Sentencing Council Guidelines

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 1 April.

“With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, new guidelines from the Sentencing Council on pre-sentence reports have come under scrutiny in recent weeks, specifically on whether an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin should be a factor in their use. This is a question of huge import: whether we all stand equal before the law. That is an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries and an ancient right that each of us in this House has a responsibility to uphold. The new guidelines on the use of pre-sentence reports were due to come into force from today, but in recent weeks I have had constructive talks with the Sentencing Council and I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for that engagement. As a result, I am pleased to tell the House that the guidelines have been put on pause while Parliament rightly has its say.

It is important to first understand how we got into this position. Under the previous Government, the Sentencing Council proposed changes to its imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines, which are concerned with whether a judge should make a community or custodial order when sentencing an offender, and the thresholds for these disposals. When the courts are deciding whether the community order threshold is met, or the custody threshold is met, they are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary to do so. These reports provide more information to the court, helping to provide a greater understanding of the background and context of the offending behaviour. They are a tool at the disposal of judges. The guidelines provide further guidance to courts on how to approach the decision whether to request a pre-sentence report. In this instance, they help them to determine what sentence might best be handed down.

In general, I should be clear, I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports. In the last few months, I have created capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that it has more time for vital work such as this. But the new guidance, if it came into force, would encourage judges to request them for some cohorts of offenders and not others. Specifically, it notes that it would ‘normally be considered necessary’ to request pre-sentence reports for ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. It is important to be clear about the impact that a pre-sentence report is likely to have in this instance: it is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. It is this that creates the perception of differential treatment before the law and risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.

A repeated theme of my engagement with the Sentencing Council over the guidelines has been the intention behind them. It was attempting to address very real inequalities that exist in our justice system—inequalities that are evident in the sentences that offenders receive. It is unclear why this happens, as the Sentencing Council acknowledges. There is no doubt that more must be done to understand the problem we face and to address it. Some measures are already taking place across our justice system to make it more representative of the public that it serves, such that it can deliver outcomes in which we can all have confidence, and I note that the proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.

While change can feel slow and must accelerate, my view is that despite the noble intentions behind these guidelines, in attempting to address inequalities in our justice system they sacrifice too much. They raise a serious question of policy: in the pursuit of equality of outcome for different religions and races, should we treat them differently before the eyes of the law and move so far away from an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries? On this, I am clear: all must be equal before the law.

I know there will be disagreement in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue. There have been, as I have noted, differences of opinion among the Opposition. I expect that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right honourable Member for Newark, Robert Jenrick, who opposes these guidelines, and the now shadow Transport Secretary, the honourable Member for Orpington, Gareth Bacon, who welcomed them while in office, have been having some robust conversations in recent days.

I doubt, however, that there is any disagreement that this is a question of policy. How the state addresses a systemic and complex issue is clearly the domain of policymakers. It is right that questions like these are discussed and debated here. It is right that the public can hold us to account for the decisions we take and that they can ultimately reward or punish us at the ballot box.

The role of judges is entirely different. They are concerned not with how policy is made but how it is applied. The independence of our judges to make those determinations is fundamental to our justice system. Over centuries they have built a reputation for fairness, making them world-renowned and respected. They are the embodiment of the rule of law in our country. To play that role, they must be able to make decisions on the facts without any outside influence. They must know they have the Government behind them, protecting them as they do that vital work. When I swore my oath as Lord Chancellor, I made a solemn pledge to protect and defend the independence of the judiciary, and I always will. But to do so, it is essential that the boundaries between what is policy and what is judicial decision-making are clear. For that reason, the Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. It is a tightly focused Bill. It does not interfere with the vital work of the council providing guidance to judges on how to sentence offenders. It addresses the issue of when a pre-sentence report should be ordered.

The Bill adopts a targeted approach. It does not prevent council guidance from advising in general terms that pre-sentence reports should be requested when judges need more information about an offender’s personal circumstances. It will remain the case, for example, that where an offender is a victim of domestic abuse, a judge can consider it in deciding whether to order a pre-sentence report. But it prohibits the council from making guidelines about pre-sentence reports with specific reference to the offender’s personal characteristics, such as their race, religion or belief, or cultural background.

The Bill will not affect the court’s existing duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, nor does it change court precedent around them—like the recent case of Thompson, in which the Court of Appeal noted the importance of obtaining a pre-sentence report in cases involving pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; like the case of Meanley, where the court referred to the importance of pre-sentence reports in serious cases involving young defendants; or like the case of Kurmekaj, where the court emphasised the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery as reasons why a pre-sentence report should be ordered. Judges will continue to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would—for example, those involving pregnant women or young people.

I accept that the Bill will, however, raise wider questions about the role of the Sentencing Council. The council does important work bringing greater consistency to judicial decision-making, but we are here discussing a question of policy—a difficult, disputed and uncertain one at that. If the Government cannot determine national policy on the question of equality of treatment before the law, we have uncovered a democratic deficit. The Bill exposes that question but does not address it. The proper role of the Sentencing Council, and the process for making guidelines of this type, must be considered further, and I will do so in the coming months. It is right that this question is considered in greater depth, and should further legislation be required, I shall propose it as part of the upcoming sentencing Bill.

The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the firmament of our justice system, and any changes must be made carefully and with due consideration. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead. The Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. The issues it contains are of great consequence because the path to a more equal society can only be paved by equality before the law. Again, I thank the Sentencing Council for putting a pause on its guidelines while Parliament has its say. I believe that we must reverse them and reassert that no race or religion should receive preferential treatment before the law. The Bill we will introduce today will achieve that, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:10:00

My Lords, two days ago, magistrates and judges across England and Wales were, in effect, blindsided. At midday, they were informed that sentencing guidelines that they thought had come into force had in fact been suspended. The courts would have been sentencing offenders under guidelines that the Lord Chancellor herself now admits are fundamentally flawed. These are guidelines which, she has stated, would inflict a “two-tier” system of justice, undermining fairness and consistency in our courts. In addition, buried in the very email sent to judges and magistrates, the Sentencing Council somewhat audaciously declared that “we remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate”. While the Lord Chancellor advised in the other place on Tuesday: “I believe that we must reverse them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 183.] So the Lord Chancellor says one thing and the Sentencing Council continues to say another. This situation was entirely preventable, had the Lord Chancellor put party politics aside weeks ago and backed, rather than blocked, the Bill that my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick introduced in the other place. This Bill would have restored accountability and given the Lord Chancellor the power to govern justice policy. We may welcome the belated introduction of the Lord Chancellor’s Sentencing Council Bill, although I express regret that it had to come to this. However, we should be clear that the proposed Bill does not address the core of the problem, which concerns the status and accountability of the Sentencing Council. There have already been concerns about other aspects of the Sentencing Council guidelines. Public reference has been made to the guidelines on immigration offences, although I understand that they are debated and indeed disputed. Further concerns have been expressed about guidelines on the provision of bail, where there is particular reference to the priority of ethnic minorities and transgender offenders. That also is a potentially discriminating practice that should not be maintained in our criminal justice system. What is now required is a calm and considered review of the entire situation, rather than just a knee-jerk reaction Bill that addresses a symptom rather than a cause. I therefore invite the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to commit to a comprehensive review of all Sentencing Council and Ministry of Justice guidance on sentencing policy and bail policy, which should properly rest with the Government in the form of the Ministry of Justice and not with a wholly unaccountable Sentencing Council—however high a regard we have for those who sit in that council.

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor maintains that this Statement raises issues of principle, that it is about policy being for Parliament and not for judges, and that the Sentencing Council has breached the principle of equality before the law. We hear complaints from the Conservatives in particular—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is no exception to this, and it is unsurprising that I take a different view from him—of judicial overreach and of a two-tier justice system. However, all in this House are committed to equality before the law. The background to the new proposed guidelines is the wealth of evidence, almost entirely undisputed, that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to be sent to prison than white defendants. Yesterday I mentioned the Lammy review, but there is so much more. This inequality of outcomes must be addressed; it is the very opposite of equality before the law. Pre-sentence reports are a vital tool that enable judges to take into account the circumstances of an offender as well as the nature of the offence for which he is before the courts. The Lord Chancellor appears to accept that. The only other significant assistance a sentencing judge receives on an offender’s background and circumstances is the speech in mitigation from defence counsel. Although speeches in mitigation are powerful tools, they are made by defence counsel on the instructions of the defendant, so they are neither independently prepared nor impartial. They also cannot generally be independently verified, as pre-sentence reports can. So we need these reports, and they have long been intended to be the norm not an optional add-on, yet resources for these reports have, in effect, been rationed. The Probation Service was hopelessly mishandled by the last Government, and one result is that there is not enough money to fund the number of pre-sentence reports we need. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, yesterday gave the figures: the number of pre-sentence reports is down by 44% between 2013 and 2023. The letter from the chairman of the Sentencing Council to the Lord Chancellor on 10 March explained the very thorough process that had led to these new guidelines, in the context of the statutory duty imposed by Parliament for the Sentencing Council to give guidelines to judges on sentencing. Part of the reason behind establishing the Sentencing Council was precisely to encourage consistency in sentencing—that is, equal treatment before the law—yet now we have the Government resorting to hastily drawn and unhelpful emergency legislation that tries to address a complex issue in simplistic terms. The operative section would provide that “sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender”. A subsection goes on to say that the “personal characteristics” may include—not must include— “in particular … race … religion or belief … cultural background”. The cohorts identified by the Sentencing Council as normally calling for a PSR include being a young adult, female, pregnant, or postnatal. Are those not personal circumstances and are they not relevant? The solution to this is not emergency legislation. The emergency has now passed because the Sentencing Council has paused introduction of the guidelines. This emergency Bill has not yet had a Second Reading, and I therefore invite the Government to withdraw it now and end this unnecessary row. It is unseemly and widely regarded as such by the public. I suggest that the solution lies in rational and moderate discussion between the Sentencing Council, the Lady Chief Justice and the Government, to which Ministers in this House from the Ministry of Justice would have an important contribution to make. The first aim would be to reach a solution that ensures that pre-sentence reports are properly funded so that they become the norm once again in all cases where a substantial prison sentence is not inevitable. The second would be that we recognise these reports play an important part in addressing and reducing the inequality of outcomes for ethnic minority defendants—this must be a major priority of the Government. The third would be that we all respect and ultimately achieve genuine equality before the law.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points they have made and the questions they have asked. To set the scene, we believe the guidelines, as formerly suggested, risk differential treatment before the law, and that is why we opposed them. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise the guidelines, and it did not do so. The Lord Chancellor introduced legislation a couple of days ago to address the specific issues to which the Government object, and the Sentencing Council has put its guidelines on hold while Parliament has its say on these matters. The Lord Chancellor has gone further than this: she has committed to reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council more broadly and is considering all options. We are grateful to the Sentencing Council for pausing the introduction of the guidelines so that Parliament can have its say on the Bill that has been introduced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, referred to the Conservative Party’s proposed Bill. We believe that that Bill goes wider than necessary, and the Bill that the Government are putting forward is addressing the specific point within the guidelines to which the Government object, but we acknowledge that there are wider considerations, and that is why my right honourable friend has put in place this wider consideration of the role of the Sentencing Council and its recommendations. I reject the noble and learned Lord’s assertion that magistrates and judges were blindsided. I do not think they were, and I do not think there would have been any inadvertent sentencing. I reject that accusation. I think there is a core problem here, which my right honourable friend has acted swiftly to address. I agree with a lot of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I was just reflecting that, in my previous role as a magistrate, I would have ordered many hundreds of pre-sentence reports, but I am conscious that, sitting in this Chamber now, there are colleagues who would have ordered many thousands of pre-sentence reports throughout their career. Of course, I agree with the points he made that they are an invaluable tool for anybody seeking to sentence in our criminal courts and that they had been degraded under the previous Government in their use and, to be frank, in the trust they were held in by sentencing magistrates or judges. It is very much the current Government’s intention to increase the number of probation officers—there were 1,300 more last financial year and there will be another 1,000 in the current financial year, and it is very much anticipated that there will be an enhanced role for the probation services as we move forward with future recommendations on sentencing, which are imminent. I agree with the general points that the noble Lord made about the importance of pre-sentence reports, and we want to build on that. On the point the noble Lord made about the wider cohorts which are not explicitly referred to in the published Bill, I make the point that any judge or magistrate can always order a pre-sentence report as they wish. That has always been, and remains, the situation. Just because a specific cohort was not referred to in the Bill does not mean that judges cannot go ahead and order pre-sentence reports as they see fit. Nothing has changed in that context. In conclusion, this is clearly a difficult situation. However, the Lord Chancellor has strong views on these matters, and it is of utmost importance that the wider public have, and continue to have, faith in our court system and the judiciary, which the Government certainly hold in the highest regard.

12:25:00

My Lords, I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which was the predecessor to the present Sentencing Council. As the House has heard, a primary role of the Sentencing Council is to promote consistency in sentencing. At present, there is an apparent inconsistency, in that ethnic minority defendants appear, according to statistics, to be receiving more severe sentences than white defendants. The Sentencing Council guideline that is under attack instructs judges to call for a pre-sentence report before sentencing a defendant from this cohort. Might not this guidance be intended to promote consistency of sentencing rather than the contrary? If there is a question as to whether it achieves this object, could this not better be dealt with by discussion rather than legislation?

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, I am so sorry, but the Minister needs to reply.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the point he makes, and I accept that the reason the guidance included those specific phrases was to address the points made in the Lammy Review a number of years ago. The point that my right honourable friend makes and objects to is that that leads to a perception of unfairness in sentencing. While we acknowledge the fundamental mischief, if I can put it like that, of differential sentencing of certain ethnic and racial groups, we think there is a better way of addressing that, rather than explicitly referring to it in the guidelines to the judges and magistrates when they make their sentencing decisions.

My Lords, the independent Lammy Review of 2017, concerning the treatment of and outcomes for BAME individuals within the criminal justice system in England and Wales, identified disproportionate outcomes in a number of areas. I ask the Minister about two points raised in the final report relevant to the issue and whether there has been any progress. One was a lack of sophisticated data around ethnicity in the criminal justice system, and the second was that white suspects appearing in court were markedly more likely to plead guilty to an offence and thereby benefit from up to a one-third reduction in the sentence than was the case with BAME suspects.

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for those questions. Regarding the lack of sophisticated data, that is a fair point, and we are continuing to work on building up that database, but it is an ongoing project to properly understand the nature of the differential treatment. The second point the right reverend Prelate makes is about the propensity of certain groups not to plead guilty, which means that they do not get the discount. That is certainly true in my experience of sitting in youth courts and adult magistrates’ courts. However, I do not think it accounts for all the disparity in sentencing, and I think there is more to the story. That needs to be gone into, and a better database would help the Government do that.

My Lords, having worked in justice for nearly 50 years and in Westminster for nearly 40 years, I am not so naive or squeamish as to be shocked by this political squabble over the recent sentencing guidelines. That said, will the Minister accept that the most difficult job for any sentencer—as he and I know from experience—is to sentence the defendant in a way that does justice to the victim, the public and the defendant? Will he also accept that the failure to ensure the provision of far more pre-sentence reports, which are, as he said, an invaluable tool to assist the sentencer, is not confined to this or the previous Government but is of long standing? Will he also agree that although we all have the right to criticise a sentence, even from a position of ignorance of the facts before the judge, parliamentarians should not resort to ugly personal attacks on members of the judiciary, who cannot respond?

I agree with all the points the noble and learned Lord has made. It is for sentencers to sentence in a way that can be understood by the offender, the victim and the public. All our adult courts are open to the public and the press. It is also true in youth courts, which are not open to the public, but the same principle obtains. It is worth adding that, in my experience, pre-sentence reports compiled for the youth court are far more extensive than those compiled for the adult court. When it comes to the extent of pre-sentence reports, the Probation Service, which compiles them for the adult courts, has something to learn from YOTs that compile reports for youths who are sentenced. I realise that that is a resource issue, but nevertheless when one sentences, as I used to do very regularly, the difference in those reports was quite stark.

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as a non-practicing member of the Bar of England and Wales. I have also been a Minister of State in the Home Office, so the Minister has my sympathy. Will he please address this issue? He has described the disadvantageous treatment of black and brown people of colour under the criminal justice system as a mischief. He has accepted the Lammy report, as did the previous Government. He said that the Government believe that there is a better way to deal with that mischief. What is that better way, and when will Ministers, having slapped down the Sentencing Council, do something about it?

Clearly, I cannot give a time or date in answer to my noble friend’s question about when the review will conclude. It is a complex issue, as he knows as well as I do. One very important factor is that all people who come in front of courts should believe that they will be treated equally fairly. If they are aware of differential sentencing guidelines, that undermines that trust. That is the fundamental belief of the Lord Chancellor, and it is one that I share. It is a complex question. We acknowledge the fundamental mischief, but we want to find a better way of addressing the discrimination in the system without anyone who comes up in court believing that they are going to be treated differentially from anyone else.

My Lords, the Government’s Bill would exclude references in the sentencing guidelines to personal characteristics. It refers to race, belief and cultural background, but personal characteristics are then defined very broadly to include all personal characteristics. The guidelines, as has been pointed out, already contain references to other personal characteristics as well as race, belief and cultural background, some of which are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Is it the Government’s intention by this Bill to require the Sentencing Council to remove all those existing references to other personal characteristics, even if they are protected characteristics, as indeed are race and belief, under the Equality Act?

I thank the noble Lord for that question, and I recognise its complexity. That is why my right honourable friend wants to look at this question in the round, because the point he made is correct. I do not want to anticipate what the answer to his question will be, but nevertheless I acknowledge the complexity that he has pointed out.

My Lords, I commend the Justice Secretary and, indeed, the Opposition for agreeing on the need for legislation on this matter. Does the Minister agree that, as illustrated perhaps by many of the comments that we have already heard, the guidance on pre-sentencing reports or differential bail et cetera, which is designed by an unelected quango, is not the place to pursue wholly political and often divisive and contentious policies around identity, whether it is race, ethnicity, faith, transgender and so on? It is just not the right place for it to happen. Is not the problem a bit broader in that whenever an unelected quango, such as the Sentencing Council, acts in defiance of Parliament, it undermines public trust in democracy, not just in the courts? That is why I am glad the Justice Secretary acted at last.

I thank the noble Baroness for her support.

My Lords, I do not think there is any dispute whatever about the principles upon which judges should sentence. Most of them are laid down in the Sentencing Code, and there is absolute agreement on equality before the law. I also think everyone recognises the achievement of the Sentencing Council in going a long way to achieve consistency and to educate the public in understanding the way in which sentencing operates, but—and I do this without wishing to enter into the political debate—we find ourselves constrained by resources, and when resources are tight, problems arise. Therefore, I greatly welcomed the Lord Chancellor saying yesterday in the other place that she would make more resources available to the Probation Service. However, my experience has been twofold. First, we have a constitution that operates on a degree of partnership between the Lord Chancellor and the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, at times when resources are tight, people forget that our whole constitution operates on interdependence, not just independence, between the different branches of government. I hope that we can follow the example of the late Lord Judge and Mr Straw, who together crafted this legislation—I was there when it happened. There will be disagreements. I see with pleasure that a former Lord Chancellor is in his place in the Chamber. We used to discuss things often. Unsurprisingly, we did not see eye to eye on everything but we managed to find a way forward. Can the Minister assure us that everything will be done to try to make this work in discussion, in partnership and in keeping this whole thing out of politics, which is so destructive to the independence of the sentencing process?

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his wise words and his analysis. Of course I acknowledge the point he made about resources. I earlier pointed to the discrepancy between youth and adult pre-sentence reports. The fact of the matter is that it is a resource issue. This is one very specific example, but the noble and learned Lord’s general point is absolutely right. The other point the noble and learned Lord made about the interdependence of judges and the political leadership, if I can put it like that, as well as the independence, was also right. Protecting that is very important. Nevertheless, we believe that this example of the way different ethnic groups should be addressed within sentencing guidance is a policy issue. That is why my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has acted as she has in introducing this specific and targeted Bill. Nevertheless, the more general point that the noble and learned Lord makes about the importance of partnership and discussion is right. I thank him for making those points.

My Lords, may I respectfully agree with every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, and ask a practical question? We have heard that there are likely to be more probation officers and more resources. Does that mean that judges and magistrates will have the opportunity to ask for more pre-sentencing reports?

The short answer is yes. We are certainly recruiting more probation officers, as I said in answer to an earlier question. Of course, judges are already 100% free to order pre-sentence reports, but we want to build up the confidence, if you like, of judges and magistrates in the Probation Service so that more reports are ordered. It is quite likely—I think there is no secret here—that there will be greater use of community sentences and suspended sentences in the future, and we need to work towards that. One way to do that is rebuilding the Probation Service, which was so badly damaged by the previous Government.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who was a wise partner to me in my former role. He is absolutely right about the need for partnership between the judiciary and politicians. They have different challenges but, none the less, they need that collaboration. The current situation is clearly regrettable. I simply urge the Minister and his colleagues not to rush the solution to the problem. Let us get this right, rather than doing it in a hurry and getting it wrong.

I thank the noble Lord for that point; he is absolutely right. There is a specific problem, and a Bill is currently before the House of Commons. I do not know the timetable for that Bill and I will not speculate on it, but the noble Lord is clearly right that we need to get it right.

My Lords, do the Government understand why a pre-sentence report is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail? Does the Minister believe that the result could be more accurate or appropriate sentences being handed down as a result of a better-informed sentencing decision? If he does, what is wrong with encouraging judges to ask for pre-sentence reports in such cases where, historically, sentences appear to have been disproportionate?

I agree with the noble Lord’s point. As I pointed out, I ordered these reports hundreds of times in my previous role, and I invariably did it so that the sentencing bench could make a better-informed decision. The only times I did not do it were when I could see no alternative to custody. Of course, the same situation applies now as before: any judge can order a pre-sentence report at any time. The mischief and the problem that my right honourable friend had was the perception that if particular racial groups were more likely to get a pre-sentence report, there could be a political attack—indeed, there was a political attack—that this meant that they would be less likely to be sent to prison. She saw the perception of that as the mischief, and it was the reason she brought forward her Bill. She wants to find a different way of addressing the fundamental problem, which is the disproportionality within sentencing outcomes.

My Lords, I should declare my interest, as I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from 2018 to 2025. Will my noble friend reassure the House that resources will be made available for the Probation Service, which, as he rightly said, suffered terribly under the previous Government and has been reunified into a national Probation Service only in the last few years? Will he reassure the House that resources will be found not only to improve the quantity and quality of pre-sentence reports as necessary but to increase the use of community sentences, which he referred to and which we hope will be the case following the review of sentencing by David Gauke? Lastly, will he reassure the House that this row, if I may call it that, does not influence too much the way that David Gauke’s recommendations are considered?

Yes, I can give my noble friend all the reassurances that he seeks. I share the objectives that he alluded to. Clearly, we want a greater quantity and quality of pre-sentence reports. The review being undertaken by David Gauke will be far more wide-ranging. We wait to see the specific details that it will bring forward but I very much hope that this specific issue, which is dealt with in the Bill currently before the House of Commons, will have a minimal impact, if any, on the recommendations of the Gauke review.