Lord Keen of Elie (Con)

My Lords, I must confess that as I read the provisions of this Bill, it triggered a childhood memory. The late Dr Dolittle curated a number of very strange and unusual animals, which included the pushmi-pullyu: a gazelle with two heads, which faced in opposite directions at the same time. Why would I be prone to such a memory on reading the provisions of this Bill? Let me begin with some quotations from the Government. First, “sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 3/4/25; col. 211.] Secondly, “it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.] Thirdly, “the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1378.] Finally: “It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1344.] Yet Clause 1, in opening the Bill, says that the judiciary must apply a presumption, other than in very narrowly prescribed circumstances, so that even if a judge wished to impose a custodial sentence of a certain length, they would be unable to do so if it did not fall under a specified exemption or exceptional circumstances. How did the Minister endeavour to bring this together in the first day of Committee? He said that “it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”,—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.] following the “appropriate guidance” of the Sentencing Council. But this guidance is now to be in the control of the Government, by virtue of the Lord Chancellor’s veto, thereby potentially eliminating any sense of “independence”. So I ask the Minister: in which direction is this two-headed Bill going to proceed? It cannot walk in two different and diametrically opposed directions at the same time. Is it towards the goal of judicial independence, or towards the goal of executive control? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, concluded by saying that these provisions were wrong-headed. I think they are even worse: they are double-headed, and that has to be resolved.