Sentencing Bill – New Year update
The sentencing bill is nearing the end of its passage through Parliament. The bill is one of the most significant pieces of criminal justice legislation in the past two decades. It takes forward a number of recommendations of the independent sentencing review, chaired by the former justice secretary and PRT trustee David Gauke, to reduce pressure on prisons and address the prison capacity crisis. These include proposals to increase the use of suspended sentences, regularise release points from standard determinate sentences, and reform the use of recall.
On 6 January, the bill had its report stage debate in the House of Lords. A number of important government amendments were agreed to by peers in the debate, which means they are now likely to become law. These include amendments which PRT has championed during the parliamentary passage of the bill.
This blog provides an update on key amendments which were passed during the House of Lords report stage debate. It also highlights other important amendments supported by PRT which were tabled by peers but were not agreed to by the government.
Clause 42 – Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences
This new clause builds on the provision for the termination of IPP and DPP licences introduced by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Introduced by the government in response to amendments tabled by Lord Blunkett and Lord Moylan, the new clause makes provision for the following:
- It reduces the length of the qualifying period to two years for IPP prisoners thus equalising it with the existing qualifying period of two years for DPP.
- It creates a power for the government to amend the length of the qualifying period by statutory instrument.
- It introduces provision for the further applications by IPP or DPP prisoners to the Parole Board for a licence termination review IF they have been continuously on licence for a period of one year after the qualifying period with the limitation that only one application can be made during each continuous period on licence.
The new clause enhances the opportunities for people serving IPP and DPP sentences to have their licence terminated. In particular, reducing the qualifying period to two years (combined with the safeguard of additional provision to apply for a licence review) is a positive step forward.
While it is important that separate provision for DPPs should be explored (for instance, the qualifying period for DPPs should be reduced to 18 months), reducing the qualifying period to two years for IPP prisoners brings the prospect of licence termination closer while building in an additional safeguard of further review by the Parole Board if the prisoner does not have their licence terminated on first review.
New clause 42 introduces a right of application for a licence termination review to those on probation who have had one continuous year on licence since an annual termination review. It closes a loophole in the existing arrangements for licence termination – namely that if people were unsuccessful in their licence termination review, they may become stuck repeatedly failing to secure two years recall free, without anyone taking a look at them and their circumstances. The new clause would restore that oversight and opportunity, targeted at people with a realistic chance of securing an earlier end to their sentence.
While this new clause is welcome, it is disappointing that the government did not accept other amendments tabled by peers to address the continued injustice faced by people serving the IPP sentence who have never been released. These included an amendment tabled by Lord Thomas taking forward the key recommendation of the expert group commissioned by the Howard League for Penal Reform for the Parole Board to direct release of an IPP prisoner at a specified future date.
Clause 21 – Annual report relating to prison capacity
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to publish an annual report on prison capacity. This is in line with the commitment the government made in its Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2024 for a statutory annual statement. The new clause was tabled by the government in response to amendments tabled by Lord Foster and supported by the Prison Reform Trust. It will be a useful mechanism for holding the government to account for its penal policy.
During the debate on the new clause, the minister Lord Timpson assured peers that the report would also include the publication of information on probation service staffing and caseloads. This is welcome given the importance of probation service capacity in managing people serving community orders, suspended sentences and on licence.
Clause 35 – Unpaid work requirement: publication of name and photograph of offender
We are delighted that after a concerted campaign led by PACT and supported by a wide coalition of criminal justice charities, the government has listened to concerns and removed clause 35 from the bill. Clause 35 would have provided probation practitioners with new powers to publish the names and photos of people completing unpaid work requirements as part of a community sentence.
This provision to “name and shame” people on community payback schemes would have increased the stigma faced by people with criminal convictions and could have done severe and long-lasting damage to families and children with parents in the criminal justice system. Over 20 organisations and individuals came together to express deep concern about the clause in a joint letter sent to the justice and education secretaries. They pointed out that the proposal would have done little to foster rehabilitation or reduce reoffending, making it harder for people to find employment or accommodation. It is welcome that ministers have responded to these concerns.
Clauses 19 and 20 – Sentencing Council
Less positively, provision for the Lord Chancellor to interfere in the work of the Sentencing Council by withholding consent for the publication of its business plan or sentencing guidelines remains in place in the bill. This is despite serious concerns raised by peers and legal experts regarding the proposals and their potential to undermine the independence of the Council.
During the report stage debate, the government introduced amendments to provide some limited mitigation to the impact of these provisions on the work of the Council. However, we remain concerned that, even with these amendments, clauses 19 and 20 will still compromise the independence of the Council and result in unnecessary and unconstitutional interference in its work by the executive.
Other amendments
Other important amendments tabled by peers which were not accepted by the government included an amendment tabled by PRT trustee Lord Carter to bring people serving extended determinate sentences into the scope of earned release. This was one of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review but was rejected by the government.
The review also recommended the establishment of an independent advisory body on sentencing policy to provide ministers with independent advice and to hold them to account for their policies. An amendment taking forward this recommendation was tabled by Lord Marks and Bishop Treweek and supported by PRT. The government said it was carefully considering the recommendation of the review but that now was not the right time to legislate.
Next steps
The bill will now complete its remaining stages in the House of Lords, after which any amendments made in the Lords will need to be agreed to by the House of Commons. Subject to that agreement, the bill is expected to receive Royal Assent and become law in the coming months. Stay tuned to the PRT website for the latest developments on this important piece of legislation.
Mark Day is deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust
