PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill - 22 April 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which 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.”

That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.

The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will

“prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.

That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.

I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?

For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.

The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.

Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill 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. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

How did we get here? It takes a special kind of uselessness to engineer a crisis entirely of your own making and then to come to this House asking for applause as you legislate your way out of it. Let us remind ourselves what actually happened here. The Sentencing Council, an unelected unaccountable quango created by the Labour party, issued guidance that would have divided our criminal justice system by race, religion and identity; a two-tier system as offensive to common sense as it was to the most basic and important principle of equality before the law.

The Justice Secretary, asleep at the wheel, either did not know or did not care. Her officials signed off the guidance, her Ministry nodded it through, and the council published it; the guidance was due to come into force. Only then, after I raised this issue with her in this House, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, the press and the public, did she rouse herself from her stupor—only then did she discover her principles.

Even at that point, however, the Justice Secretary did not act decisively. She did not use her powers to sack the architects of this shameful guidance, support my legislation or bring forward immediate legislation of her own to stop it. What did she do instead? She wrote a letter begging the council to reconsider. Such is the pace at which she moves—or, rather, crawls—that it took a further seven days to put her thoughts in writing after a meeting.

When the council did not move, the Justice Secretary threatened action—only to be humiliated by the chair of the council, who made clear that if she tried, he would take legal action and potentially challenge his own Justice Secretary. So incompetent was she that the Opposition had to take it upon ourselves to prepare a judicial review to do the Justice Secretary’s job for her, and such was the level of chaos over which she nominally presided that the Government’s own legal service was trooped out against us to defend the very sentencing guidelines that the Justice Secretary had denounced as two tier.

In November 2023, the Sentencing Council consulted on these guidelines, and said that a pre-sentence report may be “particularly important” if an offender belongs to an ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community. Does the shadow Minister agree that it was particularly important? I do not. If he does not agree, why did he say nothing for two years?

I have to applaud the hon. Gentleman for reading out his Whips’ questions there. I have said it before and I will say it again, however: I do wish that he and those on the Labour Front Bench would stop perpetuating something that is obviously untrue. They know it is untrue. It has been said numerous times. The Sentencing Council itself—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point, because it is important.

Order. The shadow Lord Chancellor has just suggested that those on the Government Front Bench are perpetuating an untruth. He might like to think about whether he wishes to withdraw that comment.

It is, I hope, inadvertent, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sentencing Council wrote to the Lord Chancellor correcting her on this very point, and made clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from the one—

Let me finish the point. If hon. Members do not like the answer, perhaps they should hear it in full.

The Sentencing Council made it clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from what was ultimately put before this Labour Government. The council said in the previous iteration that pre-sentencing reports would usually be required. There was a presumption that pre- sentencing reports would come forward, but importantly, it preserved full discretion. The guidance that was ultimately brought forward, which was given the nod by the Justice Secretary’s officials who were present at the final meeting of the Sentencing Council, made a significant distinction: it said that such reports “must” be requested. That removed the discretion available to judges, which was a very significant difference.

I have the pre-sentence report guidance in front of me. It says:

“When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary”.

It then goes on to describe various circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be considered necessary and may “normally be considered necessary”. It does not remove judicial stipulations and interventions completely, and to suggest otherwise is not accurate.

The guidance does not use that phrase. It says a report would “usually” be required. That is an important point, because it removes discretion. Of course, there might be instances in which a judge would not request a report, but I think it would be extremely unlikely, in practice, that a judge would choose not to take forward a pre-sentence report, in the light of the new guidance. That is why we felt it so important to take action.

Let me make some progress.

Eventually the Sentencing Council did U-turn, but not before the guidance had briefly come into force. The council took until midday on 1 April, which was several hours after the guidance had come into force, to update magistrates and judges. Its email undermined the Lord Chancellor yet again. It stated that it still believed that the guidance was “necessary and appropriate”. The whole saga has been nothing short of farcical. It has been an embarrassment. It has damaged public confidence in the justice system, and the Justice Secretary’s Bill does not fix that trust deficit. It is half-baked. It is a half-job that stores up problems for another day—because, make no mistake, we will be back here again and again; it will be like Groundhog Day. The Justice Secretary has left in post at the Sentencing Council the very people who drafted these rules and declined her initial invitation to change them. She has left the system intact, and she has left the door wide open for this to happen again. That is not hypothetical. We know for a fact that more offensive two-tier sentencing guidelines are incoming.

The Sentencing Council is consulting on new immigration guidelines that water down sentences for people smugglers. If they come into force, hundreds of immigration offenders a year will not meet the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation, blowing a hole in border controls. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop that—there are plenty of open-border activists who would oppose her—this Bill leaves her powerless to do so. She has chosen to be powerless. It is the definition of madness to repeat the same decisions and expect different results. History will keep repeating itself until Ministers take back control of sentencing frameworks. But still the Justice Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and claims that there will be no two-tier justice under her leadership.

The Bill fixes one small element of the problem and leaves the rest of it entirely intact. It does nothing to stop the two-tier pre-sentence report guidance, which still instructs probation officers to take into account so-called intergenerational trauma—trauma suffered not by the defendant, but presumably by their ancestors. It does nothing to stop the bail guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, which instructs officials to “prioritise” ethnic minority defendants for bail decisions—not on the facts of the offence, not on the basis of risk to the public, but because of their racial or cultural identity. It does nothing to stop the “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, the official handbook for judges, which is riddled with activist talking points, including the claim that migrants are mistreated by the press, and the adoption of a dangerously expansive definition of Islamophobia that could amount to a back-door blasphemy law.

Everywhere we look—more examples emerge every week—this ideology runs through the Ministry of Justice like rot through the rafters. The principle of equality before the law, one of the great inheritances of our country, is being systematically inverted, replaced by cultural relativism, by a hierarchy of victimhood. Some defendants are to be treated gently; others are to face the full force of the law—all depending on their background, race, religion or self-declared identity. That is not justice. It is injustice, wrapped in the language of compassion. But who is it compassionate to? The victims? Of course not; they do not get a look in.

My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for championing the cause of justice and obliging the Government to follow suit, albeit grudgingly. Leaving aside the fundamental injustice that he describes—the two-tier justice system—does he acknowledge that what the Sentencing Council proposes and continues to do undermines popular faith in the rule of law and justice and, as the Lord Chancellor herself says, tears the whole system apart?

That is the very real risk of what we see, not just in these aborted sentencing guidelines, but in the broader fabric of two-tier justice that we are revealing with every passing day. What we all want to see, and what I believe the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) wants to see as well, is equality before the law. That means that in no instance should the law be applied differently depending on the colour of people’s skin or the faith that they abide by. We must all fight against that, because it is immensely corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

The right hon. Member is painting a terrifying picture of our justice system. In his work, has he managed to identify when these issues all started?

The guidelines we are talking about came into force—or would have done—under this Labour Government. I will not return to everything I said earlier, but those of us who were in this Chamber on the day that I revealed this issue all know that neither the Justice Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the faintest idea that any of this was happening. I watched the Justice Secretary look to her Ministers; she was greeted by blank faces. They had no grip on what was happening in their Department.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool makes the good point that the issues that we are discussing predate this Labour Government. This is a broader issue facing our country. We all have to be defenders of equality under the law. I do not seek equality of outcome in our criminal justice system; I seek equality of treatment. That is the heart of a fair criminal justice system. That may be a point of difference between some of us in this House. All I seek is for every person in this country—man or woman, regardless of their religion or the colour of their skin—to be treated exactly the same by the law.

Everywhere we look in the Ministry of Justice, we see this ideology. The most worrying part is that I think the Justice Secretary knows this. She stood here and said that the appearance of differential treatment before the law is particularly corrosive, and I agree wholeheartedly with her.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will make progress.

The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault.

We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

I call the Mother of the House.

I can see that, when it comes to this legislation, I am in a minority—it is not the first time, and I suspect that it will not be the last. There has been a great deal of misinformation about the Sentencing Council’s original guidelines, both in the run-up to and during the debate, so I, with all humility, want to insert some facts into the debate.

First, it is important to recognise what the Sentencing Council actually is. Much of the debate today and in recent weeks has seemed to presume that it is a bunch of heedless young barristers and social workers. On the contrary, the Sentencing Council is largely composed of some of the most senior judges in the land. They include: Lord Justice William Davis, its chair, who was called to the Bar in 1976; His Honour Judge Simon Drew, a circuit judge sitting in the Court of Appeal; Lord Justice Tim Holroyde, lord justice of appeal and vice-president of the Court of Appeal; and the honourable Mr Justice Mark Wall, who was appointed a High Court judge in 2020. There are also some senior probation officers and magistrates. That is hardly a cohort of men and women who need the firm hand of an MP on their shoulder to explain to them what the rule of law is.

The right hon. Lady is making the important point that the Sentencing Council is comprised of senior and learned individuals. Given that, what circumstances does she think conspired to let it get the guidelines so very wrong? It is clearly felt on both sides of the House that they are wrong.

I can say with confidence that the Sentencing Council is talking about issues to do with race and criminal justice because of a history, going back decades, of problematic issues in relation to race and criminal justice. I will come to those later. The independence of the Sentencing Council is crucial, and the idea that anybody in the Chamber is standing up for law and order yet seeks to undermine its independence—and by implication, that of the judiciary as a whole—is quite remarkable.

Next, what do the guidelines actually say? Much of the debate implies that black and minority persons are singled out for pre-sentence reports under the guidelines. On the contrary, there is a whole list of people in the guidelines on whom, the Sentencing Council suggests, judges and magistrates might ask for a pre-sentence report. Those persons include those at risk of committing their first custodial sentence; young adults; women; ethnic minorities; yes, cultural minorities, of course; pregnant and post-natal women; and the sole or primary carer for dependent relatives. The Sentencing Council is clear that that is not an exclusive list; ideally, every defendant should have a pre-sentence report. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that judges and magistrates get the most information possible. Who could object to garnering more information on any defendant? It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to dictate the sentence in any given case.

Yet it is being argued that a pre-sentencing report will discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. We are asked to believe that our judiciary is weak-minded and susceptible, and that it will not live up to its centuries-old standards, which, as we heard earlier, go all the way back to Magna Carta. However, the House was also told earlier that our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded. Both propositions cannot be true.

Yes, they can.

Well, either our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded, or it is so soft-minded that the very existence of a pre-sentencing report will make it rule in a way in which it would not otherwise have ruled.

Decisions by judges and magistrates on individual cases are not the same as policy. The Sentencing Council itself is very clear that it does not seek to dictate policy; it is simply trying to ensure that judges and magistrates have the maximum amount of information. Leading King’s Counsel Keir Monteith says that there has been a deliberate misreading of the rules in order to generate a row, and I believe that is correct.

Then we come to the talk, which I have heard on both sides of the House, about two-tier criminal justice. That can only mean that black defendants are treated more favourably than white defendants. Yet the facts tell us to the contrary. Ministers will be aware of the Lammy review, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—now the Foreign Secretary. It was a review of race in the criminal justice system, in which he found that

“Despite making up just 14% of the population,”

black and ethnic minority men and women

“make up 25% of prisoners, while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds.”

He added:

“If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.”

My right hon. Friend did not find a criminal justice system where black and brown people are treated more favourably than white people, and he did not find equality before the law. There is no reason to believe that things have changed since he drew up his review.

We need to appreciate that not only do we have a two-tier system, but it is a two-tier system in completely the opposite way to what the Lord Chancellor suggests, and it has been like that for decades. The population wants to see our two-tier criminal justice system taken seriously.

Members may remember the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Home Secretary to commission a judge-led inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1999 the Macpherson inquiry reported. It spoke in an unequivocal way about institutional racism in the police service, and it spoke in a way that I had never heard it spoken about in this House or at the most senior levels in the state. Nobody since then has challenged the notion that there is institutional racism in the police.

Do we have to have our own Macpherson inquiry into the workings of the judicial system before people will accept that institutional racism is an issue in the courts as well? It is not enough to say, “Well, you know, the facts point in that direction but we are not quite sure why the figures are like that.” We know why the figures are like that, and we have known that for decades.

If we want to win the respect of the community as a whole, we must be seen to be working towards a fair criminal justice system, not just trying to score points off the opposition; and we must look at the long term, rather than the short term. We know that, in England and Wales, black people are much more likely to be arrested than white people. Specifically, black individuals are twice as likely to be arrested as white individuals. That disparity extends to imprisonment, with black individuals being more likely to be sentenced to prison and serving longer sentences than their white counterparts. Everybody knows that people are not treated the same, and it is misleading of Members on both sides of the House to imply that that is so.

Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, said:

“We have experienced racist two-tier policing for over 500 years. If we achieve equal treatment that is not two-tier as it is long overdue. We have never asked for special treatment only equal treatment.”

The Lord Chancellor should pay attention to the wish of so many members of the community, in her constituency in Birmingham and my constituency in east London, and the wishes of so many millions of people in the community to see a fair criminal justice system that treats people fairly, not unfairly as has happened in the past. Members will know that it took the Macpherson inquiry to get a measure of understanding about criminal justice in policing.

In closing, I will say this. It is interesting to hear the banter about this issue between those on the two Front Benches, but this is not an issue for banter. This is people’s lives; this is people’s liberty. I do not think that the debate is enhanced by some of the Trump-like narrative that we are getting from the Opposition. We do not need Donald Trump-type politics in Britain today. We need seriousness about the unfair discrimination in the criminal justice system, and a willingness not just to talk about it, but to do something about it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Josh Babarinde.

Liberal Democrats believe in equality before the law, Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, and Liberal Democrats believe that no one is above the law, so it has been heartening to hear those words echoed across the Chamber today.

But actions speak louder than words, which is why I regret to say that few have acted more to erode those legal and democratic values than the two-tier Tory party that occupies the Benches next to me—two-tier Tories who unlawfully partied in No. 10, while the rest of us missed funerals for lost relatives; two-tier Tories who unlawfully suspended Parliament to get their way, while lecturing us about the rule of law; two-tier Tories who unlawfully approved developments for their donor mates, while purporting to talk tough on crime; and two-tier Tories whose unlawfulness, chaos and double standards landed them with the biggest election defeat in their history.

The Conservatives still have not learned, because that hypocrisy continues today in the context of the sentencing guidelines in question. They nodded through earlier editions of the guidelines when they were in government, yet they make a scene about them today now that it has become politically convenient for them to do so. According to the Sentencing Council, just one MP objected to the cohorting in the previous guidelines put out to consultation in 2023-24. I will give way to the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if he can confirm that it was he who made that objection. No—radio silence. [Interruption.]

Our country deserves better than the circumstances that have given rise to the Bill. Those circumstances are ultimately that the previous Government underfunded our probation and courts system so severely that pre-sentence reports have since been rationed and are not used universally, or indeed anywhere near it. In fact, the use of pre-sentence reports has declined by 44% over the last decade almost, according to Lord Timpson. That is despite the sentencing code having a presumption in favour of their use, regardless of any personal characteristic or circumstance.

The Liberal Democrats believe that that near-universal presumption is critical, because when the state is considering depriving someone of their liberty, judges and magistrates should be equipped with all the information possible to pass the sentence that is most likely to reduce reoffending and protect victims and survivors. Offenders need it and victims deserve it.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we should really be having a debate about how we can resource a criminal justice system that can fulfil pre-sentence reports for all offenders who need them, rather than a debate that feels grounded in rationing their use. We will therefore abstain on Second Reading, not because of indifference, but because of principled concerns that I will present constructively, to reciprocate the constructiveness with which the Secretary of State and her officials have engaged with me on this matter in recent weeks.

One concern is that this Bill simply is not necessary to achieve its stated aim. The Sentencing Council has, in response to the strength of feeling in Parliament, paused the implementation of its guidelines. It has not said how long that pause will last. My understanding is that the Department has not asked the council how long it would be willing to pause the guidelines. It seems to me that, in response to the most recent act of the Lord Chancellor, there is new-found space for an agreement to be reached, through dialogue with the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice, without a single minute of debate on primary legislation. Such legislation could then be devoted instead to patching up other injustices in our system.

Another concern is that this proposal is being rushed through without comprehensive consultation or co-ordination with wider work that is already under way. David Gauke is currently conducting an independent review of sentencing, which is due to report this spring. That review ought to have provided a clear opportunity to examine these issues in depth and to ensure that any reforms are evidence-based, balanced and considered in the broader context of sentencing policy. If the Government are convinced that primary legislation is required, why not wait for the Gauke review to report, take advantage of that independent insight, and then introduce coherent proposals in legislation later in this Session?

An additional concern is that although the Bill ostensibly gestures towards fairness, it fails to confront some of the most pressing injustices in our criminal justice system—to which the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), referred—including those identified by the Lammy review.

We know that there is disproportionality at most stages of the criminal justice process affecting various groups, from stop and search to charging decisions, early guilty pleas and sentencing outcomes. Ethnic minority individuals, women and those with mental health issues continue to be over-represented and underserved, yet this legislation makes no attempt to address that. While I welcome the review of data that the Justice Secretary described, it is unwelcome that the outcome of that does not feature in these proposals.

Finally, I am deeply troubled with the political context in which this Bill is being introduced. It may appear technical on the surface, but the legislation risks falling into a trap in which criminal justice is used by some in this House and beyond to stoke division, appeal to populist headlines and wage a cynical culture war. We must not allow our courts and sentencing practices to become pawns in that political game, nor part of a second stab at a Tory leadership campaign.

It is critical that in this debate and in any reform we make to sentencing policy, we lead with an evidence-based process and with a determination to tackle the injustices embedded in our criminal justice system, whether it is those disproportionately affecting women, ethnic minorities or white working-class boys—the list continues. We urge the Government to listen, reflect and return with proposals that work with the Sentencing Council, with the judiciary and with the findings of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review. Only then can we abolish the unjust two-tier system created under the two-tier Tories.

After the Chair of the Justice Committee, I propose to introduce a four-minute time limit. I am conscious that many Members will be disappointed this evening.

Let me begin by summarising how we got here. On 29 November 2023, the Sentencing Council launched a consultation on proposed changes to the imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline. On 19 February 2024, the then Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), wrote to the chair of the council and welcomed its work on the revised guideline, in particular the

“fuller guidance around the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report”.

On 28 March 2024, the then Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill KC, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council noting that the council had conducted a particularly effective consultation exercise.

On 5 March 2025, a year later, the Sentencing Council published the revised guideline, saying that it would come into effect on 1 April. The same day saw the first exchange in this Chamber between the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on the guideline. The accusation by the shadow Lord Chancellor that the guideline would

“make a custodial sentence less likely”

for those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community was not the view of the Sentencing Council, but the exchange led to extensive correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the chair of the Sentencing Council for the rest of March.

I do not have time today to describe the contents of those letters, but the central point raised by the chair of the Sentencing Council was that the purpose of a pre-sentence report is to provide information, not to determine the sentence. He said:

“Frequently the information provided will not assist the offender’s prospect of avoiding a custodial sentence: rather the reverse.”

He added that the guideline does not make a custodial sentence less likely for someone simply by way of their membership of a cohort; that the guideline

“does not instruct or mandate judges and magistrates to request a pre-sentence report”

but is discretionary; that the list of cohorts is “non-exhaustive”; that a pre-sentence report “may be necessary” for those outside the list; and that,

“The section of the guideline relating to pre-sentence reports is directed to the issue of information about offenders, no more and no less.”

On 31 March 2025, following a meeting with the Sentencing Council, the Lord Chancellor said she was going to introduce legislation to render the section on cohorts unlawful. The guideline was due to come into force on 1 April. As a result, the council said that it would delay the date on which the guideline was due to come into force, pending such legislation taking effect.

On 1 April 2025, this Bill was given its First Reading. The Bill is designed to make it unlawful for a sentencing guideline issued by the Sentencing Council to include a presumption that a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on the offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort. The Bill has one operative clause, clause 1, which would amend section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The drafting of clause 1 indicates that the provision will apply to all sentencing guidelines that have been issued by the Sentencing Council and that are already in force when the provisions in this Bill take effect.

The Bill states that guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council cannot include provision framed by reference to “personal characteristics”. The Bill then specifies that

“‘personal characteristics’ include, in particular…race…religion or belief…cultural background.”

The list is non-exhaustive and therefore also covers other personal characteristics—for example, age, disability, sex and sexual orientation. Clause 1 would therefore render unlawful the following cohorts that were included in the imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline issued on 5 March:

“a young adult…female…from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community…pregnant or post-natal…has disclosed they are transgender…has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability, or mental ill health, learning disabilities…or brain injury/damage”.

The explanatory notes state that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council “from issuing guidelines advising courts to consider the offender’s personal circumstances in deciding whether to request a PSR”.

The explanatory notes also state that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law on the circumstances where a pre-sentence report is either necessary or desirable. It then cites three cases:

“Thompson…which says that where a woman who is pregnant or has recently given birth is to be sentenced, it is desirable for the court to obtain a pre-sentence report;…Meanley…where the court referred to the importance of PSRs in serious cases involving young defendants; and…Kurmekaj…where the court said that the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery meant a PSR should have been requested”.

The Government have repeatedly emphasised that they object to the inclusion of ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community in the guideline. The Government have not said that they object to the inclusion of the other cohorts in the guideline framed by personal characteristics. The fact that the explanatory notes make clear that the Government do not intend to prevent the Court of Appeal, or any other body, from issuing guidance relating to pre-sentence reports from being framed by personal characteristics, other than ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community, would appear to indicate that they do not object in principle to such an approach. I am sure some of these matters can be explored more in Committee.

I will conclude by saying a few words about judicial independence. In his letter dated 10 March to the Lord Chancellor, the chair of the Sentencing Council said:

“There is general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary because they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority. The Council preserves the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing.”

The independence of the judiciary is recognised as a principle of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom’s constitution. The principle serves to protect the judiciary’s ability to exercise its functions in deciding cases in accordance with the law and free from external pressures. Deciding on an offender’s sentence is a clear example of that, but the principle of judicial independence also requires that the judiciary is treated with respect and with recognition of the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary, the Executive and Parliament.

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said in 2018:

“Within Parliament it is a parliamentary custom, supported by rulings of the Speaker, that an attack on a judge’s character or motives, or charges of a personal nature or a call for his or her dismissal, should be made only on a substantive motion on which a vote will be taken, and also that arguments that a judge had got a decision wrong should be made in moderate language.”

There has been significant criticism of the Sentencing Council, and in particular its chair, in this Chamber. The shadow Lord Chancellor asked on 1 April in this House if the Lord Chancellor could

“honestly say at the Dispatch Box that she has confidence in the head of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Davis, given that he has brought it into total disrepute”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 184.]

Criticising the judiciary for their decisions in their capacity as members of the Sentencing Council risks undermining their independence as serving judges.

It remains to be seen whether the measures in this Bill have ripples beyond the narrow prescription in clause 1. I look forward to the Government clarifying the detailed effects of the Bill in Committee, but it would be unfortunate if such a modest piece of legislation left in its wake collateral damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.

It is important in this debate to be clear what we are talking about and what we are not. The part of the guideline produced by the Sentencing Council that led to this legislation relates to the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report is produced, not to the passing of a sentence itself. It is also important not to overstate the problem. As we have heard, there is already law that says there should be a pre-sentence report in almost all cases, unless it is unnecessary, and most offenders being considered for either a community or custodial sentence—in the Crown court, at least—already have one.

The guidance that the Sentencing Council produces on the ordering of a pre-sentence report, though, does matter. That is because such a report is designed to give sentencers more information about the person they are sentencing. Without that information, it can be very hard to apply the full range of sentencing options. That might be about whether a rehabilitation activity requirement or a programme requirement might be appropriate, or to assess capacity for unpaid work. If a sentencer does not order a pre-sentence report for a particular offender, they may not be able to impose some of the more demanding community sentences and may find themselves more likely to impose a custodial sentence as the only available and realistic alternative. It does matter whether a sentencer is being encouraged to order such a report for an offender, and any guideline suggesting that this should be more appropriate for someone of one ethnicity, faith or culture, as opposed to another, cannot be right.

I accept that the Sentencing Council was trying to do good, but in reality we do not address inequality by replacing it with a different inequality. The Sentencing Council has misjudged this issue, and the Government are entitled to come to that view too. It would have been better if legislation was not needed to resolve this issue, but the Sentencing Council, independent as we know it is, has clearly concluded that it will not do as the Lord Chancellor has asked, and that means that legislation is the only realistic alternative. However, I have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this, particularly in the breadth of the drafting of the Bill. I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor one specific concern, which I will not go over again in view of the time, but which we might return to in the later stages of the Bill.

I think it is worth Ministers considering whether the use of the phrase “personal characteristics” is too broad. The Chair of the Justice Committee read out some of the other personal characteristics referred to in the draft guideline, which I do not think are anywhere near as controversial. We need to keep in mind that this is about a process in which a sentencer is given information about an offender in order to determine the appropriate sentence. I do not think that information about faith or ethnic origin would fall into the appropriate category, but information about health conditions or disabilities most certainly might.

There is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: not all personal characteristics should be left out of account in sentencing. I therefore ask Ministers to consider whether they can tighten the wording of clause 1(2) and (3) in particular. If they do so, I think that will avoid some rather arcane discussions about what can be properly described as personal circumstances and personal characteristics. However, I also think there is a danger of losing sight of the good work that the Sentencing Council does.

I accept that this will not be a universally popular point of view, but I do think that the Sentencing Council adds something important to the sentencing process. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, or of the fact that the guideline that has been drafted is to replace substantially out-of-date guidance. I hope that point will also be noted by Ministers.

While I acknowledge that the updated Sentencing Council guidelines attempted to address inequalities in the criminal justice system, we must maintain the principle of equality before the law. As such, I support this Bill. I note, however, that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council from issuing guidelines advising the courts to consider an offender’s personal circumstances when deciding whether to request a pre-sentence report, particularly when those circumstances are uniquely linked to their personal characteristics.

Pre-sentence reports are desirable when the defendant is a vulnerable woman who has committed a less serious crime—for instance, when they are pregnant or post-natal, the primary carer for dependent children, or a victim of domestic abuse or exploitation. Of course, those issues are often compounded when we consider intersectionalities, such as those experienced by black women. So many women in the criminal justice system are vulnerable: nearly two thirds are victims of domestic abuse, a similar percentage have children, and many have experienced adverse childhood experiences and trauma. Those vulnerability factors make it critical that personal circumstances affecting female offenders are given consideration in pre-sentence reporting.

Women in custody have complex health needs, which can increase the risks associated with pregnancy for mothers and their children. Babies born in prison are twice as likely to be born premature and seven times more likely to be stillborn. These are not just numbers; they affect real people, women who are already experiencing trauma and babies entering the world in incredibly difficult circumstances. Consideration of pregnancy and the associated risks to mothers, their unborn children and their newborn babies is therefore critical in determining appropriate sentencing. Custodial sentences can often do more harm than good, both to pregnant women and to their children. Women are far less likely on average to commit violent or sexual offences, and are far more likely to be charged with petty crime, non-violent crime and theft. In those cases, community sentences may be preferred, so long as the offender does not present a risk to wider society.

In April 2024, the Sentencing Council introduced a new mitigating factor—pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care—in sentencing guidelines to consider the impact of custody on pregnant offenders and their dependants. This factor recognises that when the impact on offenders’ dependants would be disproportionate to the aims of custodial sentencing, imprisonment should not be imposed. Specifically, it relates to whether the risk posed to women and their dependants outweighs the risk associated with their crime, in order to determine a fair sentence for all—both for wider society, and for the offender and her children. It is critical that the justice system strikes the right balance when determining sentencing, and a pre-sentence report can inform this. As such, I am particularly glad that this Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law on when pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable in cases concerning women who are pregnant, are victims of domestic abuse, or have recently given birth.

I believe that many of the issues raised today speak to a wider issue pertaining to women’s experiences in the justice and sentencing system more broadly. Ensuring access to pre-sentence reports helps courts to make informed, fair and just decisions, and for women in vulnerable circumstances, that can make all the difference.

This Bill is unfortunately necessary because of the unwise actions of the Sentencing Council. While the Lord Chancellor is right to bring the Bill forward, she did so only at the very last moment. It was on Monday 31 March, mere hours before the guidelines were due to come into force, that the Sentencing Council was forced to perform a U-turn. Those guidelines would have led to a two-tier justice system in England and Wales.

The Sentencing Council did not withdraw those guidelines out of wisdom or principle—it did so because it was caught out. Its backtrack was quietly communicated to judges and magistrates several hours after courts had already opened on Tuesday. To make matters worse, the Sentencing Council’s message said that it still believed the policy was necessary. There was nothing necessary about that policy.

Under the proposed guidelines, judges and magistrates were told that pre-sentence reports should normally be required when sentencing individuals from ethnic, faith or cultural minority groups. What about those who are white, male and not part of a specified minority? They would not have fallen within that description. The implication was clear: defendants will be treated differently, not based on their actions or the harm they have caused, but based on their identity, and that is wrong. It was only after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, that the Lord Chancellor rightly took action. Race, culture and religion should never determine whether someone goes to prison. The Lord Chancellor said that she was willing to legislate to stop this travesty if the Sentencing Council refused to back down, and that is what we are now doing.

This is about the most fundamental principle in a free society: equality before the law. The question we must now ask ourselves is how the Sentencing Council got this so badly wrong and, judging by the comments of Lord Justice Davis, would continue to get wrong. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines would have had real consequences. In borderline cases where a judge is unsure whether to issue a custodial sentence, the presence or absence of a pre-sentence report can be decisive. The whole purpose of these reports is to influence the outcome. By tilting the system toward giving those reports preferentially to certain identity groups, the council would effectively be tipping the scales of justice, and the council knows it. Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, has warned that the guidelines may violate the Equality Act 2010.

If we allow sentencing outcomes to be guided by race, faith or cultural identity, we abandon the core British principle that the law applies equally to all of us. I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we should pass this legislation to override this guidance, but how confident is she that we will not face a similar situation again? I would like her to go further and ensure that Parliament is given oversight of all future sentencing guidance. We must put into law the principle that no factor like race, religion or cultural minority status should ever influence sentencing procedures. Justice must remain blind, not selectively blinkered. If we lose equal justice, we lose the foundation of a free society.

I welcome this Bill and the swift action taken by the Lord Chancellor to correct a clear wrong. Had they been implemented, the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines would have introduced differential treatments before the law, which can never and should never be acceptable. The question is: how did we get to this point? Did these guidelines simply appear out of nowhere? Of course they did not. They were subject to extensive consultation under the previous Conservative Government, who welcomed them without reservation.

The consultation published in November 2023 and closed in February 2024 indicated clearly that a pre-sentence report “may be particularly important” if the offender belonged to ethnic, cultural or faith minority communities. The then Conservative sentencing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) wrote to the Sentencing Council, thanking it and welcoming the expanded guidance on the circumstances in which courts should seek pre-sentence reports. Let us be crystal clear: it was the last Conservative Government who endorsed the idea that it was “particularly important” to request pre-sentence reports for individuals from ethnic, cultural or faith minority backgrounds and therefore, by extension of basic logic, less important for other groups. The Sentencing Council had their answer: the then Conservative Government supported its changes.

Given what we have heard today, there must surely have been a flurry of opposition in certain quarters. What did the now shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) say about it at the time? The answer is nothing. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? Nothing. Perhaps if they had bothered to stand up and do their job, as Labour has today, these guidelines would never have been issued in the first place.

For all the failings of the last Conservative Government, many Members were appalled by the outright refusal of the Sentencing Council to amend the guidelines when requested to do so by the Justice Secretary. That refusal is the reason we find ourselves here today. Far too much of the British state now appears to operate beyond the reach of those democratically elected to lead it. There are too many quangos, too many faceless bureaucracies, too many levers of power seemingly detached from those whom the people have chosen to govern them. The British public do not understand how a court can block the deportation of a convicted criminal whom the Government wish to remove from the country. They do not understand how a Chancellor is constrained in his or her decision-making by the actions of an unelected Office for Budget Responsibility, and they do not understand how a Justice Secretary cannot simply prevent unequal treatment before the law.

The Bill is the right response to this specific situation, but how long will it be before we find ourselves here again, in another stand-off with the Sentencing Council, over another issue on which unelected officials clash with democratically accountable politicians? I believe that in the fullness of time—and I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said today about her further review—we will have to go further; I believe that we should abolish the Sentencing Council altogether.

What the Sentencing Council ludicrously proposed was nothing short of two-tier justice: guidelines which would mean that young black, Asian or indeed other non-white offenders could receive more lenient sentences than their white counterparts in exactly the same circumstances. Let me be clear: justice must be equality before the law. As someone once said,

“justice should not only be done, but…be seen to be done”.

It should not depend on your race, the colour of your skin, your culture or your religion. It is high time we reminded the unelected, unaccountable, and quite frankly woke quangos that equality means treating everyone the same, and not creating one rule for some and one rule for others.

I am therefore glad that we have finally reached the Second Reading of a Bill that will stop the madness espoused by this out-of-touch, “liberal dinner party set” advisory body. For far too long, bodies such as the Sentencing Council have been allowed to rule the roost. Quangos of this kind—unserious and wasteful organisations —are costing the taxpayer more than £64 billion a year. Parliament must be sovereign, and should not continue to come up against a brick wall of regulatory and bureaucratic obstacles.

I cannot help having a sense of déjà vu. I was sitting in this very place well over a month ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Lord Chancellor, introduced legislation that would have prevented this slide into two-tier justice—and all the while, the Lord Chancellor allowed the chairman of the Sentencing Council to effectively run rings around her, the Government and the will of the House. Let us stop pretending: sadly, two-tier justice does exist, and the British people know it. Let us look at the facts. People are being thrown into jail for making stupid comments online, while grooming gangs were able to operate unchallenged because of a fear of cultural sensitivities. This is wrong, and the British people demand that it end now. However, it is not happening just in the courts. Police forces in the UK have been caught blocking white applicants from jobs, and that was based not on ability but purely on the colour of their skin.

How on earth did we get here? This is the country of the Magna Carta, the birthplace of common law and some of the greatest legal minds that the world has ever seen, yet we have enabled an unelected quango to propose guidelines that are openly discriminatory, and equality before the law has been replaced by ideology over fairness.

I call the shadow Minister.

Equality before the law is at the heart of the rule of law. As the great Roman statesman Cicero said:

“For rights that were not open to all alike would be no rights.”

The revised guidelines from the Sentencing Council fundamentally went against that important principle. To introduce a presumption that pre-sentence reports would be required not necessarily because of a particular vulnerability of offenders or circumstances related to their offences, but because of the colour of their skin, the region of their ancestors’ origin or the religious beliefs that they held is two-tier justice, no matter how laudable the intentions. This is not about Court of Appeal judgments such as Thompson, which the Lord Chancellor referred to, and it is not about factors that could fundamentally change the effect of a particular judicial sentences on an offender, or factors relating directly to the circumstances of the offence. This is purely about those characteristics.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor did a huge service to not only this House but our country when he raised this matter from the Dispatch Box on 5 March, because it was clear that the Lord Chancellor was completely blindsided. Neither she nor her Ministers knew anything about the proposals. In fairness to the right hon. Lady, who is not in her seat at the moment, I am sure that she was as appalled as we were at the idea that people should be treated differently purely because of their ethnicity, culture or religion. But this is a lacklustre Bill, which does the minimum needed to clear up the immediate mess of this Government’s making. [Interruption.] As I said, it does the minimum necessary. It is better than nothing—it is a very small step in the right direction—but it does not go as far as the Government should to introduce the reforms that are needed.

The right hon. Lady had been Lord Chancellor for eight months, but she had so little grip of her Department that she not only did nothing to stop the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines, but was not even aware of them. Her representative had met the Sentencing Council just two days earlier. What were they doing at the Sentencing Council, if they were not there to stop such proposals? How is the right hon. Lady running her Department, if she was not even informed of the new guidelines?

The proposals had changed during the process. The Lord Chancellor, unlike me and the Business Secretary, has actually been a practising lawyer. She will understand that there is a substantial difference between saying that a pre-sentence report may be particularly important, and stating, as a requirement, that such a report will normally be considered necessary, given the effect that statement has, and the triggers for appeals against sentences. Those changes were made almost at the point when the right hon. Lady became Lord Chancellor, yet eight months later, she had done nothing to stop them and was not even aware of them.

This Bill stops only the narrowest and worst aspects of the guidelines from applying. If the Government were actually serious about taking action, they could have done so much more quickly. They did not even need to take action; an omission would have been sufficient. On 28 March, when my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor brought forward his private Member’s Bill, all the Government Whips had to do was not shout “Object” in order for it to go forward. It would have restored proper ministerial oversight and, through the Minister, parliamentary oversight over sentencing guidelines. That would have allowed Parliament to take control of this fundamental matter.

My hon. Friend is right; the issue is not just these guidelines. In the last Parliament, we legislated to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, after an offender killed three members of my constituent’s family and was given a sentence of only 10 and a half years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a broader power, so that where Parliament’s intent is not recognised by the Sentencing Council, we can act?

Clearly, Parliament needs to have oversight of revisions to sentencing guidelines, so that they reflect the will of Parliament.

The Government failed to act and have now brought forward this lacklustre measure. In the past few months, my hon. and right hon. Friends have uncovered multiple instances of two-tier principles being applied to bail, probation and other judicial matters. This is not a one-off, or a whistleblowing “fix it and move on” situation; it is systemic and endemic. We need much more radical reform than the Government are bringing forward today.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have to wrap up. When will the Government get serious, get a grip and put an end to this, once and for all?

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. I think what I heard at the end from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), was support for this Bill, and I thank him for that. Today’s debate has been helpful; it has underscored the broad support for this legislation, and for the principle of equality before the law. Many Members—pretty much every Member who has spoken—underlined the importance of that principle. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor acted so swiftly to address this situation in a way that was courteous and respectful to all involved, and to get us to where we are today.

While we have had much agreement, the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for whom I have the highest regard, announced herself as being in a minority of one. I am sure that is not the case, but she drew attention to her serious concerns about disproportionality in the criminal justice system. I can say to her that we share her concerns about disproportionality. That is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has announced a proper review of all the data, so we will know what actions will properly address that disproportionality and bring about change in a way that addresses the seriousness of the unfairness in the system to which she rightly referred.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that it should be protected. We know that more must be done to address inequalities in the justice system, and we are absolutely committed to tackling racial disparities across the criminal justice system. We are also taking steps such as increasing diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. That has included supporting under-represented groups in joining the judiciary and the magistrates, and has involved the Ministry of Justice and partners running widely supported outreach programmes to reduce barriers to individuals joining. However, we need to do much more. I commend my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House for keeping us on notice, and I promise her that we will deliver.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, reminded us, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), that these guidelines were nodded through by the previous Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eastbourne also reminded us of our inheritance of an underfunded probation and court system, which has led, in his words, to a rationing of pre-sentence reports. I agree with him that the debate should be about how we move to universality of pre-sentence reports, not about rationing. Of course, none of this debate alters the fact that independent judges can ask for pre-sentence reports whenever they feel they are necessary. Indeed, in her opening speech, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that capacity is being increased, quite properly, so that more pre-sentence reports can be done.

We had very helpful contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). Both of them drew attention to the importance of pre-sentence reports in identifying the most appropriate and effective sentence for individual offenders. The Chair of the Select Committee gave us the full timeline of this affair to date, and a good analysis of where we are with the Bill. I agree with him that we will have more opportunity to look at matters in detail in Committee. Likewise, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam drew attention to his concerns about the breadth of the Bill. Again, we will have an opportunity to examine them further in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised very serious concerns about issues relating to pregnant women, and was pleased that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law in that respect. In fact, nothing in the Bill, as she helpfully reminded the House, prevents judges from requesting PSRs for pregnant women. Judges will continue to be able to request PSRs in cases where they ordinarily would, including appropriate cases involving pregnant women. We would expect that to continue.

I am happy to have heard so much support for the Bill. There will be a drop-in for MPs on Monday about the next stages of the Bill, at which Members can have any questions answered, and can feed into the process before Committee stage next week. This emergency legislation, while a small Bill, is of great significance. It will stop the Sentencing Council’s updated guidelines on pre-sentence reports from coming into force, and will safeguard against the risk of differential treatment arising from their use. The action taken by the Government on this issue underscores our commitment to equality before the law, which all hon. Members who have spoken today have underlined, and which is most important. It is the ancient principle on which our justice system was built. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.