Lord Bach:

Moved by Lord Bach

94A: Clause 20, page 40, line 10, at end insert—“(17) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the provisions of this section so as to provide that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of the sentence unless they have earned such early release through their participation in purposeful activity.(18) “Purposeful activity” means such activity for which the regulations under subsection (17) may provide.(19) The power to make regulations under subsection (17) include powers to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.(20) Regulations under subsection (17) are to be made by statutory instrument.(21) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (17) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

My Lords, my Amendment 94A touches on an issue that arose in a number of important speeches at Second Reading, particularly one by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I thank the Prisoners’ Education Trust for its advice with this amendment. It relates to the issue of earned progression, which all noble Lords know is at the very heart of the Government’s worthy intention in this Bill: to restore our criminal justice system so that it can once again, in time, be the envy of the world. The issue is what the earned progression model means, or perhaps ought to mean, now and in the future, and it is one of the few differences in approach between the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, or ISR, and the policy of the Bill we are debating.

The executive summary of the Independent Sentencing Review says at page 10:

“While it is for the Government to decide which of the Review’s recommendations it will accept, the Review considers its recommendations as a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other”.

I believe that the Committee will say amen to that. The ISR’s superb report, produced so speedily and clearly, along with the Minister’s own convictions, experience and obvious passion, are the catalysts for these once-in-a-generation, long-overdue changes to our outdated penal system.

It is not unknown for there to be differences in matters like this, even in those of serious importance. Here, though—and this is important to my amendment—there is good will on all sides and in no way is this amendment intended as anything other than a friendly, and hopefully helpful, contribution. It is obviously right when scrutinising the Bill, as is our duty, that these differences be openly debated.

Put simply, at page 57 of its report, the ISR argues:

“The criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules. Actions which violate prison rules”,

which it then sets out,

“and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings … would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back”.

It goes on:

“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available. This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding”.

The Bill, on the other hand, argues that the criteria for maximum early release will be limited to complying with the prison rules. Once those are complied with, the maximum discount will be available. The arguments for the ISR’s stronger criteria are well known and were set out at Second Reading here and, if I may say so, in an excellent speech by my Honourable Friend Linsey Farnsworth MP at Third Reading on 29 October in Another place. I can summarise those arguments. First, there is the danger of too many recalls if no purposeful activity has been undertaken by the offender. Secondly, there is no need for positive effort by the offender, who knows that they will be released if they do nothing wrong. Thirdly, there is the even greater pressure on the Probation Service. These are attractive arguments to me and many others; however, the Government’s response must be listened to. I anticipate that they will not oppose the principle that earned progression should involve something more than obeying prison rules, but that the reality of the present position, bequeathed as it undoubtedly has been, is that for the prison system to function in the near future, it is necessary to ensure that prisons are never put under such pressure of numbers. Thus, the Government propose weaker criteria.

This is an important issue, but people of good will who want this new system to work can see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the case. That is why it is important that a way through be found, both now and in the future.

My amendment suggests that there should be a statutory reminder in the Bill that, in due course, regulations should be introduced to alter the criteria for participation in purposeful activity. Indeed, the Minister in the other place said that the Government would like to go further. There are alternatives to my amendment, and we may hear about them in due course.

I will make two urgent points before I sit down. First, there needs to be an even greater effort, as a matter of urgency, to increase the amount of purposeful activity across the board. I pick out education, which is crucial to any future success. It is rumoured that cuts have been made to the education budget. Can the Minister tell us the truth of the matter on cuts? Secondly, all this argument places extra concentration on the Probation Service. As this Committee has heard time and again, it is at the heart of any success or failure of this brave new scheme, and that should be remembered when we are looking at this issue. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am going to comment on Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and then I will present my Amendments 95 and 128. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.

I very much agree with the spirit of the amendment tabled by noble Lord, which he presented very powerfully. As I said at Second Reading, earned release is a commendable rehabilitative concept, but this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, just reminded us, allows early release at the one-third point without any real rehabilitation having been earned. A prisoner will earn early release at the one-third point merely by behaviour which avoids additional days for breaches of prison rules such as offences against discipline; threatening, abusive or violent behaviour; or possessing unauthorised articles.

The experience of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 teaches us that release is truly “earned” only if the offender engages in meaningful purposeful activity and attends any required work, education, treatment and/or training obligation, where these are available. Only then can they be said to have taken steps to rehabilitate before their release. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, recognises that the capacity and staffing crisis in prisons is such that access to purposeful activity is severely limited, and that early release cannot currently depend on engagement in purposeful activity. It therefore proposes an enabling power so that, when the time is right and staff capacity issues allow, provision can be made for purposeful activity to be taken into account in deciding early release at the one-third point of the sentence, not least to give prisoners an incentive to undertake purposeful activity which they otherwise would not have.

I previously supported, and indeed suggested, this approach at Second Reading. However, it raises issues of fair and equal treatment of prisoners, and the quality and consistency of the regime available to them. I listened carefully to the debate on Monday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on mandatory purposeful activity for custodial sentences, and it was clear that there are concerns about the impact on prisoners who are unable to take part in many forms of purposeful activity due to learning or physical disabilities, as well as problems with the estate having insufficient resources to provide such opportunities. Amendment 94A therefore has the potential to create unfairness for prisoners who are not offered such opportunities or cannot take them up for reasons beyond their control. However, I am very interested to know the Minister’s view, especially on when this sort of change might be feasible, since it is obviously sensible when resources allow.

I now turn to my Amendments 95 and 128, beginning with Amendment 95. For certain serious violent and sexual offenders, the Bill retains an automatic release point of 66% without an opportunity for earned release at the halfway point. The new Clause introduced by Amendment 95 would bring this cohort into the scope of earned release. The Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise his or her discretion, at the 50% point in the sentence, to refer the case to the Parole Board for consideration of release. It thereby gives effect to the recommendation of the ISR that a progression model apply to all prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence.

This amendment and my next one relating to EDS prisoners would not create the same risk of unfairness that I mentioned in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, since the Parole Board would consider a much wider range of factors than purely “purposeful activity”: for example, whether the offender has worked on addiction issues, whether they have addressed their offending behaviour or whether they will be honest with their offender manager, et cetera.

It is worth briefly recapping where different cohorts of prisoners will stand as regards release, because it is phenomenally complicated—how people calculate sentences with paper, I have no idea. Currently, the progression model in the Bill sets a minimum release point of one-third for those serving an SDS sentence who currently have automatic release of 40% or 50%. For SDS prisoners serving more serious offences, who currently have a release point of 66%, the Majority will have a 50% minimum.

However, my proposed new clause would affect a cohort of serious violent and sexual offenders who are subject to automatic release no earlier than the 66% point of their sentence, unless additional days are imposed, in which case it will be longer. These are adults serving sentences of four years or more for certain violent and sexual offences, and children serving seven years or more for certain serious violent and sexual offences.

People will ask: why should we make any favourable changes for this category? If such prisoners are denied the opportunity to be referred to the Parole Board at the halfway point then, against the stated purpose of the Bill, this will create an incentive for prisoners sentenced for more serious offences to disengage from rehabilitative opportunities. Why bother if it makes no difference? Amidst the overcrowding crisis, we must not lose sight of the overarching purposes of sentencing, one of which is to reduce reoffending. This amendment provides an important opportunity to incentivise rehabilitation and a reduction in risk at the discretion of the Parole Board for the most serious cohort of determinate prisoners, bringing the Parole Board back to its original function of overseeing the safe and early release of determinate prisoners.

This proposed new clause blends fairness and consistency with careful oversight. Offenders serving sentences for offences that have been recognised as particularly serious should be encouraged and incentivised to reduce their risk with the opportunity of a referral to the Parole Board at the halfway point of their custodial sentence, rather than being released automatically at two-thirds. Such a mechanism would not, as some may fear, let people off early for serious offences. The Parole Board would need to be satisfied they were safe to be released. It would not be automatic release, but it would recognise and reward those who have taken themselves to task to rehabilitate in the lengthier time available to them. That is what this amendment would achieve.

Regarding Amendment 128, on extended determinate sentence prisoners, the majority of people serving an EDS currently become eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of their custodial term, and every two years thereafter, with eventual automatic release at the end of the custodial term, on extended licence, if they are unsuccessful in gaining parole earlier. This proposed new clause would create a power for the Secretary of State to refer to the Parole Board a prisoner serving an extended determinate sentence at the earlier halfway point of the sentence instead of the two-thirds point,

“if the Secretary of State is of the view that there is a reasonable prospect that the Board would direct release”.

It is therefore in line with the ISR recommendation. As the review affirmed, this measure would improve incentives for rehabilitation and enhance the effectiveness of measures to address the overcrowding crisis, without in any way changing the public protection mechanisms that currently apply to EDS prisoners.

One in 10 people in prison is currently serving an extended determinate sentence. The average length of an EDS is nine years, with many serving far longer than that. It is a serious oversight that measures to address overcrowding are ignoring 10% of people in prison—that is nearly 10,000 people who are serving an average of nearly a decade. Furthermore, all the signs point to the contribution of EDS to prison overcrowding only getting worse. There are almost five times as many people in prison serving an EDS as there were a decade ago, when the number was just under 2,000; now it is well on track to reach 10,000. This trend is likely to continue and increase further as a result of the changes in the Bill.

The extended determinate sentence is a public protection sentence. But in statute, the parts intended to fulfil its public protection function are the involvement of the Parole Board and the extended licence period, which can be up to 10 additional years on licence in the community; it is rarely less than five. The custodial term of an EDS is set commensurate with the offence, not with public protection concerns, so there are no public protection concerns in statute to justify referral to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point instead of the halfway point.

Under the provisions of this proposed new clause, and in line with the recommendations of the review, the Parole Board would still engage in exactly the same careful, reasoned and deliberate decision-making that it currently does at 66%. No doubt many offenders would fail to secure their first release at 50%, but there is no doubt that many would satisfy robust public protection criteria at that point, as much as they would at two-thirds. The lengthy custodial terms served by most EDS prisoners mean that serving half of it would still be enough time to participate in rehabilitation and would incentivise them to engage constructively with programmes and interventions.

The experts in imprisonment are also clear about the real-world consequences of inconsistency between prisoners. It is counterproductive to have a substantial proportion of prisoners in any individual prison denied an incentive which is extended to others. People respond to incentives, and people who conclude they have nothing to lose are less compliant, predictable or engaged in regimes and rehabilitation. A genuine, forward-thinking investment in both reducing the prison population and protecting the public would recognise and accommodate this reality.

In conclusion, this proposed new clause would in no way reduce public protection, but it would enhance the opportunities for incentivising rehabilitation and safely tackling overcrowding while avoiding the negative consequences of the Government’s decision to reject the recommendation of the independent review and exclude EDS prisoners from earned release.

My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for earned release, that in addition to compliance with rules to earn early release, there should be meaningful, purposeful activity. Irrespective of how we look on a prison sentence, whether as a punishment, a sanction or a deterrent, engaging in purposeful activity will certainly help prevent recall from early release or reoffending. For all kinds of reasons, it is very important to stop the revolving door of somebody being released from prison and coming back, for one reason or another including reoffending.

In support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I will mention here some work we did at the think tank Politeia, where I am research director. We called it Jailbreak and looked at schemes for what should happen to prisoners once they are sentenced. Among the various proposals that worked was a one-to-one adviser from the moment the offender came in to the moment they were released, who saw they had an education—which has been mentioned before—and that they had engaged in meaningful activity.

Noble Lords might be interested to know about one firm in Sheffield which taught offenders how to make umbrellas and promised them a job on release. Another meaningful activity—if the Minister will forgive my mentioning it—was provided by Timpson, which trained offenders in the craft of shoemaking and repairs, and also offered them a flat when they left, so they could live in a new place to start a new life and cut themselves off from their previous life and contacts, often in a criminal world. These things depended on engaging in meaningful activity, but they certainly contributed to avoiding recall, whether on early release or as a result of reoffending.

My Lords, Amendment 139C takes a rather different approach to the adjudication system. Not for the first time, “The Archers” has drawn to aficionados’ attention issues that we had not considered before, and the adjudication system is a current example. I cannot say that I listened to every episode—although I make quite an effort to do so—but, in that context, an offender who was coming to the end of his sentence had a weapon planted in his cell. He was very worried that he was going to be on the wrong end of an adjudication and that his sentence would continue.

I understand that the current system is handling much larger numbers than would have occurred to me. In a three-month period last year, there were almost 69,000 adjudication outcomes, punishments rose and additional days were imposed more than 1,500 times. I was interested in the consistency between prisons and different governors. The Minister has told us that he gets reports about education and activities. I do not know what comparative records are kept by the MoJ about adjudication outcomes—I am sure that records are kept—and I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that tonight.

I was interested for another reason. I read somewhere —although I could not track it down again—a concern about the quasi-judicial nature of these decisions, which are made without recourse to appeal and without any of the other protections that one might normally see. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister has any comments to share. He had no warning of my asking these questions, so it is probably not fair to expect anything tonight, but I would like to place my concerns on the record. Perhaps he can write later, if he or the MoJ have anything to say.

My Lords, this has been an interesting group. When the concept of earned progression was originally floated and considered by the Government, considerable stress was laid both on the Texas model and on the concept that there should be an element earning release rather than simply being told that you would be released unless days were added. I agree with the proposition that the concept of earned progression should involve a combination of reward and deterrence. To put it informally, there should be carrot as well as stick.

I also agree—I am sure the Minister does too—that the Bill introduces a scheme of early release provided that no delay on release has been imposed for bad behaviour. Having thought about this, I accept that it is a difficult challenge to import into the Bill more opportunity to earn release by engaging with opportunities for rehabilitative activities in the widest sense. It is certainly difficult to do so without damaging the Government’s desire to ensure that the prison population is limited and reduced.

I was attracted by the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular by the way he introduced it and his reasoning. It would give a role to the Parole Board in recognising a prisoner’s earning release. While I found many of the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, persuasive—as I always do—I remain concerned by the element of compulsion in the amendment that would prevent some offenders earning release, through no fault of their own, if they were unable, for whatever reason, to participate in rehabilitative activity. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

On these Benches, we would welcome proposals from the Government to introduce a measure of incentive to the earned progression model. As I understand it, currently when days are added, there is a quasi-judicial determination by a district judge. One would hope that such a district judge hearing an added-days case would always take into account a prisoner’s progress towards rehabilitation. However, that could be further developed to introduce some statutory element, whereby added-days hearings would always take into account any progress that the offender had made.

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments, as they seek to turn the Government’s earned progression scheme from a superficially attractive promise into a credible and responsible model for rehabilitation and, consequently, for public safety. As drafted, with release contingent only on the absence of serious misconduct, the provision does not amount at all to earned progression; it is simply accelerated release by default.

We know from recent evidence that meaningful rehabilitation in prison, such as through education and vocational training work, is far from universal. Only this year, the Government cut the provision of education services for prisoners by 20%, and for some prisons by up to 60%. The Justice Committee’s 2025 report found that roughly half of all prisoners are not engaged in education or employment programmes, and many remain confined for 22 hours a day. In those conditions, expecting that prisoners will earn their release by default is neither realistic nor responsible.

In that light, it is not only reasonable but imperative to link early release to engagement in meaningful activity. That is what Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, seeks to do: it insists that a one-third release point is conditional on participation in meaningful activity. That would ensure that early release is genuinely earned and based on reform rather than simply time served.

Equally, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to embed an earned progression principle for both standard and extended determinate sentences, rather than treating release as an automatic milestone after half the sentence has been served. This makes the model proportionate and conditional on real change, rather than automatic and unearned.

If we accept the Bill without amendments to the supposed progression model, we will knowingly legislate to release on terms we cannot expect to support rehabilitation or protect the public. Frankly, that is not reform; that is risk. But, if we accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we would reprioritise a system that balances the need to manage prison populations with the social imperative of reducing reoffending.

I thank all noble Lords for their submissions on these matters and for the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Carter, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in reply.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his Amendment, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; I thank her for her kind comments about my previous work.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill by regulations, so that no prisoner is released after serving one-third of their sentence unless they have earned release through purposeful activity. I want all prisoners to be in work or education, if they are able; however, we need to be realistic about what is possible in different types of prisons. Currently, prisoners do not have equal access to the full range of classes and employment required to meet their needs. To confirm, our education budget has been increased by 3%—but, unfortunately, that buys us less education. So, while one is up, the other is down. However, I think there are other things I can do to make improvements in that area.

We also need to be mindful that many prisoners may behave well but still struggle to engage with some activities. There are high levels of mental ill-health, trauma and neurodiversity that should be considered, and we often need to meet these needs before engagement with education and work can be productive. As noble Lords know, this is an area that I am passionate about. Positive change is necessary, but it is better achieved through gradual operational and policy improvements rather than legislative measures. I also agree that the Probation Service is vital to the ongoing support of offenders after release.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for Amendments 95 and 128, which address release points for more serious offenders. Regarding Amendment 95, I must clarify that Clause 20 already sets an automatic release point of half way for these offences. Of course, if the offender behaves badly, they could have days added to their sentence. It is essential that the progression model can be implemented quickly and effectively. The best way to do that is via a system which we know works and is legally robust: the existing adjudication system.

Through Amendment 128, the noble Lord also raised an important question about prisoners serving an EDS. It would allow the Secretary of State to refer offenders serving an EDS to the Parole Board for consideration for release at the halfway point of their custodial term. At present, offenders serving an EDS are referred to the board after serving two-thirds of the custodial term, which is a statutory requirement.

The noble Lord’s amendment is similar in effect to a recommendation of the Independent Sentencing Review that the extended determinate sentences should include a progression element that would enable the parole eligibility date to be brought forward to the halfway point. But the Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that, for an offender to receive an extended determinate sentence, the court will have decided that they are dangerous. These are offenders who have committed serious offences, such as rape, other sexual offences or violence against a person. To impose an EDS, the court will have decided that there was a risk of them doing so again in the future. This is not the case with standard determinate sentences. Having seen all the evidence, the trial judge will have imposed a custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the offence. Prison is the right place for dangerous offenders such as these. Our firm view is that they should not be able to achieve an early release through progression and should remain in prison for as long as they do now.

I turn briefly to Amendment 139C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I assure the noble Baroness that we monitor the performance of the adjudication system and it remains under constant review. I get regular data on prisons, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the answers to her question.

We have effective scrutiny structures in place through His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards. They are able to provide valuable insight into the operations of the prisoner adjudication system. To reassure noble Lords, I ask questions about the adjudication system on every prison visit.

As noble Lords are aware, I am passionate about this area and have routinely pressed for improvements, but my view is that this is best achieved through existing monitoring and scrutiny rather than legislation. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all other speakers in this interesting debate on this important part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the Opposition front bench for their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, although I have one remark for him before I sit down.

The noble Lord accused me, in the nicest possible way, of wanting this to be compulsory. I hoped it was a little bit more careful than that. I am saying that it is for the Government to decide, if progress is made in this area—I venture to think that that might take some time—that they might then bring in a regulation which would have a compulsory element, no doubt with exceptions. My Amendment definitely does not seek a compulsory change from the Bill so that it is important that every offender has to have done some purposeful activity. That is not the intention of the amendment; it is to leave it to the Government, but to ask them to bear it in mind when the time is right. Sorry, I put that rather clumsily, but I think he will know what I mean by that.

If I may say, it was only the use of the word “unless” that caused me to think there was an element of compulsion.

I will leave it there. Of course I am going to withdraw the Amendment, but this is an important point that we should consider now and in the months to come. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94A withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed.

Amendment 95 not moved.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Licence conditions

Amendment 96 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 97 and 98 not moved.

Amendment 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 100 to 102 not moved.