Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the public’s confidence in non-custodial sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
() (Con)
My Lords, it is important that the public have confidence in
non-custodial sentences. The Government’s response to the Justice
Select Committee’s report, Public Opinion and Understanding of
Sentencing, was published last Thursday, 18 January. The
Government are currently considering the Justice and Home Affairs
Committee’s report of 28 December 2023, Cutting Crime: Better
Community Sentences, and further note the Sentencing Council’s
current consultation on revised guidelines for the imposition of
community and custodial sentences.
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I look forward to the
Government’s response to that committee report, given that a 2019
report by the Sentencing Academy suggested that public attitudes
to sentencing are, in part, due to a lack of evidence-based
information. Our prisons are overcrowded and, overall, what we
are doing is not working to break cycles of reoffending and
change the lives of offenders, victims and communities. So what
more can the Government do to raise evidence-based awareness of
the effectiveness of sentences and, perhaps, share outcomes from
the female offender strategy and women’s centres to promote
public support for an alternative model for both male and female
non-violent offenders?
(Con)
My Lords, the Government accept that we can do more to increase
public understanding of the working of the criminal justice
system. We are committed to open justice: broadcasting judges’
sentencing remarks is a notable step forward; the further
availability of transcripts of those remarks is another step that
we can take. It is also important to publish sentencing and other
information in an accessible form, on GOV.UK and on social media.
We should be ambitious to improve the data that we already
publish on criminal justice statistics. The Sentencing Council
website has extensive information on how sentencing works, and a
number of other steps can be taken to improve public knowledge of
what is happening.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that public support for
non-custodial sentences would be improved considerably if the
Government took immediate steps to deal with the workforce gap in
the Probation Service? Every probation service in the country is
undermanned; there is a shortage of 400 officers in London; and
20% of new probation officers leave the service before they
finish qualifying.
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that the key to public confidence in
community sentences is rigorous offender management. We are
investing £155 million a year in the Probation Service, which is
in recovery mode. We have over 4,000 new trainees and even in
London there has been a 10% increase in recruitment. The
Community Payback programme, which is targeted specifically at
community sentences, involves a further £93 million, and an
increase in staff and resources for that programme.
(Lab)
My Lords, I note my interests in the register. A community
sentence that has public and judicial support, particularly for
women offenders, is one with a mental health treatment
requirement, which is often combined with a drug rehabilitation
and alcohol treatment requirement. A national rollout is well
under way, but these sentences will be fully successful only if
there is increased capacity in each of these services, especially
mental health. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is
such capacity across the country to enable the successful
completion of these community sentences and to reinforce judicial
and public confidence in them?
(Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I entirely accept the
value of the various outcomes that the noble Lord just mentioned.
We should celebrate success stories, particularly in relation to
female offenders—mentioned by the right reverend Prelate a moment
ago—and youth offenders. As the noble Lord just indicated, there
are far more options for community sentences available now than
there used to be. There is tagging, alcohol tagging, alcohol
treatment and drug treatment. Quite a range of possibilities are
therefore open to the court, combined with the national drug
strategy being run by the Department of Health to get people off
drugs. I cannot promise to ensure increased capacity, but the
Government are certainly working to that end.
(LD)
My Lords, speaking not just from these Benches but as chair of
the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, we found it
persuasive that community sentences are followed by much lower
rates of reoffending than custody. We know that prisons are
“universities of crime”. Should this not be a message that the
Government promulgate?
(Con)
My Lords, the actual message is, in essence, for the Sentencing
Council to transmit. The Government and Parliament set the
framework, the Sentencing Council sets the guidelines, and our
independent judges impose the sentences. The Sentencing Council’s
present guidelines emphasise that community orders can be highly
positive, last longer than short custodial sentences and involve
important restrictions on day-to-day liberty; and that breaching
them can result in significant adverse consequences. We must
entirely combat the idea that community sentences are a soft
option, and that is the Government’s position.
(Con)
My Lords, the need to weigh public confidence against improving
rehabilitation, reducing costs and the need for prison places
seems to be ignored when sentencing for serious and violent
crime. The trend here is for ever longer custodial sentences.
People convicted of murder now spend 60% longer in prison, on
average, than in 2001. No balancing act is being attempted, and
no rehabilitation. Justice cannot be driven by vengeance, so why
are the Government arguing for ever longer sentences?
(Con)
My Lords, I am not aware that the Government are arguing for ever
longer sentences. On the contrary, the sentencing Bill that your
Lordships will shortly consider has a presumption to avoid prison
sentences in certain circumstances—particularly short sentences.
As far as murder is concerned, the statutory sentence is life
imprisonment. That is not a matter for the Government. The time
one serves as a sentence for murder is a matter for the
Sentencing Council guidelines. I think I would accept—as the
Justice Committee accepted—that it is true that public opinion in
recent years seems to have moved towards heavier sentences for
serious crime. But I do not accept that, as my noble friend
suggests, that overrides rehabilitation in all circumstances.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, pre-sentence reports are vital to improving the
effectiveness of community sentences. They allow courts to tailor
sentences, and give sentencers confidence that the interventions
they are recommending are not only suitable but available in
their area. Worryingly, according to the Justice and Home Affairs
Committee, the number and quality of pre-sentence reports
prepared by the Probation Service has been declining
dramatically—thanks in no small part to the disruption caused by
the Government’s ill-judged attempt to privatise the Probation
Service. Given that good pre-sentence reports and good sentencing
decisions go hand in hand, what are the Government doing to
reverse this decline?
(Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness on the
importance of pre-sentence reports. As I just said, the
Government have put a great deal of investment into the Probation
Service to, among other things, restore and improve pre-sentence
reports. The Sentencing Council consultation—open now and
completing in February—indicates that pre-sentence reports should
be available in all cases except where the likely outcome is a
fine or a conditional discharge. Once again, the Government are
addressing the question the noble Baroness raises.
