officer’s administrative burden. There is much more work still to do. However, given the challenges the Probation Service faces, new staff and better processes are not sufficient on their own. We need to think about how we use the Probation Service, which faces a case load of just over 250,000 offenders, more effectively.

The theme of the debate, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has been tackling disproportionality across the criminal justice system. We know that more must be done to address inequalities and we are committed to tackling racial disparities, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will be pleased to hear. As the Lord Chancellor set out in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has questioned, she has commissioned a review into the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities, and we will carefully consider next steps. We are also taking action to increase diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. This has included supporting underrepresented groups to join the judiciary.

A particular concern was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about how the Bill may impact on women—in particular, pregnant women. As the chair of the Women’s Justice Board, I have paid particularly close attention to this matter and have also spoken with board members. To be clear, nothing in the Bill prevents judges requesting pre-sentence reports for pregnant women, nor will it affect Court of Appeal case law, which states that a pre-sentence report is desirable in the case of pregnant or postnatal women. Judges will therefore continue to be able to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including, for example, appropriate cases involving pregnant women, and we expect this to continue. We are committed to achieving equal outcomes for women.

In conclusion, this is a targeted and specific Bill which serves to protect the important principles of equality before the law. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I look forward to engaging with them as the Bill progresses.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before the Minister moves the Second Reading, he told the House, in justifying why the term “personal characteristics” is used here, that it is used in a number of contexts. I do not expect him to answer in detail now, but will he write to the House to explain what those contexts are so that we have them in our minds as well?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will very happily write. As noble Lords are aware, I am not an expert on the finer details of the law, so that would actually help me as well. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading and for that I apologise. On this side of the Committee, we support the direction of travel of this Bill. We agree and endorse the principle that all those before the criminal courts should be treated equally and without special treatment. We have heard, however, compelling arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and other speakers about the difficulties with the drafting of this Bill and the way it is framed.

What I will say about the amendments is on the basis that, while we support the purpose of the Bill and in particular stand by our amendments in the third group—we believe they will bring to Parliament its proper role when it comes to guidelines—we see that there are issues with the terms to which these amendments are directed. Having said that, I can deal quite quickly with the amendments, without any disrespect to those who have spoken in support of them.

We believe that Amendment 1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would detract from the Bill. We refer to our amendments in the third group and say that what is contained there would enable Parliament to address the points the noble Baroness made in practice. Similar arguments apply to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We do not favour this amendment and believe it goes too far in reversing the purpose of the Bill. We listened with great respect, as I have already said, to the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which we think have great force. We can see that there could be unforeseen and unintended—perhaps they are foreseen, but they are certainly unintended—adverse consequences. With this and the other amendments, we await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply.

We would make similar observations in respect of Amendment 4, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and Amendment 5, which we believe, to the extent that it adds to the Bill, detracts from its message and is a move in the wrong direction. On Amendment 6, again from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we advance the same reasons as we have done in respect of the other amendments, and his Amendment 4.

On Amendments 11 and 12, we have nothing to add to what I have said before, but we believe that the Government must address the arguments advanced to ensure that the Bill is clearly drawn and does not have unintended adverse consequences that simply make the situation worse. We invite the Government to look carefully at this and, indeed, the aims of Amendments 12 and 13, although we believe that the Bill is right to focus in the direction that it does.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also raised important specific points in relation to specific matters. Again, we will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but we see merit in the view expressed by the Constitution Committee, not in respect to those amendments in particular but, of course, in relation to other amendments. That is all that I propose to say at this stage in respect of this group.

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

I thank noble Lords for the careful consideration that they have clearly given the Bill, and I hope that I can reassure them on many, if not all, the points made. I also appreciate their kindness to me in their wise assumption that I am in the presence of some of the world’s experts on this subject, and I am not one of them—but I hope that I address all the points that noble Lords have raised.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that I am very grateful to her for the work that she does in supporting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and I am happy to continue to engage with her on that subject. I have already had a meeting with the group as well.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government are seeking to ensure that the sentencing guidelines do not lead to differential treatment before the law. To do that, the Bill prevents relevant guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offenders’ different personal characteristics. A non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of personal characteristics is included in the Bill, including race, religion or belief or cultural background. This list was developed with reference to the content of the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline.

Before I set out the Government’s position, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his contribution to this debate, which I will ask the team to consider fully ahead of Report.

Amendments 1, 11 and 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would replace reference to “personal characteristics” in Clause 1 with reference to “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act 2010. We have considered the proposed change to the wording carefully and, while we understand the logic behind referring to the set of protected characteristics provided for in the Equality Act, I am not persuaded that this would meet the Government’s policy objective.

The revised imposition guideline refers to members of a “cultural minority” within its list of cohorts for which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. As cultural background is not a protected characteristic provided for in the Equality Act, if the Bill was to be amended in the way proposed, the council would be free to provide within its guidelines that cultural minorities received preferential access to pre-sentence reports, in turn risking differential treatment before the law. The use of the broader term “personal characteristics” in the Bill ensures that our policy intent is met and that all the issues raised by the imposition guideline are appropriately addressed. I am happy to carry on the conversation with my noble friend and look forward to our meeting later this week. I therefore urge her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the Bill’s current blanket restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offender’s different personal characteristics. Instead, the amendment would require sentencing guidelines to include references to personal characteristics when they are also considered to be related to an offender’s personal circumstances. I am mindful that there has already been extensive debate in this House and in the other place about the Government’s use of the term “personal characteristics”, but I hope that it may nevertheless be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s approach.

The Government acknowledge that the concept of “personal characteristics” is a broad and flexible one that is not intended to have an exhaustive definition. However, to put it simply, personal characteristics refer to who or what someone is. They are things that one cannot, or should not, be expected to change; the Bill sets out some illustrative examples such as race, religion or belief, and cultural background. On the other hand, personal circumstances are more temporary and contingent. They are more about what someone is doing, what they have done or what has been done to them.

The Government completely accept that the line between characteristics and circumstances may not always be clear and that some attributes, such as pregnancy, could reasonably be described as both a characteristic and a circumstance. Ultimately, however, I must stress that the Government’s objective in bringing the Bill forward is to ensure equality before the law by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines that risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. The Government remain of the view that the reference to “personal characteristics” in the Bill is the most robust way of meeting this objective; I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 4 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would loosen the Bill’s restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports referring to offenders’ differential personal characteristics. It would do this by allowing sentencing guidelines to include such references where the Sentencing Council considers that this would prevent inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Although the amendments are well intentioned—I fully agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing what we, as parliamentarians, can to tackle inequalities in outcomes across the justice system—we are not persuaded that these amendments are appropriate, for two key reasons.

First, they risk undermining the Bill’s fundamental objective of ensuring equality before the law by ensuring that sentencing guidelines do not include any provision that risks differential access to pre-sentence reports. Secondly, the Government remain of the firm view that it is for Ministers and Parliament, rather than the Sentencing Council, to consider how best to tackle disproportionate outcomes across the criminal justice system; it is not something that we should seek to address using differential treatment before the law during sentencing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his speech highlighting the issues around racial bias and disproportionality in the justice system. We recognise the issues that he spoke about, but, as I have said, we believe that these are matters for policy, not the Sentencing Council, to address.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, work is continuing at pace on the review commissioned by the Lord Chancellor of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the criminal justice system. This will be key in helping decide what we must do to address disparities; the House will be updated in due course. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this is an issue the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address, and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

I acknowledge the wider comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the need for legislation, including whether we could postpone this legislation until after David Gauke has published his review. I remind the Committee of the timelines. The guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April. We sought to address this issue via constructive conversation with the Sentencing Council. As the Sentencing Council did not agree to change the guidelines, we introduced legislation to address the specific concerns that we had around equality before the law. That is why we had to act in the way we have: with primary legislation.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would provide a list of non-exhaustive examples of instances where sentencing guidelines could recommend that sentencers consider requesting pre-sentence reports. Although we have carefully considered the case for adding these criteria to the Bill, we are not persuaded that this is necessary, for two key reasons.

First, I re-emphasise that nothing in the Bill restricts sentencing guidelines from advising, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. Sentencers will therefore retain discretion to decide whether a pre-sentence report should be ordered, considering the specifics of the case before them.

Secondly, I am mindful that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant provision that meets the spirit of this amendment, and it will be unaffected by the Bill. I agree with the Lord Chancellor’s remarks in the other place that the council “got things right” in the paragraph of the revised guideline that states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements”.


I agree that PSRs should be used more widely. My work in supporting the Probation Service needs to go hand in hand with this ambition. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something he has not covered? It is how we deal with things that perhaps the Government regard as personal characteristics but that are not listed in the Bill, although they could fall within the non-exhaustive character of that provision in the Bill. Is it the Government’s view that the Sentencing Council has some way of knowing what such characteristics are? Various examples have been mentioned, such as autism or having been brought up in local authority care, which I mentioned. Would the council be acting illegally if it added further personal characteristics to those it was issuing guidance about when the Government did not agree with it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. So I get the answer technically correct, I will write to him and other Members here.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I hope it is not inappropriate to speak; I have not tabled any amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested a pause, since we are expecting the Gauke review imminently. The Sentencing Council has not so far commenced its guidelines, pending this Bill, but might it agree to continue that non-commencement until we know what the Government will do in response to the Gauke review, so that this Bill does not need to be progressed until we know exactly what the Gauke review legislation will look like? It may well overlap and possibly conflict with what is in this Bill. I just wondered whether the Sentencing Council could be persuaded to postpone its non-commencement, pausing this Bill until we know the Gauke outcome.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council was very helpful in pausing its decisions. The noble Lord is right: there are a lot of moving parts at the moment, and we are waiting with bated breath for news of publication dates. But I am aware that we also want to pursue and get on with the fact that we do not want people to be treated unequally in front of a court.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Lammy report made it clear that there is inequality for certain groups because of their particular characteristics. My noble friend Lady Bakewell referred to the Gypsies. I declare an interest as a Welsh Gypsy, and I thank her for her support. What research is there to show that the obtaining of a PSR causes preferential treatment? What research is there to show that a judge will give a more lenient sentence if he has a PSR before him? Is there any and, if not, why not, before a Bill like this is brought forward? Surely the noble Lord will agree with what I said before: the more a sentencer knows about a person, the better it is and the better the sentence, both for the individual and for the community.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are doing a large amount of work on collecting the data to understand the issue more widely, but I will write to the noble Lord with the exact information.

[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.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who made their very forensic and clear points about the Bill and the manifold problems with it. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who replied with about as much kindness, courtesy and elegance as it is possible to do in these very tricky circumstances. I will not be pressing my amendments today, and I am glad that he and his advisers will reflect a little more before Report, which I think they would be wise to do.

I will just leave my noble friend with one thought about the points that I made. He has spoken often about preferential treatment, and I remind him of what I said about the high steps to my restaurant or hotel. If I add a ramp, a hoist or a lift for the person in the wheelchair to gain access to a service that they would not otherwise get access to, is that preferential treatment or a genuine, progressive, liberal and even one-nation Conservative attempt to level things out a little? I know what I think, and I suspect what some other Members of this Committee might think as well, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will first deal with the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary; probation officers should be left to get on with their jobs. The Bill does not prevent them addressing matters likely to reduce offending and we should have some confidence that they will share this view when it is necessary and appropriate. Why would they wish not to go down that route? That, after all, is what their job is about: preventing reoffending.

We do not believe that Amendment 8 is necessary, but we are sympathetic to where it goes. Again, this is on the basis that our amendments in group 3, which will bring the guidelines before Parliament, are accepted and acted on, so that Parliament gets to look at what is actually happening in the guidelines themselves.

Again, we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but, although reports are necessary in appropriate cases, they are not necessary in every case. It is the probation officer who is best placed to alert the court in cases where a report is not proposed. A probation officer will be in court and can speak to defendants before sentencing in court.

In my experience, having sat in the court myself as a recorder for many years—and even, many years before that, having appeared in Crown Courts on quite a number of occasions—a probation officer is best placed to alert the court to the benefit of obtaining a report, or saying that they actually do not need one in a given case. However, that can be left to Parliament when it looks at the guidelines, if it gets the chance to do so.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about probation and reducing reoffending—topics that are very important. I would like to use this opportunity to shine a light on the important work that probation practitioners do to support the sentencing process. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the processes that are already in place.

I will speak first to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This would require the Sentencing Council to include references to the factors most likely to reduce reoffending in its sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports. While I cannot support this amendment, as it would remove the Bill’s prohibition on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports being framed with reference to offenders’ personal characteristics, I agree that the role of probation in supporting reducing reoffending is an important one.

The purpose of a pre-sentence report is defined by section 31 of the Sentencing Code as being a report which

“is made or submitted by an appropriate officer with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender”.

A completed pre-sentence report will therefore provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk, alongside targeted assessments of individuals’ needs, by confidently articulating suitable proposals that balance the needs of public protection, punishment and the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing.

Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the probation practitioner writing the pre-sentence report will obtain information from both the defendant and external sources in respect of mental health, drug and alcohol needs and services, accommodation, finances and youth justice contact, as well as consideration of wider circumstances that could be indicative of additional vulnerability or complexity for the defendant.

A pre-sentence report will always include an assessment of the risk the defendant poses and to whom, including the risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis. In making the sentencing recommendation, the pre-sentence report’s author must also consider the purposes of sentencing under the Sentencing Code, including the reduction of crime, and reform and rehabilitation.

The Probation Service has always had to balance public protection with rehabilitation, and striking the right balance is a long-standing part of the culture of the service, which is reinforced by the messages and expectations set not just by senior operational leaders but by me and other Ministers. I hope I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that rehabilitative principles have always been, and will continue to be, at the heart of the pre-sentence advice provided to courts, and that she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, proposes imposing a requirement on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports to promote a greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. I share the noble Lord’s desire to see greater use of pre-sentence reports. As I have set out, a good PSR assesses the offender’s behaviour and the risks they pose, and recommends sentencing options tailored to those risks and needs. We know that the number of pre-sentence reports has declined, with a 44% reduction over the last decade.

There have been several reasons for this, but it may well be that judicial perceptions of probation’s capacity to deliver PSRs may influence that decision. Judicial confidence in probation is a key priority for me and for the Lord Chancellor, and I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the steps we are taking to maximise probation’s ability not just to deliver PSRs but to deliver them in a timely way and to a high quality.

First, we are continuing to invest in increasing staffing levels in probation. Last year, we recruited 1,000 new trainee probation officers, and this year we have raised that target to 1,300. That continued investment in staff is helping us fill vacancies, including in probation court teams, where last year we increased our target staffing levels.

Secondly, we are taking steps to increase the capacity of probation staff providing advice to courts. We are beginning to roll out a new digital service, prepare a case for sentence, that links to HMCTS systems and which means that listing information about upcoming cases comes straight to probation staff, rather than having to be looked up and rekeyed into the new system. This in turn will help probation court teams do the right preparation in advance, so they can identify cases in which a court is likely to need further information and have that ready on the day if the court requests a report.

We are also improving access to video-link facilities to promote greater use of remote interviewing, so that, where an offender is remanded in custody and the court adjourns for a pre-sentence report to be written, probation staff can easily carry out an interview to inform the report. Through measures such as these, we can better focus probation staff’s precious time on providing the court with the right information, rather than on chasing up data from partner agencies or having to react to court requests at short notice.

Thirdly, we are trying to maximise the different opportunities for courts to request pre-sentence reports. For example, the PSR before plea scheme allows for a pre-sentence report to be written early on in certain cases where there is an anticipated guilty plea, and it is likely that the defendant will be sentenced in the magistrates’ court.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord about the Government’s commitment to increasing probation’s ability to provide the best possible advice to courts, and that he will be happy as a result not to press his amendment.

Amendment 8 is intended to prevent sentencing guidelines restricting the contents of a pre-sentence report or interfering with a court order. I take this opportunity to briefly reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nothing in the Bill as currently drafted, nor sentencing guidelines themselves, will do this. Following the Bill’s passage, sentencers will retain their current discretion to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases. All the Bill does is ensure that the content of sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports does not provide for differential access to pre-sentence reports for certain groups over others.

The Bill also does not impact the types of sentencing options available to the court. Sentencers will retain their discretion to impose the sentence that they consider most appropriate, based on the specifics of the individual case before them and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, that was the response I expected, and I thank the Minister for it. On the response from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I shall take the sympathy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this group of amendments raises some interesting and quite difficult points. Amendments 9, 10 and 17 were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. On first reading, they appear to set out, albeit in a more elegant form—as one would expect, I suppose I should say—the effect of an amendment introduced in the other place by the Conservative shadow Secretary of State Robert Jenrick. Mr Jenrick’s amendment sought to give the Secretary of State—that, is the Executive—a complete veto over the guidelines proposed by the Sentencing Council. His language—I abbreviate it slightly—was that the council must

“obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines”.

That is what appeared in the amendment paper for the House of Commons, to which Mr Jenrick spoke.

That ran entirely across and counter to what we say is the proper constitutional position. The starting point is that the Sentencing Council is an independent body created by statute, with the job of advising judges on sentencing and the functions that I outlined in the debate on group 1. The judges are and must remain independent, and the judicial function is an independent function that must be, and always has been, independent of the Executive and Parliament. That is not to say that there should or should not be parliamentary oversight. Parliament sets the rules; it sets the maxima for sentences, it sometimes sets the minima for sentences, and it sets the political context. But the way in which the relationship between the judiciary, the Sentencing Council and Parliament functions has been explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and his explanation demonstrates the subtle interrelationship between Parliament and the judiciary in this process. It is carefully drawn, and it is very important that that careful distinction is maintained.

The language in Amendment 9 is rather different from the language in the amendment of Robert Jenrick in the other place. But it is strange and it has a strangeness built into it that my noble friend Lord Beith picked out, because Amendment 9 would provide that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports “must be submitted” to the Secretary of State by the Sentencing Council, and the Secretary of State

“must give effect to those guidelines by regulations”.

The point that my noble friend Lord Beith made was that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State to give effect to any guidelines by regulations, or indeed to do anything else by regulations. It is we in Parliament who make regulations. Certainly, they must be laid by the Secretary of State, but then Parliament has the decision-making power. Indeed, in the further amendments laid by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, this is subject to the affirmative resolution. As it stands, I do not understand how the Secretary of State can be required by statute to give effect to those guidelines by regulations when it is for Parliament to accept or deny approval to such regulations.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the overall burden of the first part of Amendment 9—when it says

“must be submitted to the Secretary of State”,

followed by the implication that the Secretary of State has no option but to give effect to those guidelines—gives to the Secretary of State a power that he does not have and denies any function in the approval or the denial of the guidelines to the Sentencing Council, beyond simply proposing them to the Secretary of State.

So it is our position that Amendment 9 is in fact unconstitutional and does not work. It is for the noble Lords who have proposed it to consider how they want to proceed, but I would suggest for now that they withdraw it and come back on Report with something that at least makes constitutional sense before they go any further with this.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendments 9, 10 and 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Sentencing Council to submit sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to the Secretary of State, who would then be responsible for placing these guidelines before Parliament for approval.

As noble Lords will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has been clear that this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. The Government are therefore currently reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council and its powers for developing sentencing guidelines. In doing so, we are fully mindful of the recent developments on the imposition guideline, which have brought us to debating today’s Bill.

I acknowledge and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his comments. In conducting the review, the Government are particularly mindful of the special role that the council plays in bridging Parliament and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice. There are of course significant policy and constitutional matters to carefully consider, alongside considering what recommendations arise from the wider independent sentencing review.

While I acknowledge the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling these amendments, I am not convinced that it would be proper to legislate on this in a piecemeal way, recognising that the amendments capture only sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am also not convinced that using this fast-track legislation is the best way of going about this. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, but I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government are keeping all options on the table. Once the review of the council is complete, the Lord Chancellor and I are clear that we are willing to further legislate on this in a more comprehensive way if necessary.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. The concerns raised today underline the vital necessity of ensuring that our justice system remains fair, impartial and subject to proper democratic accountability.

The three amendments we have just been considering seek to address what we see as a flaw in the current system: the lack of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny over sentencing guidelines that have profound implications for equality before the law. The draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council risked entrenching a two-tier justice system. They would have treated defendants differently based on identity rather than the merits of their case; that was unacceptable. Without these amendments, it could happen again.

I am grateful for the excursus given on the consultation process in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which was interesting and helpful. However, government must be looking forward to how we manage this process in the future, so that Parliament, if appropriate—and we believe necessary—has the last word on the sentencing guidelines. They are in part for the judges, when they have to give practical effect to what is set out in them, but the fact that the council is an independent body and consults quite widely before the guidelines are promulgated should not mean that Parliament cannot have a look at them and then step in if it believes it appropriate. That is not to tread on the constitutional independence of the courts, because it will be before any sentences are pronounced under the guidelines. It will be just a step in the process, and they will then go to the courts for implementation.

We invite the Government to look at the approach we have advanced, even if the drafting may be imperfect as it stands. The principle at stake is simple: sentencing policy is too important to be left entirely to unelected bodies. Parliament must have the final say on matters that affect the foundational principle of equality under the law. These amendments have the aim of ensuring that, at the very least, guidelines on pre-sentence reports could not come into force without the explicit approval of both Houses. That is not an unreasonable burden; it is a basic safeguard of democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. On the noble Lord’s first Amendment, Amendment 15, we would not for our part want the Sentencing Council to go down the road of issuing guidance inconsistent with its duties under the Equality Act.

As for Amendment 18 and the review, we do not have a view on this matter. I note that with practically every Bill that comes before this House there is a call for a review at some point, whether it is one year, two years or five years down the road. The Sentencing Council must by now be well aware of public concerns and the concerns of legislators, and it would itself want to know how things are going. It is quite likely to call for a review if so minded. We are neutral on that topic.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to ensure that any guidelines about pre-sentence reports issued by the Sentencing Council are fully compliant with the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the Bill’s key aim is to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law. It does this by removing the effect of the changes the Sentencing Council introduced in its revised imposition guideline, which provides that a pre-sentence report will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, with reference to their personal characteristics, and prevents the council from reissuing guidance to the same effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the Bill impacts the Sentencing Council’s obligations to comply with the public sector equality duty in developing sentencing guidelines. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 18, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require an independent review to be arranged by the Secretary of State into the changes made by Clause 1 of the Bill to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am mindful that a very similar amendment was tabled during the Bill’s consideration in the other place, and I do not want to repeat in full the debate there, but I hope it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s position.

While I recognise it is of course important to carefully ponder the Bill’s effects, I stress that the direct changes it makes are limited in nature. All this is about is ensuring that offenders do not receive preferential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. This gets to the heart of ensuring equality before the law, which is a principle which does not need to be reviewed.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill will prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving domestic abuse, young people or pregnant women.

While I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw this amendment, I hope that I can reassure him that there will be ample opportunity in this House to discuss matters with regard to the Sentencing Council in future, once the Lord Chancellor’s review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council is complete.

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

My Lords, I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage and will consider further developments before Report.