Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Committee

13:40:00

Clause 1: Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “must” and insert “may” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would ensure the establishment of an expert advisory committee without the requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out a resentencing exercise.

With noble Lords’ indulgence, I wish to open this debate by saying that IPP—imprisonment for public protection—is as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal, as bad as they are. Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives, and hundreds more are being driven to insanity by this no hope, never-ending sentence. The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it, and that has to change. Now, speaking directly to everyone serving an IPP sentence, my message, quite simply, is: do not give up hope. You have more supporters here than you realise, and there are many Members in this House and the other place who will not rest until we have justice for everyone suffering these appalling torture sentences, but please understand that it is the Government who ultimately have the power to end this injustice. Sadly, my Bill by itself will not bring you justice, but it can help to build pressure on the Government to do the right thing and to build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice. Please, do not have false hope about this Bill. Have hope, but not false hope. That is my aim here today. By debating these amendments today, especially this first group of amendments, which probe the Government’s position, we can hold Ministers to account and expose the lack of logic behind their refusal to consider resentencing seriously and creatively. Each of these amendments restricts resentencing to a particular cohort or, in the case of one in my name, restricts resentencing entirely by committing the Government to establishing an expert committee to advise on resentencing. To be clear, this is not because I do not want to see resentencing happen at all. Of course I do. That is what the whole Bill is about but, with the Government resisting resentencing, these amendments allow us to focus on the specific objections. Why are they against forming an expert committee? Why are they against resentencing those who have suffered the greatest injustice? I put my name to all the amendments in this group because I genuinely believe that each asks legitimate and reasonable questions of the Government. Amendment 2 is also in my name. It would restrict resentencing to those already released by the Parole Board and living on licence in the community. Did I table this amendment because I believe they are the only ones who should be resentenced? Of course not. I did so, as I said, to probe the Government’s position and to test the faulty logic. If fears around public protection are all that stands in the way of full resentencing, what could be the objection to starting with those already released? This group, who have, by definition, been deemed safe for release by the Parole Board and the Government are still living the nightmare of unexpected and immediate recall, often for a minor breach of licence, or sometimes merely on allegation of an offence, and the Minister knows this. I have received so many examples from prisoners who have been recalled after a malicious allegation with no further action taken by the police, yet back inside they go to serve another indeterminate prison term along with those established sentences that they had. Even when no further action has been taken, people still face a year or more in jail, waiting for their next Parole Board hearing—if they are lucky. This is clearly not justice. There is no credible reason not to resentence these people already cleared by the Parole Board.

13:45:00

To his credit, the Minister tried his best to offer a reason at Second Reading when he said:

“These offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the Victims and Prisoners Act”.—[Official Report, 15/11/24; col. 2046.]

Of course, there is some truth in that. The last Government, and specifically the last Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, deserve genuine credit for sweating blood—as I heard it described recently—behind the scenes to secure the modest gains we saw through this Act. But however clear, and potentially shorter, the pathway is now for those on licence, they are still serving the discredited and long-abolished sentence. The only way to end this torture is with resentencing, turning their indeterminate, never-ending sentence into a standard, determinate sentence.

How can the Government use public protection as justification for holding this axe of immediate recall over the head of someone on an IPP now living in the community? Give them supervision and support, of course, but let it be normal probation supervision and support, in the form of an extended licence, if need be, for a determinate sentence, as specified in Amendment 7 in my name in the other group. Resentencing, turning an indeterminate sentence with no end date into a normal, determinate fixed-term sentence is what the Justice Committee in the other place said in 2022 and the logic is still unassailable.

The only question is: how this can be done in a way that minimises any risk to the public? The Justice Committee is clear: this is exactly what the expert panel is for, to advise the Government on the best way to balance the principles of justice with the need for public protection. The amendments in the other group make explicit suggestions for how this can be achieved.

At Second Reading, the Minister rejected the idea of setting up an expert advisory panel on the grounds that it would give “false hope” to those serving an IPP sentence. But false hope could easily be minimised by making very clear to everyone, especially those still serving IPPs and their families, that no decision had been made about resentencing that would happen in the future, only that the Government were exploring with experts the different ways in which it may be done, but without committing in advance of doing so.

The experts could recommend that certain courts could be prioritised or excluded. They could suggest giving the resentencing court the power to impose extended licences or move prisoners to secure hospitals. All these options will be explored in the amendments we are debating today.

Turning to the rest of this group, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, who has asked me to convey her regrets for not being able to attend today’s debate, prioritises resentencing for those who have served—wait for it—10 years or longer past their minimum tariff. When we debated this matter in Oral Questions in March, the Minister revealed that, as of the end of last year, there were 695 prisoners serving IPPs who had never been released and who were 10 years or longer over tariff. There will be still more inside who have been recalled since that statement. This amendment echoes the call by Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, for the Government to consider partial resentencing by prioritising those most over tariff.

How can the Government deny resentencing to those people still inside more than 10 years past their minimum sentence? I remind noble Lords that we are talking about people who have been locked up for more than a decade longer than somebody else convicted of exactly the same crime but before 2005 or 2012. A lot of nonsense is spoken about two-tier justice, but this is one situation where the label seems to apply. It is not right, and it is certainly not fair.

Moving through this group, how can the Government deny resentencing to anyone still serving DPP sentences—detention for public protection—who was under 18 when convicted? That is the question posed by Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who was the architect of IPP and DPP sentences but now campaigns against the injustice like the rest of us, but maybe more fiercely and diligently than most. The very thought of IPP for kids breaks your heart. Why can we not prioritise them? Unfortunately, my noble friend sends his regrets for not being able to attend this debate, but he knows as well as anyone the harm that these sentences have caused, especially to those convicted as children.

Can the Minister explain why we cannot prioritise people who were convicted before major changes to the sentences were made in 2008? Surely the extra injustice suffered by this cohort demands immediate action. The 2008 changes, which introduced a new seriousness threshold and some degree of judicial discretion, were made in response to recognised human rights concerns at the time. But as with the abolition four years later, shamefully, these changes were not retrospective and left thousands in limbo, many of whom are still in prison despite the manifestly unfair process that led them to be there in the first place. Why can we not deal with these cases immediately as a matter of urgency, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will no doubt ask shortly when he speaks to his Amendments 11 and 12? Why can we not do all the things proposed by the amendments in this group? The truth is that we can, if the political will is there. If the Government refuse to do so, we have every right to demand that they tell us why.

A resentencing exercise for everyone serving these torture sentences is the only way to wipe this stain off our justice system for good. The Government’s arguments against it just do not stack up. Hiding behind public protection will not work any more, not with the viable safeguards that the expert committee can recommend—some of which are specified explicitly in the second group of amendments—and certainly not with my Amendment 2, which restricts resentencing to those already deemed not to pose a risk to the public. I look forward to what the Minister and my other esteemed colleagues and comrades in this place will say. In a spirit of collaboration and in search of solutions, I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on the tenacity he has shown in continuing the fight against the injustice of the IPP sentence. I hope the Minister will understand that the amendments in this group are intended to be helpful, in that they offer the Government a range of possibilities and flexibilities in the application of resentencing in the event that they cannot bring themselves—and it is clear that they cannot—to endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee in the other place in 2022 that all prisoners subject to this sentence should be resentenced and that the solution to the problem lies in that. That is certainly the character of Amendments 11 and 12 in my name. They make a point that was often made by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was so passionate about this injustice—namely, that in July 2008 there were significant reforms, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, to the IPP regime in England and Wales through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and those changes aimed to address the growing concerns about the sentence. The changes were that a seriousness threshold was introduced, and from that date an offender could receive an IPP sentence only if the offence they were being sentenced for was serious enough to justify a determinate sentence of at least four years. Before that change, there had been occasions, some referred to in Parliament—some are anecdotal because the names are not always known—of people with implied determinate sentences as low as 28 days who had been given IPP sentences. From this point on, four years was the seriousness test, and that was a major shift. The reforms also gave greater discretion to judges, allowing them to do their job properly—that is, sentencing somebody according to their individual deserts, which is the purpose of the sentencing regime. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, the original Act, had not given judges that discretion; it said that in the cases of those qualifying for IPP sentencing they must assume that there is a risk unless the court considered that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was not a risk. Those are very strong words. “Must” and “unreasonable” set a very high bar, effectively removing judicial discretion in determining the sentence. Defendants sentenced under that provision were denied what should have been their right to an individually appropriate sentence. The key point, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, is that the changes made in 2005 came into effect only in July 2008 and there was no attempt to make them retrospective to those who had been sentenced between 2005 and 2008. Many of those people are still subject to the sentence. Many of them are in prison and many have never been released. They are among the 1,000 or so IPP prisoners who have never been released to date. They continue to suffer from an injustice of exceptional gravity. They are serving a sentence that, as recognised in 2008, was passed pursuant to too wide a seriousness threshold by a judiciary whose discretion Parliament had so fettered as to prevent it saving defendants from unjustifiable severity. There are two amendments, Amendments 11 and 12, because one is required for IPP sentences and the other for DPP sentences—the sentences imposed on those under 18, as the noble Lord explained—because that is the way in which the legislation is drafted.

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for all that he has done, is doing and, I am sure, will continue to do to try to remedy the kind of injustice that he has outlined. Before I turn to the options put before us, I would like to say something about that injustice. It is largely common ground, I think, that the imposition of this sentence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was a mistake. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for acknowledging that mistake. However, what we have failed to do—herein lies the real perpetuation of the injustice—is deal with those who are still subject to that sentence. I am sure it is that which caused Members of your Lordships’ House, in particular the late Lord Judge, the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, to describe this as a stain on the character of British justice—which it is. It is a very serious matter that we are not taking practical steps to deal with injustice. As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said, we did it in respect of the Post Office, but, in my view, there are a lot of hang-ups and misconceptions that are preventing the doing of justice in this case.

14:00:00

Why is it such an injustice? First, we are perpetuating the mistake and the fallacy that underlay the bringing in of this sentence in respect of the cohort that is either in jail or subject to licence. Secondly, we accept that if an offence very similar or almost identical—in so far as offences can be almost identical—to those for which these people are in prison or remain subject to the sentence was committed either before April 2005 or committed and sentenced after December 2012, they would have been given determinate sentences, and we accept the risk that goes with that. Why are we continuing to treat these people differently? They are also subject—I will turn to this in a little more detail in a moment—to the extraordinarily unjust licence regime, which has not had enough focus. Again, we see it as unjust because, apart from keeping people in prison, it is positively harming their mental well-being.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said, we have got to do something. We have a range of options. The first is reformulating the test for release, but we have looked at that and it went nowhere. The second is resentencing, and I shall come to that in a moment. The third is setting a release date for all. An expert committee I have chaired for the Howard League has put forward certain proposals, but we are not debating those so it would be wrong for me to use this as an occasion to go into them. The fourth is shortening the time for licence. This has been a singular achievement of the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor who had the guts to do this. It is right to remind people that politicians who have guts sometimes deserve a great deal of praise—and he had the guts to do so.

The next problem is dealing with recall; there is a provision in one of the amendments to deal with that. Then there is the action plan, on which I am not going to comment. How could I comment on something in respect of which a report has not yet been published? That would be a denial of natural justice. How could I do that when making a plea for justice?

I turn, therefore, to what we should do. The first issue is resentencing. In giving evidence to a Select Committee at the end of 2021, chaired by Sir Bob Neill, I gave strong evidence in favour of resentencing. That was three and a half years ago, and a number of things have happened since then. First, the committee reported. When the Government were asked to comment on it, they said that they were not going to do so. When the present Government, then in opposition, were asked about this, they took very much the same position, and have maintained that position. I therefore have reservations about resentencing. If it has got nowhere after three and a half years and the courts are now dealing with a horrific backlog, is it going to be possible to persuade the Government? We have to look at alternatives. Then there is the option of resentencing those referred to in Amendment 3 who are 10 years over tariff, those referred to in Amendment 10 who were subject to this sentence when they were under-18, and those who were sentenced prior to the changes in 2008. I can see how a strong case can be made for each of those, but the difficulty is what all the other people who are subject to IPPs would feel about it. They are subject to an injustice—possibly not as great an injustice as those.

Amendment 2 concerns those in the community. I am not sure that the wording of the amendment is quite right, because it must depend on the happenchance of whether you have been recalled, but that is a lawyer’s technical point that can be put right. Let me turn to the substance of the problem. It is very important to appreciate, when dealing with this option, the sheer injustice of the licence regime. We all accept that if you let someone out of prison before the end of his determinate sentence from the court, or if the person is subject to life imprisonment for murder—as a result of the bargain Parliament made to abolish the death sentence—then that person is still being punished and the regime may be appropriate for that. However, this recall regime subjects people to further preventive detention; it is completely different. Therefore, the safeguards in respect of this need to be much greater. If those cannot be put in place then plainly we should terminate the licence provisions—which would not be a good idea—or allow the court to change them.

Why do I say that it is wrong? The real problem is how this works in practice. The test for recall as set out is a linkage with the original offence, which should be shown, but it is not an absolute test. There has also to be a risk of harm—and I emphasise those words. The person was originally given a sentence which required preventive detention if there was a significant risk of serious harm, but you can be brought back if you are simply at a risk of harm. That is fundamentally unjust. As we appreciate in this country, we do not like sending people to prison unless they go through a judicial process. What about recall? There is no judicial process. It is the decision of probation officers, supervised by civil servants. We have a situation in which civil servants return people to preventive detention for a risk that is far less than that for which they were originally sentenced by a judge. That is grossly unjust.

There are many problems with recall, but the second and biggest of the injustices—if the one I have described is not in itself enough—is what happens if someone is accused of a crime. Normally in this country, if you are accused of a crime and are to be held pending trial, the judge or the magistrate decides whether you should be locked up. If you contest your guilt or you do not admit it, you are subject to a trial. In this case, we should accept that people should not be returned simply because the probation service and the civil servants concerned, acting on behalf of the Government, say that the person should not be given a trial and bail should not be judicially determined. That is the injustice, but it is also futile, and I can make this point briefly. Look at the number of recalls of people who are let out—again, this is an exercise in futility.

Huge benefit can be obtained from using the places that are elsewhere. Those are the points that we ought to think about when looking at these amendments. If all else fails, we should have an expert committee—but we should not have a committee unless it is able to get somewhere, because, otherwise, it will raise false hope.

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his continued campaign in this area. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Moylan for their remarks in support of the campaign and the general thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, discussed. It is very tempting in Committee on a short Bill such as this to want to rehearse the Second Reading debate. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, who analysed the problems before us with a forensic stiletto, I tend to come from the blunderbuss school of argument. I would prefer to give this piece of injustice a thorough whacking, but, unfortunately, that would not be helpful; it would be repetitive and would probably not move the Government. Because I am familiar with the Justice Ministers on the Front Bench, I know that they both find themselves in a position in which they would rather not be. They did not invent the IPP and are not responsible for its progress since 2003. I suspect that they heartily wish they were dealing with something else—but they are not, and they have to deal with this, so here we all are. I will make one or two brief points. You could not put a cigarette paper between me and the noble and learned Lord in relation to the remarks he just made. The IPP sentence is uncontroversially unjust. It is also uncontroversial to say that, within the sentence as a whole, there are elements that aggravate that injustice. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the absurdities of the recall regime—the monstrous consequence of a slight breach in a recall or the terms of a licence—can lead to a recall in relation to something that has nothing whatever to do with the initial offence. In addition, there is the inability of the state properly to police the return of people to imprisonment without a separate and new trial in relation to wholly different allegations. All those things ought to stick in our craws, and I think they probably do. However, we feel bound up in the bureaucracy and the sheer inability to move things along, because there are so many other moving parts in the world of public policy. One is never able to clear a path through to achieve what we all want to do: to end every consequence of the IPP regime, consequences which were to some extent ameliorated by the 2008 changes and by the abolition of the sentence in 2012. None the less, we are still here having these debates—wringing our hands and having anguished discussions—when we all know what we need to do. I will do my best to return to the amendments and then I will stop talking. An expert committee is fine, but we have several hundred experts—they are called judges. It seems to me that by sitting either singly or in batches of two or three, they could form lots of expert committees to break the back of this problem.

14:15:00

I appreciate the financial and resource problems the crown court and sentencing system faces. But the whole system of government is a mere disgorger of problems. It is all too easy to say that, because it is too difficult, we cannot do anything. Unless we start doing something about this—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for making us think about it through the lens of his Bill—nothing will happen because it is all too difficult.

I therefore want to be quite clear. I do not really care how it is done—whether by an expert committee, the Court of Appeal, or Mr Justice somebody-or-other sitting as a senior judge in a Crown Court, or by his honour or her honour Judge somebody else sitting in a Crown Court. What we must stop doing is going around this mulberry bush week after week while over 1,000 people—I think nearly 2,000 people—are still incarcerated for offences for which they should have received a determinate sentence may years ago, as a result of which they would be out by now.

Yes, we would be facing the risk, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, that we face every time a prisoner on a determinate sentence is released: they might reoffend or do something antisocial or disobliging. But that is life. What is not life is to imprison these people in a state of utter hopelessness. We do not run a gulag system; we run a justice system. I repeat my sympathy for the Ministers on the Front Bench, as this is not a problem of their making, but I regret to say that, as far as they are concerned, it is a problem they have to solve. We are here to help.

My Lords, I will add just a line or two to all the statements so far. I immensely commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for having the guts and fearsomeness of argument, the persistence and, thank goodness, the irritation to keep going and pushing this as far as we reasonably and possibly can—and must. We will hear, as we have already, essentially Second Reading re-runs, because we are all just fed up and angry. We know, as the Minister knows, that in his file sit rather wishy-washy arguments about public protection which just do not stack up. One of the reasons they do not is that any assessment of those still languishing in prison will show that, of the 1,000 plus on IPP sentences, looking at their original time of sentence, 80% of them were for non-violent offences. In which case, based on accurate judicial knowledge of those individuals, we cannot say that they pose a public risk. Because they have never been let out, we have no evidence to prove that they will behave otherwise. When they did go to courts for sentencing, they were not there for violent actions; in which case, let them out, for goodness’ sake. Do not continue to use the argument that there is a public protection issue; that is nonsense. It is simply a very nice Civil Service and Secretary of State way to say that we do not want to deal with it, because it keeps the public smiling. Ministers know that what they are really doing is perpetuating a gross, unacceptable injustice and acts of torture that are destroying individuals’ lives and sending them to suicide and desecration, and which are a gross stain on what we call justice or anything to do with it. I beg Ministers to take those pages out, hand them back to civil servants and say, “Meet some real prisoners”. I continue to receive information—three times in the last month—directly from prisoners who are on IPP sentences who have heard nothing of the provisions of last year’s legislation. This is even though all sorts of messages went out from the Ministry of Justice last year and this year to inform governors that they should make sure prisoners know about the changes in the regulations and legislation, and that reconsideration of their position is possible. They have heard nothing. Why? Some say that frankly, the system does not believe it is going to work. There is also too much bureaucracy in it. When we look at the range of amendments before us, both the probing ones but also, if necessary, the voting ones, what we are really seeing is all of us finding ways to hedge around this untidy mess. It is an untidy mess because the simplicity of accepting that a wrong has been consistently done means that there is a more straightforward way for a right to be consistently done. Give dignity to the individuals involved, accepting, as in the group meeting the Minister mentioned, that there may well be a few hundred who are simply so mentally distressed that they cannot participate in the process, they have lost hope altogether, they feel there is no point to their reassessment and they almost want to hang back on it all. That is a tragedy; it is a loss of human dignity and a destruction of their souls. For those few hundred, we need to find a different way to support their mental recovery, as one of the amendments does, but when it comes to the majority, we are begging the Minister not to swallow the argument that this is all about public protection. Those of us who work in prisons week in, week out, know very well that it is not.

My Lords, I want to contribute to this debate as I did at Second Reading, not that I have the expertise on the justice system that other participants have. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for championing the Bill. I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, just said, that this is an injustice amounting to torture. The ball is being kicked down the road in a completely unacceptable fashion. There is a way out—there are several ways out, actually—and I will come later to the Howard League proposals that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, mentioned. I principally think that insofar as there is risk, it may be no more than would be taken in the release of prisoners under a normal regime. It has, however, become a great concern of the Government that they could get blamed if people are released from IPP sentences and go on to commit other offences. Blame already attaches when other prisoners are released, but there is a particular fixation on this and I think we have to give the Government the courage, on a cross-party basis, to tackle this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the guts of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who, having been the instigator of the original regime, has had the guts to admit that it was the wrong thing to do. We had the report from the Justice Select Committee in the other place, which was cross party. The former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk repeated the conclusion of our late colleague and former Supreme Court justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood about the IPP system being a stain on our justice system. In one of her first speeches in the other place last July, during a debate about IPP, the present Lord Chancellor said, “The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern … We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.] Well, that was already almost a year ago. Concern has been expressed across the political spectrum; the Government should take that into account and be ready to grasp the nettle. It has taken decades for there to be recognition of injustice in other sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, talked about the Post Office Horizon scandal, and we had the infected blood scandal and several others. In this country, we seem to be very bad at righting wrongs with dispatch. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I would like to give the IPP system a huge whack, because it is a scandal and an outrage. I refer to the report that was published a couple of weeks ago by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The league had an expert committee—very expert, not least because it was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. In his foreword to the report, he said: “History shows that governments invariably find it difficult to remedy state wrongs; this is even more so when those subject to the injustice have broken the law. Successive governments have now recognised that the IPP sentence was a mistake. It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches”. There are six recommendations in the report. I hope and believe that the Minister has read it. I am glad to see that he is nodding. On these Benches and others, we place great hopes in the sense and experience of the Minister in this area. The Bill is about resentencing. The amendments tabled today are modifications to the original proposals, but the Howard League is proposing another way. I do not want to detract from resentencing. We all wanted to see resentencing, but for reasons which passeth all understanding, this Government are apparently no more willing—unless the Minister is going to surprise us out of our skins—to accept resentencing. I hope that he can give us some encouragement that he is willing to look at another scheme, such as that put forward by the Howard League, which is to have what it calls a two-year conditional release. This would modify the current approach of the Parole Board, which requires the board to decide whether it is necessary for the protection of the public for the individual to be detained. The proposal in the report is that in IPP cases, the Parole Board should be asked to set a date for when the person will be released, within a two-year window, and what is required to achieve that safely. This would give the certainty of a release date, alleviating the significant mental distress of those serving the sentence, increase the likelihood of re-engagement for those who have lost confidence in the system, for reasons we can all understand, and facilitate the safe and speedy release of those who are stuck in prison on IPP sentences. There are other suggestions in the report which I do not wish to take up time talking about, but the main one is a reform to the recall system, the operation of which is very bad. I do hope that if the Minister cannot help us on resentencing today, he can give us a chink of light to end this scandalous, outrageous injustice and is willing to say that within a short time the Government will seize this issue and give hope to people, their families and friends, and all of us who hate to see this injustice and the hopelessness that goes with it. I am preaching to the converted with these sentiments, I believe: what we need now is a practical scheme to get out of this terrible situation.

14:30:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for giving us the opportunity to debate this injustice. We both serve on a committee with the justice unions, as they are called. I recently succeeded the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as the Conservative vice-president of this APPG, because the noble Earl is being cast into outer darkness and has decided to go quietly and hand over to me, rather than wait to be sacked. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because one notices in this APPG that no one is really interested if the justice unions can be kept down and kept quiet—that is it. One looks at the unions in the justice industry—prison officers, for instance—and sees enormous problems that the Government are not addressing seriously. I wish they would. As for the Bill, one of the weaknesses in this country is that you can get swept away, and nothing sounds quite as good as imprisonment for public protection: “Yes, we’ll lock them up and throw away the key”. That really was how this came in; the Government wished to show that they were prepared to be tough with people, without much mention of why. I accept, as one of the Ministers said to me, that some of the people who are detained for public protection probably should not be let out, but that decision should be made by a tribunal or group of people who can judge the mental state of the people in prison for public protection. It should not be allowed just to drift on and on. There are lots of amendments to the Bill, and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has signed them all. I can see that he is trying to find a solution and he accepts that there may be problems in finding a precise way forward, but I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to give this a fair wind. The most important thing is that they acknowledge that there has been a severe miscarriage of justice that needs putting right. That would be an extremely good start. I will mention another word that has not been mentioned: class. These people are not middle-class people. When I was in the European Parliament, I was one of the founders of its human rights sub-committee and we went all over the place. We went to places such as the Czech Republic, as it then was, and to unfashionable places where the British Government were very concerned about human rights, such as Nicaragua. I had a very enjoyable time in Nicaragua visiting its prisons. But the key thing I noticed was that, certainly in eastern Europe, most prisoners were forgotten because they were ordinary people. They had no universities behind them nor people campaigning for them. They were basically working-class people who had fallen foul of the system. Under the very authoritarian regimes that existed, particularly in eastern Europe, many of these people were locked up, and for many of them it was an indeterminate sentence. The gulag was an indeterminate sentence. Most of the people in the gulag were working-class. They were not intellectuals. The few that were, such as Sharansky and Daniel, had big campaigns mounted for them. I helped with those campaigns, but the fact of the matter is that many of the prisoners, as Gorbachev found when he came to power and started overhauling the system, were there by accident. They should not have been there at all. They had no advocates, they had no people behind them—maybe a partner 1,000 miles away across Russia, but no organised campaigns. That is the case with many of these people. I wonder how many of the 1,000 know each other, talk to each other and are able to swap notes and see how they might get out of the situation that they are in. I am not going to deal with individual amendments, but they all point in the same direction. They are a genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the colleagues who have tabled them to move the matter forward. This House is unique, in a way. I do not think you would have a debate like this in the Commons because there are more vested interests down there, but here we can be dispassionate. One of the things I am saying we need to be dispassionate about is the fact that there has been a massive miscarriage of justice and that now has to be put right. It is up to this Government, just as it was to the previous Government. I fully support what Alex Chalk was trying to do. He was my son’s MP. My son was one of the few people who voted for him, but he did not hold his seat. He was a good Justice Minister, as was as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who I knew when he was in that job. We have to move things forward. Somehow Ministers have to get hold of the Civil Service and say, “This is a blot on the British record for human rights”. Of course, some people should not be released, but their cases should be reviewed, and there should be some form of appeal and some form of sentence. If they are not to be released, the sentence should be subject to review. I suspect a number of them have become institutionalised, and that a number of them were mentally ill before they ended up in prison, but our job as a public body is to make it possible for the justice system to be seen to be fair. My concern is that of these 1,000 people in prison today, probably 700 or 800 of them have no family, friends or social network, and that when they are let out they are going to need a lot of support to adjust back into the community. This is the beginning of a big challenge. I hope our Ministers will be able to take it on board and solve this blot on our justice system.

My Lords, many of the points that I was going to make today have already been made far more eloquently than I could have made them, so I will not detain the Committee for very long. I have just two short points. First, I have always been quite impressed with the Government’s argument that they are responsible for public protection, that they therefore cannot release people who are assessed to be a risk to the public and that any resentencing exercise would just take us around in circles because it would have to incorporate a safety assessment and we would end up back where we are today. But I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said and the statistic that 80% of IPPs in prison are there when their index offence was non-violent—I think I heard that correctly. That is an astonishing thing. I have learned something. If that is the case, how does the public protection argument stack up? Surely there is some answer to it if these people were originally convicted of non-violent offences. Secondly, if the Government are nevertheless resolute that they do not want a resentencing exercise, I strongly commend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because the Bill and the amendments show how diverse the IPP population is. That is important, because this should affect the way the Parole Board assesses risk and the way that the Probation Service considers whether to recall. To take just three categories illustrated by the amendments, first, there are those who have been previously released, who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, are in a completely different category from those who have not. They have been assessed on a previous occasion to be safe to release. If they have been recalled, the fact that they have been previously released, and therefore considered safe, means that the burden and standard of proof on the Prison and Probation Service should be very high to show that they are still dangerous at their next review. The second category is those who were juveniles when they committed their offences. The courts have been clear that young people are far more likely to rehabilitate quickly and are more open to it. For example, in the case of tariffs and detention during His Majesty’s pleasure, the courts have said that in the case of juveniles, their tariffs need to be reviewed much more regularly. Thirdly and finally, there is the category of those who are mentally ill. We know from expert psychological evidence—in the third report to the Justice Committee—that the effect of the IPP sentence itself is a major factor in the mental health of IPP prisoners. The report said that “someone may be deemed too high risk to be released based on their current mental health presentation, rather than based on their original offence.” If that is the case, consideration should be given to transferring these prisoners to a more suitable environment than prison for treating them appropriately. Whatever the Government’s decision on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I very much hope that it will lead to further progress in reducing the IPP and DPP prison population.

My Lords, looking around the Committee at the legal expertise present, I feel rather underqualified. However, I worked as a trustee for the Koestler Arts trust for some years, and that leads me to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Hastings that what people in prison need to achieve rehabilitation—which I know that the Government want—is hope. What has happened as a result of IPP is that hope has been replaced by uncertainty and inequality. We clearly have to put that right. The other reason that I wanted to speak today was that the late and learned Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Simon, was a close friend of mine. He made such an impassioned speech from these Benches that it made me feel that I too had to take up this cause because IPP, as we have heard, has resulted in enormous injustice. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that that figure—that 80% are non-violent—is terrifying. I say to noble Lords on the Front Bench, who are distinguished in the law themselves, that if they could—and I really imagine that they will want to—shed some light on this, to seek by some way light at the end of the tunnel, that would be welcomed across the House. I will not go on, because it has all been said and this is not the time to do so, but I say to noble Lords: please try to find a way forward here.

My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his determination on and commitment to this matter, both today and on several previous occasions. The injustice of the IPP sentence, and its effects, which continue, are not in dispute. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is a miscarriage of justice, and we are dealing here with an injustice. I will just take a moment to recognise the work that he did to try to rectify another injustice: that of the refuseniks in the former Soviet Union. A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, showed guts in the work he did. The changes that he put in place, to an extent, ameliorated the situation. Perhaps unlike some Members of the Committee, I note that this is not Second Reading, so perhaps I will be forgiven for not repeating all the points I made then. The Committee should be under no illusion about my position on IPP, which I hope I have made clear on a number of occasions. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said, it is up to us on the Front Benches, so to speak, to try to sort it out, although the Minister has a singular advantage over me, in that he is in government and I am not. But he can take it from me that we will work constructively with him on this issue and we will continue to discuss it, as we have on previous occasions. To paraphrase a famous rabbinic phrase, even if we cannot finish the work, we none the less have an obligation to do what we can to progress it and make things better.

14:45:00

Today, we are looking, as a Committee, at particular amendments to the Bill. I should perhaps be the first to say something about each of the amendments. The first group has to do with resentencing. I dealt with the principle of resentencing in my Second Reading speech and I will not repeat those points. It seems to me that the real issue is whether we have resentencing as a matter of policy. I made the point that, for those in prison, that would usually result in immediate release of people who often fairly recently had been deemed to be dangerous. So we on the Front Bench take issue with the premise underlying the amendments, but we share the aim, which is to ensure that all those currently serving IPP sentences in prison or in the community are removed wherever it is possible to do so.

I will say a word or two about the amendments, because they all seem to me to be different ways of putting substantially the same point of principle. On Amendment 1, on the expert advisory committee, it is not clear to me what the Lord Chancellor’s duty would be if “may” is interposed into Clause 1. It seems to me that the issues go together. If there is going to be a committee, it should be about how the resentencing is done.

Amendment 2, on resentencing only for those on licence, is not about changing the terms of the recall— although there might well be a useful debate on that—but about whether there should be resentencing only for those on licence. We would suggest that the better way forward is to continue the work of the former Lord Chancellor to reduce the period of the licence and ensure that those on licence get the support they need to make sure they are not recalled.

On Amendment 3, on resentencing for those “10 years over tariff”, it is not clear what is meant by the “tariff”—I do not know whether that is meant to be the index sentence—but it goes back to the fundamental problem of dangerousness, which I have already mentioned.

Amendment 10 singles out those on the juvenile equivalent. I suggest that we need to focus on everybody who is currently in prison or on licence for IPP offences. I am not sure in principle why there should be a different rule for somebody sentenced one day before, as opposed to one day after, their 18th birthday.

Finally, Amendments 11 and 12 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who again has done a huge amount of work in this area. They are about the nature of the sentence that can be imposed by the resentencing court. The noble Lord is right to remind us of the reforms in 2008, but again these amendments also are predicated on the underlying resentencing policy, which is the point with which we take exception.

I end by saying that IPP was and remains an injustice. We have made some progress but not enough. We will work constructively with the Minister and, therefore, from these Benches, we look forward with interest to what he has to say.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley and to every Peer who has brought such sustained focus to the imprisonment for public protection sentence. Their passion and the compassion of the families, campaigners and practitioners have quite rightly kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Member’s Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy it proposes. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who takes over the responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hear the mood of the Committee in wanting to move forward, and quickly. I share this sentiment, but we do not think that resentencing is the right way to move this forward. Today I want to be absolutely clear. My priority is to address the IPP legacy safely, fairly and in a way that endures. Since taking office, I have met many IPP prisoners and their families. I have listened to victims and front-line staff, chaired round tables and campaign groups and walked the landings with governors and probation leaders. Every conversation has strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every available operational lever. Even yesterday I met an IPP prisoner at HMP Eastwood Park who has her parole hearing today. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on communication. It is absolutely vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made. Yesterday I was pleased to see multiple copies of Inside Time around the prison, but I will take that back to the department and consider how we can do more. We are already seeing what determined practical action we can achieve. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 automatically ended the licence for 1,742 people, with hundreds more cases now moving through the Parole Board on an accelerated timetable. That is real progress: people rebuilding their lives, victims protected and the public kept safe. Let us stand back and look at the wider trajectory. The total IPP prison population has fallen from 5,040 in 2015 to 2,544 today, with the unreleased cohort down to 1,012. Meanwhile, rigorous supervision keeps risks low. Fewer than 0.5% of all offenders under statutory supervision were convicted of a serious further offence last year. Those figures show we can shrink the cohort while maintaining the confidence and safety of victims. We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second annual report on the IPP sentence, alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets: 90% of IPP prisoners in the right prison for their needs by December, for example, and sharper deadlines for parole and termination reports. It hard-wires accountability at every level. I know that Peers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and that the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform have serious reservations about the Bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved without pursuing what is proposed in the Bill. We have a plan, and it is working. Early results from that plan are encouraging. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were safely re-released—the highest figure ever recorded. While recalls fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly there is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population, the Parole Board continues to release around 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm on risk and ambitious on progression, is exactly what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan shoulder to shoulder with colleagues across both Houses, with campaign groups and, crucially, with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever until each individual who can be safely released is safely released and then supported to stay out. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Howard League report. We are exploring in particular the ways to improve recall decisions and speed up post-recall review processes. While I cannot back a resentencing exercise that would short-circuit the Parole Board’s vital public protection role, I will champion relentless evidence-based progress. Let us channel the energy of the Bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will, with the House’s continued challenge and support, allow many more IPP offenders to complete their sentence and move on with their lives. I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for Amendment 1 on the creation of an expert advisory committee, which would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may, rather than must, carry out. I understand the desire to provide the Lord Chancellor with advice on this matter. However, as raised at Second Reading, my concern remains that the creation of an expert advisory committee risks giving false hope to those serving the IPP sentence, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement its recommendations. This is only confirmed in my regular meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and a wide range of respected organisations have considered the issue of resentencing, yet there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise in a way that would not involve releasing offenders the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. I recognise the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to address this issue by limiting a resentencing exercise to those currently in the community in Amendment 2. This would avoid the issue of prisoners being released without the Parole Board’s direction that the release test is met. I respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which means they will have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release, or two for those sentenced when under 18, rather than 10. They also know that even if their licence is not terminated at this point, it will be terminated automatically if they are not recalled in the subsequent two-year period. Those in the community have, of course, met the Parole Board’s release test, but only on the basis that they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place in the form of licence conditions. This amendment would remove those licence conditions much earlier—potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been in prison for a significant period of time should have the resettlement support from the Probation Service, and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Garnier, that licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board. Amendment 3 would restrict the resentencing exercise to IPP offenders who are 10 years over their tariff, both in custody and in the community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for this amendment. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their tariff has expired. Resentencing IPP prisoners who have served 10 years over their tariff would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. For this cohort in particular, the independent Parole Board will have repeatedly determined—at least every two years since the offender reached the end of their tariff—that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not met the statutory release test. For that reason, all those serving the IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community, they would have been recently released either for the first time or after being recalled. They need continued oversight to manage their risk and support from the Probation Service to progress them towards licence termination. Amendment 10 would restrict a resentencing exercise to those serving a detention for public protection—DPP—sentence. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant force for change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges faced by those serving a DPP sentence. That is why those in the community now have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board two years after their initial release and will therefore also have their licence terminated automatically a year earlier than those on the IPP sentence, if the Parole Board does not terminate it at the end of the qualifying period. There are now fewer than 30 individuals serving DPP sentences in the community and currently fewer than 100 in custody. The IPP action plan includes a specific focus on DPP offenders, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be comforted that there are more frequent reviews by psychology services and that the Parole Board prioritises listing these cases for consideration. However, our position remains that, as with those serving an IPP, those serving a DPP sentence should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. This is the only way we can ensure that the public and victims are best protected. Finally in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom I thank for these amendments and for his thoughtful contributions to our IPP round tables, relate to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July 2008. The sentence was amended to give judges greater discretion over its use and to limit it to offenders who received at least a two-year tariff. Again, I recognise the purpose behind the amendments, but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2008 cohort irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of their risk. Our view remains that IPP prisoners should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments, or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders, for the reasons I have set out. These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individuals serving the IPP sentence. Unfortunately, they do not address the Government’s public protection concerns and would put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and, with the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, there is already a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way. The changes implemented are expected to reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds. I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and, as I have set out, I believe the IPP action is the best way to achieve this. To conclude, I should like to give two final examples of the progress made to support the IPP population. First, the approved premises pilot, which has recently concluded, extended the time for which IPP offenders could remain in an AP from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in four APs. At one, 23 out of 26 men moved on successfully after their placement ended. We also saw a 7% decrease in recalls at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that pre-release work, combined with training for staff and extra support, has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community. If we can successfully replicate this across the approved premises estate, the impact could be significant. Secondly, we are taking action to enable swift re-release following recall where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This summer, we will see the publication of the progression panel policy framework, which will ensure that a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender who is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the Risk Assessed Recall Review process, which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early re-release. These panels also help prisoners prepare for release, which aids their resettlement into the community. Measures such as these will help individuals progress through their sentence towards having it terminated. I hope noble Lords are reassured by some of the updates that I have provided today. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can, as hard as I can, to support IPP prisoners so that they can get out of prison and stay out.

I thank the Minister for his response. I was very pleased to forewarn him of my speech, to give him more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very serious matter, especially bearing in mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of this debate. I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s answer, because it is very much more of the same that he has given us on two other occasions: he does not wish resentencing to be part of the move forward. I still really struggle to turn around and understand how the Minister cannot convince himself that it is the right thing to do for those groups of individuals that I have pointed out today—colleagues have supported me—who really do not create any sort of risk to the public. Those people who are already out on probation and have been released by the Parole Board are a perfect example, never mind the kids and others. Nevertheless, all we can do is our best to encourage a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. This Minister is genuine, he is honest and he is doing as much as he feels he can to give hope and support to this victimised group of more than 3,000 individuals. I sincerely hope his words will lead to even more actions than have been done today as he moves away from the Chamber. But it is a bit of a struggle when, only a week ago, we saw an individual who was finally released out into the community but was arrested within 24 hours and sent back into prison again—and released again and sent back into prison again. Or we might end up with a guy who is now mentally unstable, created by the system, and who has been trying to get out of prison. With your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution, only to find that not long thereafter he is sent straight back into the same prison, which creates the same mental instability. It does not work and, no matter what the Minister says, it certainly has not given us the answers to the hundreds of problems associated with IPP sentences. I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I am proud of each and every one of them. Their contributions were fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well informed, and I thank them on behalf of all those prisoners for what they have said and what they are trying to do. There is no doubt that we have got our message across but, in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.

Amendment 4

Moved by

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert— “(5) A Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor must re-sentence the person serving the IPP sentence in relation to the original offence or offences, and any associated offences.(6) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon the basis of which the tariff was specified as needing to be served before an application for early release might be made.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would ensure those serving IPP cannot be resentenced more severely than the notional determinate sentence upon which the minimum term was based. Confirmation of IPP is preserved for those falling into the category specified in subsection (6A), added by another amendment in the name of Lord Woodley, to ensure public safety.

My Lords, this is quite challenging because this group of amendments was designed as a voting group, but I have been informed that there are not enough people in the House, so we will not be taking a vote on them. That is what I was informed of a few minutes ago, which somewhat cuts the legs from under me, to be quite honest. I do not want to waffle on about all the things that we have been talking about with the hope, belief and view that we were going to vote on them, so, with that in mind, and with the greatest reluctance—and I really mean that—I will be withdrawing this amendment.

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be with your Lordships at Second Reading, but I read the excellent contributions in Hansard. That, as well as listening today, confirmed that, like everyone else, I want to commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for this Private Member’s Bill. It has done a huge amount, yet once more, to raise the issue. The noble Lord is one of those thorn-in-the-side type of people—you know, the awkward squad—and that is the greatest compliment I can give him, because I think that is how things change. Important issues have already been raised. I did not speak on the first group for time purposes, so I will bring some of it forward. The noble Lord’s approach to this resentencing exercise is refreshing, because he has offered to do whatever he can to ensure that it is not turned into, as it is too often caricatured, some chaotic mess with inadequate oversight. Instead, through all these amendments, we are looking to use whatever mechanisms we can to convert these never-ending IPP sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end in sight. That means we are prepared to make compromises and look at all options—nothing is off the table. In that spirit, rather than treating all IPP prisoners as an undifferentiated blob, I am glad to see that today’s amendments try to tackle the different cohorts within the IPP population and work out how best to deal with each group reasonably, and maybe differently, to edge towards justice. The focus of my Amendment 7 is IPP prisoners suffering mental illness, giving the resentencing court the power to continue incarceration if someone still presents a risk to the public, as, due to mental disorder, they may be dangerous. This would, in effect, replace an IPP sentence with a secure hospital order, and would be a backstop safeguard for the Government to use in dealing with one difficult group of IPP-ers. One key aspect of the context here—we have heard this again and again from the Front Benches on both sides of the House—is that, in explaining his resistance to resentencing, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, stressed that “the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public”—[Official Report, 15/11/24; col. 2044.] and that, therefore, the focus will always continue to be on public safety. I am not convinced that that is not too crude a measure of the Government’s main priority—always to protect the public—but, regardless, it seems that the MoJ is fixated on and perhaps even paralysed by the notion of dangerousness and IPPs. I have never been convinced by the argument that IPPs are en masse a distinct group of offenders who are especially dangerous—much more so than other prisoners on determinate sentences for far more heinous crimes, who are often released into the community at their sentence end or are let out on early release to solve the state’s prison crisis. I want to take this chance to cite a letter that I received from one IPP prisoner, in which he talked of his frustration at seeing early-release prisoners walking out every day, laughing and joking having told prison officers to shove their sentence plan, boasting about how they are going to earn 100 times more than prison officers by selling class-A drugs, and having had adjudications for offences relating to alcohol, phones, drugs, violence and cell destruction all wiped clean—yet they still get an early release. My correspondent pointed out that IPPs are almost choirboys in comparison, but they are left to rot. However, I concede that one risk factor makes hundreds of IPP prisoners not choirboys: the very nature of the IPP sentence is so psychologically toxic that it has itself damaged prisoners’ mental health and cause problematic behaviour. This theme has been well rehearsed in all our debates in this Chamber and is evidenced in all the literature. As we know, the despair and sense of hopelessness associated with this sentence contributes to making some IPP prisoners ill; we know about the appalling self-harm and suicide numbers. What is more, ill IPP prisoners have a double whammy: they are often wary of disclosing a decline in their mental health to prison staff in case it could knock back a parole hearing. So the IPP regime contributes to untreated illness, with no intervention to stop deterioration, and that creates even more risky behaviour. The irony is that the prisoners are arguably becoming less safe to release precisely because they are being held indefinitely, which creates so much pent up anger and frustration, and loss of agency, with no hope. That potent mix is leading to instability, people lashing out and disengagement, all of which are barriers to progressing release. It also means that, in the context of this Bill, a percentage of IPP prisoners could be too ill to be considered for resentencing. This is partly because prisons are not the right location to deal with mental illness. As the Minister knows, the Government have agreed that prison is not the right setting for prisoners who are ill; he knows this because it was an important element of the Mental Health Bill that passed through the Lords, declaring that prisons should not be treated as places of safety. I moved amendments on that issue, with a focus on IPP prisoners, in Committee and on Report. My amendment today follows up on that discussion. It acknowledges that, given that the punishment part of the sentence of an IPP-er has long since been discharged, where there are still concerns about risk and dangerousness because of mental health challenges, a mental health setting is more appropriate than prison. This would allow the Sentencing Council to use hospital orders to ensure that the public protection aspect of such concerns is dealt with appropriately, while also making sure that the prisoner is in the right setting. Where someone has apparently become not safe enough to release because of an illness that the state has helped to induce, this seems to me to be a reasonable and elegant solution. In this way, IPP-sentenced individuals can access targeted help for their distress and have their deterioration and behaviour clinically managed. This can allow progression via specially designed therapeutic and pharmacological in-patient care, in a psychiatric setting that can, we hope, build up and help the recovery of ill individuals with dignity.

15:15:00

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, noted that 30% of IPP offenders are not in appropriate settings. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, conceded this reality and said that the MoJ was addressing this, urgently working with HMPPS to make sure that people are transferred to the best prisons to access interventions and services that will aid their rehabilitation. My emphasis on moving mentally ill people into hospitals and using hospital orders is even more important in these settings, which I would urge as an immediate priority.

We have all recently been celebrating the fact that, at last, Thomas White has been discharged from prison into a hospital cell and will now be a patient, not a prisoner. He has been discussed in this House many times. It is so depressing that we call that move a victory, when it has been such a hard and gruelling slog over six years, involving so many people’s hard work and dedication to pull it off—the huge courage and campaigning of his sister Clara and the magnificent journalism of Amy-Clare Martin at the Independent. His case has been continually raised by MPs and Peers. I give a special shout-out to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his personal interventions with the family and full credit to the Minister for visiting Mr White in March. But that is a huge amount of political intervention to get someone who was so obviously too ill for prison into hospital.

Mr White developed paranoid schizophrenia while in custody as an IPP prisoner. He was repeatedly smashing his face on the floor of the maximum-security HMP Manchester. He set himself on fire in his cell. Three psychiatrists called for him to be moved to hospital and two medical reports warned that his lengthy incarceration was creating impermeable barriers to his recovery, yet he was repeatedly refused a hospital bed. So, hurrah, he will now get appropriate treatment, but we cannot continue depending on high-profile campaigns and massive political intervention for IPP prisoners to access what should be an obvious conclusion when they get ill. If we stick with the status quo position, as somebody else mentioned—

I remind the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking limit for this debate is 10 minutes.

I am sorry. The status quo position is that, when Mr Thomas becomes well and stable in hospital, he will be returned to the prison as an IPP-er. That seems unconscionable. All this amendment does is suggest that people are referred when they are mentally ill to a hospital and that the hospital then uses a clinical assessment to decide when they are well. When they are well, they are not dangerous and can be released. That can be part of the resentencing procedure.

My Lords, I am conscious of the time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has put her finger on a problem that the Government have not properly faced but which they will have to face soon: the commendable action plan they have been pursuing with vigour will not reach a large number of prisoners who have not been released before, because, for the action plan to work at the individual level, the individual has to engage successfully with the processes of the Parole Board. We know now that, of the 1,000 or so prisoners who have never been released, a significant number no longer have the mental capacity to do that. Those are the people to whom the noble Baroness draws attention. I wish to add to that group a further, possibly overlapping, group of prisoners, who may have mental capacity but refuse to engage with the process because of understandable disillusionment arising from their experience of the process in the past. These people will not be addressed by an action plan that requires that successful engagement. The Government have to come up with something else, because at the moment they have nothing for them; the alternative is that they simply stay in prison until they die. If not today, because we are coming to a close, then on an occasion not too far in the future, I think the House would like to hear what the Government propose to do for these people.

I wanted to participate in this debate principally to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introduction. Throughout the stages of the Bill, he has been clear and concise about the need for this legislation, and his contribution today was magnificent. All the speeches have been clear about the total injustice of the situation in which we find ourselves. I have little doubt that the views are shared by the Members on the Front Bench. The two issues that I wanted to raise—first, the mental health aspects of the problem and, secondly, the fact that we can no longer rely on people to manoeuvre through this system under their own power—have been powerfully addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so I will not repeat them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address them in his reply. I emphasise to my noble friend the Minister that he has, in effect, said—he will perhaps tell me if I am wrong—that we do not need resentencing, as set out in this Bill, because the action plan will deal with the problem. Because of his particular position, he was brought into this House and into the Government to address this issue with the prison system alongside the other issues that we have. I stress—not in a very friendly way, although he is my noble friend—that it is really on his shoulders to get this sorted out. By rejecting the resentencing approach, the approach pursued by the Government has to work. It is on my noble friend the Minister’s shoulders to get this sorted out and to address the problems of mental health and the fact that large proportions of those remaining in prison are incapable of manoeuvring through the system by themselves. The Government have to provide them with support, either through the department or by funding some external agency that will give those suffering from this injustice a way out of the maze.

My Lords, given the way the debate on these amendments has gone—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—I propose to say only a few words about Amendment 7, which is, as I understand it, the only live amendment, so to speak. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who, as is always the case, has given us a lot of food for thought. There is no doubt that the mental health aspect of the IPP issue is very real, not least because, as I said at Second Reading, my concern is that there will be prisoners who have developed mental health problems while in prison and indeed because of the sentence itself. I think I said that that was a stain on the British state and, if so, I was right to do so. My noble friend Lord Moylan is therefore right to highlight the issue of mental health. That said, it is not immediately clear to me, looking at the words of the amendment, that the conditions in (6B) and (6C) are necessarily the right conditions to be imposed in this context. Of course, I appreciate that this amendment was tabled to raise the issue rather than to focus on the particular words. I therefore look forward to what the Minister has to say about Amendment 7.

My Lords, the second group of amendments clarify the Bill’s clauses and make important changes to the wording. However, the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. I will respond to all the amendments in turn as I want to set out the Government’s position. My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 4 sets out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle, but it is already established by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is required. My noble friend’s Amendment 5 would allow a resentencing court to retain the IPP sentence where the offender might properly have received a life sentence and where, at the time of resentencing, they constitute a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. Crucially, this would not prevent the resentencing of those who do not fall within these parameters and whom the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released. This is because the test being applied by a resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board’s statutory test. My noble friend’s Amendment 6 would provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended licence on release, if it deemed it necessary. Noble Lords are aware of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act that allow for licence termination. This amendment would still involve the release of IPP prisoners who have previously been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test. It would therefore not address our fundamental public protection concerns about undertaking a resentencing exercise. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendment 7, and acknowledge her empathetic consideration for the individuals serving IPP sentences who require additional support for their mental health, especially the 233 individuals in secure hospitals. The amendment would allow a resentencing exercise to substitute an IPP sentence with a hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed, whereas this amendment would lead to a hospital order being substituted when an offender currently has a mental disorder. As with earlier amendments, this amendment would remove the IPP sentence irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of an individual’s risk. Instead, the individual could be released by a mental health review tribunal. This process may not fully consider the risk posed to victims and the public. IPP prisoners, like any prisoner, can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be transferred to secure mental health hospitals if this care is required, and I am currently working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported towards release when that care is no longer required. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about disengaged IPP-ers, as I refer to them, and hospital returnees. It concerns me that, for example, they may be returned to a category B local prison, which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I am very keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for Amendment 8. Although the Government do not support the Bill, I understand the intention behind her amendment to assess the impact on services if the Bill were to become law. There is, however, already a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act for the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders. The annual report is expected to be published by Summer Recess and will show the progress that has been made. Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan on 26 April 2023, there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. Additionally, when I became a Minister, 70% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prison for their needs. This has now increased to around 80% and HMPPS continues to make improvements in this area. This will help more of these individuals progress towards a release because they will be better able to access the support they need. The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 9, would reduce the licence period of one year for those who were subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment does not define what would constitute an invalid recall, and my noble friend is perhaps referring to an unlawful recall, which would likely be the legal interpretation. If, however, he is suggesting scenarios where further information comes to light and the reasons for recall should be reconsidered, there is the risk-assessed recall review—RARR—process.

15:30:00

Around 40 recalled IPP offenders have already been re-released using this power, when they were due to wait for a number of months before their Schedule 4 hearing. When considering RARR, the Secretary of State also has the power to consider whether it is in the interests of justice to treat the licence as having remained in force during the period of the recall. Under this power, offenders therefore would not need to restart a new two-year period on licence in the community before their licence will terminate automatically. The Secretary of State also has the power to rescind a recall where appropriate.

I have previously set out, at Second Reading, the Government’s reservations with this Bill. The Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for all those serving the IPP sentence, but not in a way that puts the public and victims at risk. We must bear in mind that an IPP sentence was imposed where offenders were convicted of a serious specified violent or sexual offence. According to published data, around 30% of all IPP prisoners in December 2023 were convicted of a sexual offence. There are still many individuals who are capable of causing serious violent or sexual harm, which is why we must press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever. The IPP action plan ensures that prisoners serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans and that they are in the correct prison to access the right interventions and rehabilitative services.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period. It allows for the termination of the IPP sentence in a safe and sustainable way, ensuring that the public and victims are safe and, most importantly, provides a clear route for the end of this sentence for the IPP cohort. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton challenged me, the action plan is where we will get this sorted out. I want to do more, we will need to do more and it is the IPP action plan that is best placed to make this happen.

My Lords, I was slightly confused in the summation. The implication, if you were just listening in and did not know about this subject, is that, largely, people were given IPP sentences originally because of sexual and violent acts. That is not accurate. Maybe the Minister could clarify what he meant by that. One of the arguments that I was putting forward—maybe the Minister could reflect on this—is that the dangerousness we keep hearing about from different Governments’ versions of the MoJ is often associated with a deterioration of behaviour because of poor mental health created by the sentence. The Minister says that the Parole Board are the only people who can assess whether the behaviour is dangerous or not but, in the instances of mental illness, would it not be better for a clinical assessment? Hospitals have to make decisions all the time about releasing people based on whether they are dangerous or not. They are in a much stronger position, surely, than the Parole Board, which does not necessarily understand mental ill health.

HMIP did a report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionately. I believe that the Parole Board has the right skills and experience to make these often very difficult and complex decisions. On the make-up of the cohort of IPP prisoners, I will write with the exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.

My Lords, this Committee has not materialised in the way that I would have preferred. Not least, it has not led towards what I hoped was going to be a vote or, maybe more importantly, the Minister finally agreeing to move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohort that we have highlighted so carefully and fairly. While I have that disappointment, I think it is fair to say that we have done one thing that IPP prisoners will be grateful for. We have yet again raised awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and among the wider public. There is therefore no way to say, “We will do something”, and then do nothing. There is no escape for us in this House to ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day. Once again, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Davies. The expertise that they have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and their support is, as always, very much appreciated. I shall finish where my noble friend Lord Davies finished, and the Minister has just said it: it is in your hands now, sir. It is no good being a nice man with a good heart whose will is there to try to make these changes if we then find that we are back in 12 months or two years and nothing has moved and the number of people who have committed suicide has gone from 100 to 110. It is now on the Minister’s shoulders, and I look forward to working with him and others to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades now.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendments 5 and 6 not moved.

Amendment 7

Tabled by

7: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert— “(6A) A court carrying out a review of a sentence of IPP may substitute a hospital order, with or without a restriction on release, for a sentence of IPP.(6B) A court may not make a hospital order under subsection (6A) unless—(a) it has received evidence from two registered medical practitioners that the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for them to be detained in hospital for treatment, and(b) those medical professionals have recommended what treatment would be appropriate.(6C) A court may not add a restriction on release to a hospital order unless—(a) it is satisfied that the subject of that hospital order poses a significant risk to the public if not detained in a hospital, (b) one registered medical practitioner who has given oral evidence in court supports the making of a restriction order, and(c) it is satisfied that appropriate in-patient treatment is available for the defendant concerned.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would ensure those serving IPP and suffering from a mental disorder who present a significant risk are detained in a secure mental hospital until discharged by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales or a Secretary of State.

I want to say one thing. When people say that we do not want to give people false hope, the obvious thing is to do something real so that they have real hope. We do not have to give them false hope, we can change things, but I shall not move the amendment.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.

Clause 2: Interpretation

Amendments 10 to 12 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

House adjourned at 3.37 pm.