Imprisonment for Public Protection (Resentencing) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th September 2024
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberImprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]
Friday 15th November 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberImprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate today and to lead this important legislative campaign to abolish, once and for all, the great injustice that is imprisonment for public protection—or IPP sentences.
Parliament abolished IPP sentences on human rights grounds in 2012 but not, unfortunately, retrospectively, leaving thousands stuck with no hope and serving long, long-discredited, sentences. At least 90 prisoners have taken their own lives. Some are now free, both from prison and from licence in the community, having jumped through the right hoops—at least those who were fortunate enough to have the hoops to jump through.
I pay tribute, though, to the previous Lord Chancellor, and the current one, for making significant changes to shorten the licence period, ending this living nightmare for around 1,800 former IPP prisoners earlier this month. But many prisoners are still living this nightmare, and it is those people who I focus my Bill on, which quite simply seeks to convert these never-ending IPP torture sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end date, giving them hope.
There are three groups we are concerned with here. The first is the never released IPP prisoners, of which there were 1,095 at the end of September this year. The second is the recalled 1,600 people who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release, but who have since been recalled to prison due to a licence breach, though in the majority of cases for no further offence. They now need again to prove to the board, 18 months or more into the future, that they will still be safe for release. The third is those now out on licence—around 1,200 people currently considered safe by the Parole Board, yet still living in a state of fear and paranoia about recall to custody.
My Bill seeks to resentence all three groups eventually, along the lines suggested by the Justice Committee in the other place back in 2022. In fact, the Bill mirrors the amendment first moved by the committee’s widely respected former chair, Sir Bob Neill, to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and then in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, resentencing was described by the committee as,
“the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence”.
Crucially, the committee also recommended setting up
“a time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary”.
The role of the expert advisory committee is extremely important but rarely, if ever, acknowledged by the Government. I sincerely hope the Minister will address this concern. The expert committee, hand-picked by the Government, alongside the judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, would be free to explore all options for resentencing and to make suggestions for how this could indeed be achieved, balancing the important fundamental principle of justice with the importance of public protection. My Bill then calls on the Government to enact legislation to enable this resentencing to take place for all three groups, but in whatever order the committee advises, perhaps prioritising those with the shortest tariff or the longest time over tariff.
At this point, I make an apology for a couple of flaws in the Bill, which have been graciously pointed out to me by Nicholas Cooke KC, a former deputy High Court judge who has himself handed down IPP sentences. There are two flaws for us to be concerned with, and I will immediately table amendments that I hope will address them both in Committee. I genuinely apologise in advance if the following is less suited to Second Reading than Committee, but I believe that the Bill must be in the best possible shape if it is to find any favour with His Majesty’s Government. I hope there are elements of the Bill that the Minister might find palatable.
The first flaw relates to Clause 1(6) about imposing no heavier penalty than the original tariff. Of course, the tariff was set as a minimum release date, equivalent to a standard release of 50% of the way through a sentence, which now, of course, is 40% with SDS40 involved. The correct maximum penalty to be imposed with resentencing, therefore, would be double this tariff. My first amendment will clarify this.
The second flaw concerns those people who would otherwise be sentenced to life imprisonment had IPP not been available and who are still considered a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. I accept that there should be provision for keeping an IPP sentence in place in those circumstances, although I suspect this would apply to only a relatively small number of cases.
None of this is meant to distract from the very real need for movement by this Government on resentencing. I am aware, as are your Lordships, that the Government’s current position, as in Opposition and like the previous Government’s position, is that resentencing will not be considered on the grounds of public protection. This has been expressed by new Ministers, but there appears to be some confusion as to what resentencing actually means.
Most recently, at a Westminster Hall debate last month, Minister Dakin expressed concern that
“resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 242WH.]
With respect, this is a distorted reading of the Justice Committee’s report, and I hope the Minister will address this discrepancy in due course. The missing point, as was highlighted, I think, by every other speaker in that debate apart from the Opposition spokesperson, is that the expert advisory committee would be there to ensure that this is not the case. For example, the committee could advise that releases should be staggered so that probation can properly mitigate any risk, with suitable licence periods imposed. Please can we move the argument on from automatic release and no supervision to the practicalities of what a fair and safe resentencing exercise would actually look like?
My Bill proposes, as did the Select Committee, that everyone on an IPP sentence—all three groups mentioned earlier—is resentenced within a set period of time. But if the Government cannot stomach what was described in last month’s debate as the “full-fat version” of resentencing then perhaps they might consider partial resentencing, which might look, for example, at just the second two groups to start with: those who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing this safe for release group is less problematic. Or it might look at just the third group: those currently released and living as normal lives as possible in the community. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing them is non-existent, so why will the Government not consider sentencing these people who, I repeat, the Parole Board currently consider safe?
The Minister in the other place made a valiant effort to explain why at the debate, claiming resentencing would
“halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 243WH.]
But of course, as I just explained, that would be entirely up to the Government. If the Government wanted to continue the risk management and support, all they would have to do would be legislate for this as part of a resentencing exercise.
I hope all these issues can be properly explored in Committee if the Government grant time for it, but before I sit down I thank the dozens of individuals and organisations that have contributed to this really important debate. Most of all, I thank all the IPP prisoners and their families who have written to me with such heartbreaking stories of injustice. My message to them and to all those still serving IPPs in prison or in the community is: please do not give up hope. Likewise, I do not want to give false hope. They deserve better from us all.
It is up to the Government, and the Government alone, whether my Bill becomes law, in whole or in part. IPP reform is clearly a matter of conscience, with the principle of justice to be balanced with protecting the public. Therefore, there should be a free vote on this Bill in both Houses, in my opinion, but I want to work now with the new Government to resolve this scandal for good. If that means making compromises to make progress then I am prepared to do just that. I want to use the Bill to find common ground to bring resentencing a step closer, even if we do not reach our final destination immediately.
Let us work together to end this scandal and give hope, at long last, to the hopeless. History is being written right now, and my plea to the Government is this: do not be on the wrong side of history. Do not wait for the ITV docudrama to cast you unfairly as uncaring, cold-hearted time-wasters who left damaged people—many of them broken by the state—to rot away in prison while those in power stood by wringing their hands. No. Let us work to find a solution before any more lives are lost to this terrible stain on our precious justice system. In that spirit of co-operation, I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and as an unashamed admirer of my good friend the Minister for all that he did as chairman of the PRT and as chief executive of Timpson, before he became Prisons Minister, in advancing the cause of prison reform and the welfare of prisoners and former prisoners.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech in support of his Bill, and I thank him for his Bill which provides us with an early opportunity in the tenure of this Government to debate the troubling issue of IPP sentences. Several of us—I see a number of others in their places in your Lordships’ House this morning—have been hammering away about this subject for many years. Although, thanks to the previous Lord Chancellor, my good friend Alex Chalk, some progress in bringing this brutal regime to an end has been made, it is fair to say that finishing the work that began with the abolition of the sentence in 2012 still looks some way off.
The latest MoJ figures from September 2024 tell us that there 1,095 offenders serving an IPP sentence who have never been released from prison on licence. Of these unreleased prisoners who have served their minimum tariff, about two-thirds have been held for more than 10 years beyond their tariff. There are, as the noble Lord mentioned a moment ago, almost 1,600—the number is 1,599—offenders subject to IPP sentences who are in prison on recall.
The English language is a rich one, but even it runs short of adjectives to describe the disgusting state of affairs that is described by people being recalled to prison for an indefinite period for minor breaches of their licences, having already been released many years after the tariff has expired. We must stop recalling people who have committed trivial or non-serious breaches of their licence.
Time does not permit me to set out the whole litany of disgraceful aspects of the IPP regime. For present purposes, while I can concede that there will be political and practical difficulties and risks for the Government, and additional burdens for the court, in having to administer a resentencing exercise for the 2,700 or so IPP prisoners in custody and the hundreds, if not thousands, of others out on licence, saying that it is all too difficult and that we can improve things only at a risk-averse glacial pace is unacceptable, inhumane and uncivilised. If the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who I am delighted to see in his place, the Labour Home Secretary who legislated for IPP 20 years ago, can bravely speak up for the need for reform, the current Labour Government should have the courage and decency to bring this miserable saga to an end without delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, indicated, resentencing does not necessarily mean immediate release from custody or licence restrictions in every case, although I suspect that in about 90% of cases that should be the result.
As the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood memorably said several times in your Lordships’ House, the IPP sentence and its consequences are a stain on our criminal justice system. It may not be easy or convenient to remove that stain, but it is not impossible. The Government have a moral duty urgently to remove it, and now is not too soon.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I echo the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, when I ask how many scandals have to be endured by the citizens of this country before a Government finally say, “No, we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the Post Office Horizon scandal or Windrush or infected blood or Hillsborough or Grenfell. We are going to act to right wrongs and address horrendous injustices”.
The very welcome initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in proposing this Bill deserves nothing less than a fully positive response from the Government. There is no excuse for not giving one. We are told that so far they have copied the previous Government in refusing to countenance the resentencing solution recommended so forcefully by the Justice Committee in the other place in its 2022 report because they are concerned about dangerous prisoners being released. The admirable then chairman of that committee, Tory Sir Bob Neill, has been followed in the chair by Labour’s Andy Slaughter, who also says that addressing the IPP scandal is a priority.
The first reason to effect change is the very simple and straightforward ethical and moral argument of justice. The Government need to find a backbone. Those behind bars include James Lawrence, who has served almost 18 years after being originally sentenced to just eight months—25 times over his original tariff. Ninety IPP prisoners have committed suicide, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, mentioned. One man set himself alight and another went on hunger strike for 61 days in protest at his plight, which has rightly been called Kafkaesque. Labour’s Bambos Charalambous told the other place in a debate he initiated two weeks ago of
“the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 223WH.]
It is no wonder that the UN special rapporteur on torture has called IPP sentences psychological torture.
What are this Government going to do? Are they going to keep these nearly 3,000 imprisoned people locked up arbitrarily and indefinitely, just like in Guantanamo? That is not hyperbole. Are these prisoners going to become any less dangerous or challenging by getting more and more embittered, angry, hopeless and mentally ill as a result of their outrageous continued confinement? That is surely justification enough to end this scandal but, if it is needed, a second reason is practicality in the light of the prison overcrowding crisis. Of course, the Probation Service needs to be better resourced and other support needs to be put in place in proper release plans to prevent former prisoners experiencing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and other factors that make reoffending more likely, as brought out in the exchange on this topic in Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, was deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in his ministerial role.
The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, rightly talked about risk management and support, and of course that has to be in place, but it comes back to the indefensible inhumanity of keeping these people in prison. I applaud the criminal justice campaigners and the families who have lobbied and battled on this issue. Clara White, sister of Thomas White, whose mental health has, unsurprisingly, deteriorated in prison, where he has languished for 12 years for stealing a mobile phone, has said that it will take a
“stronger fight than ever before”
to finally put an end to this cruel programme. I am up for this fight because I am outraged that not only did the previous Government refuse to act but so far this Government have too. I hope to hear a change of heart.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, so far we are all in agreement, and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for proposing this Bill. Earlier this year, around April, I met a man called Mike at a Harrow youth centre that I had been asked to open. Mike sat me down to remind me that I had met him in autumn last year when he was in a category C prison, and he was delighted to remind me of the details. Last year he had spent nearly 10 months on recall, having been released from an IPP sentence 17 years earlier, as he had forgotten to inform a probation officer that he was taking his wife on holiday in August 2022. As a result of that simple lapse of information, the Probation Service had him recalled to prison. What a waste of public money. What a scandalous destruction of a marriage opportunity. What a pernicious persecution of an individual’s hard-earned freedom for a simple act many decades earlier.
That is exactly why the IPP sentence is so evil and pernicious, and we thank God that the last Government had the guts in their earlier iterations to remove it—albeit not the stamina to deal with the stain of those who remain in prison, nor to end the permanent persecution of those who are outside wondering when the doorbell will ring or a tap on the shoulder will come for some suggestion that they have forgotten an aspect of their sentencing duty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, this is simply psychological torture. It is unacceptable, it is evil and it should not be in our justice system. In fact, it shows us as having an injustice system.
I am wholly supportive of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. As he suggests, it could be amended on one or two minor points but, frankly, we have gone round this circus too many times. The Government would show guts by simply accepting the Bill. I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Timpson: accept the Bill, and then we can deal with amendments brought forward by the Government, if necessary. Let us get the process through and then we can all be proud of the fact that Members both in the other place and here have resolved this painful and unnecessary persecution of people who deserve better than all this.
I noticed some months ago that the previous Government were happy to announce in the other place that there should be simple legislation to end the Post Office postmasters’ scandalous sentencing—in one swoop, which we also accepted. Watching the announcement by the Minister in the other place at the time, I noted that he stated that some postmasters deserved sentencing and imprisonment because they had stolen, but the simple legislation dealt with eradicating all sentences. He admitted that this would of course mean setting free those who had stolen. Why then do we continue to persecute those who have done their time, holding them on the inside and then threatening them for the rest of their lives?
Simply, Minister, accept the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my voice in favour of the Bill, and say amen to all that I have heard. I declare an interest as the Anglican bishop for prisons in England and Wales. I an not going to repeat all that has been said regarding the shocking statistics that have already been outlined.
Like other noble Lords, I am glad that such sentences can no longer be given and that there have been some changes in the rules around the termination of licences, but those rules are complicated and not easy to navigate. That is particularly significant when it comes to offering hope and support not only to those serving their sentences but to families and friends as well.
At the heart of the Christian gospel is a living hope and a God who, in Jesus Christ, embodies both justice and mercy. The IPP sentence reflects neither justice nor mercy and does not offer hope. When I visit male prisons in particular, I can guarantee that the issue of IPP sentences will nearly always be raised by prisoners, officers and chaplains because of the reality of what is being experienced. Anyone who visits a prison and meets those serving IPP sentences will be struck by the sense of uncertainty, hopelessness and injustice and the impact that it has not only on individuals but on the wider prison and on families on the outside. Surely that is also not helpful for the victims of crime.
When there are people in cells watching those alongside them working towards a clear release date, while the person serving the IPP sentence has no such clarity and may remain in prison for longer than the person who seemingly committed a more serious offence, that of course seriously affects the well-being of the individual. It raises levels of anxiety, hopelessness and alienation, which impacts a wider prison environment and puts pressure on staff. I see and hear again and again the deterioration in mental well-being of those serving IPP sentences, which, ironically, leads to situations that then have an adverse effect on their sentence because of their outbursts of behaviour due to anger, frustration and hopelessness. The cycle is indeed vicious.
Many noble Lords will be familiar with the case of Rob Russell and the tireless campaigning of his brother Roddy. The brothers are originally from the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, and I had the privilege of meeting Rob on a recent visit to HMP Swaleside. Rob was given an IPP sentence in 2009 with an initial tariff of two and a half years. He now suffers serious mental distress and seems to be in a disturbing vicious cycle. Prison is not the appropriate place to address his well-being and restoration. This is just one story among many. It is heartbreaking to hear the events of suicide and attempted suicide and to see how that pain and hopelessness continues to ripple out across prisons, families and communities.
I come back to the need for clarity regarding the purpose of prison. If we believe it is all about punishment, then IPP sentences are doing a jolly good job. If we believe in transformation, a reduction in reoffending and transforming lives that create stronger communities, then IPP sentences are failing. It is stark to hear prisoners and staff say how hard it is to speak of hope and justice when someone is living an IPP sentence. For the sake of the prisoners in question, the wider community and our society, I submit that a resentencing exercise is necessary. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to think again on this important matter.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on bringing this Bill forward and on his powerful speech. Many points have been made this morning that we have made before in this House and will make again until we reach a conclusion and can put this tragedy—for that is what it is—behind us.
I have been pleased that the Minister has taken action, with the support of his colleagues, very quickly to implement the changes that were agreed in the Victims and Prisoners Act, not least, on 1 November, the lifting of the sword of Damocles in relation to licence conditions; the further action that will be taken in February; the framework that was published last week, which helps towards the progression that we all want; and, shortly, the action plan that I hope will have been not refreshed but completely revised. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us when that is likely to be published, because it will be really important in dealing with some of the issues and the tragic cases that have been mentioned already today.
If the Government feel that they cannot do a wholesale resentencing, for the reasons that the previous Administration and my own Government have spelled out already, there may be a halfway house. It may be possible—I know that my noble friend Lord Woodley will have spoken to Nicholas Cooke KC about this, as I have—that we could pull together a panel of retired judges and senior KCs. I say retired because there is a backlog of 65,000 in the Crown Courts at the moment, so the judiciary is stretched beyond belief. Realistically, speaking as someone who, with good and bad outcomes, had responsibility for the judicial system and sentencing all those years ago, I know the pressure that the Government are under. Still, it might be possible to do a sifting job—one already being done in miniature by cases being referred back. Members of this House will have heard of the Doughty Street Chambers. How could we not? It has been successful on a number of occasions recently where it has returned to the cases all those years ago and the way the judiciary dealt with them. I carried my responsibility heavily, and I hope that sometimes the judges themselves will think about why they did not see IPP as part of a menu. Doughty Street Chambers has been able to reopen those cases and get them rejudged.
We can find a way forward if we want to. Mental health provision needs to be stepped up. Mention has been made of Thomas White and I have been in long-standing contact with his family. We can ensure that, in that sifting exercise, we get people on to the right trajectory to be quickly moved out of prison.
Finally, I agree entirely with those who have said that we have got to stop this nightmare of the return to prison, with the notion that those on licence can be returned for quite minor incidents. Whatever the probation inspection said at the end of last year, its underlying message was “We’ve got to get this sorted”. If my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill and the amendments he has already put down are an avenue for being able to do that, so much the better.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as I am also a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.
I welcome the progress that is being made by the Ministry of Justice in automatically terminating the IPP licences of around two-thirds of those on licence as of March 2024. But we are still talking about more than a thousand IPP prisoners who have never been released, and more than 1,500 who are in prison having been recalled, which I find deeply troubling. We are all familiar with the injustice at the heart of this, but it bears constantly repeating. The offence was abolished in 2012 because Ministers recognised and declared that it was unfair, yet, shockingly, no transitional provision was made for existing IPP prisoners serving this unfair sentence, so we are faced today with three startling facts.
First, there are some IPP prisoners who are many years past their tariff and have even served longer than the maximum determinate sentence for the offence of which they were convicted. We heard many examples of this during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act. Secondly, it follows that if they had been sentenced after the sentence was abolished, most would have received a determinate term from which they would long ago have been released, whatever the perceived assessment of risk. What a lottery that is, yet the administration of fair justice should never depend on mere chance of this sort. Thirdly, and particularly egregiously, the Justice Committee heard expert evidence, published in its third report, that the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence leads to not only greatly increased risks of suicide and self-harm, but to a perceived risk of reoffending which prevents release, irrespective of whether any risk remains from the original offence. This must be a bitter pill to swallow for the prisoners affected.
Not only has the state failed to apply the repeal of this unfair sentence to existing IPPs, but the effects of that unfairness for many IPPs, through no fault of their own, are preventing them being released because of the psychological damage that an unfair sentence has caused them. Their original offending behaviour and the risks associated with it have long since become irrelevant. It is not surprising that many of them have given up hope and stopped engaging with progression opportunities. The question is how to break this deadlock.
This PMB revisits the idea of resentencing. I think a resentencing exercise would incentivise IPP prisoners to re-engage with progression programmes and break the current deadlock, even if it might not lead to their immediate release—it does not have to do so. But if the Government are not prepared to resentence them, it is heavily incumbent on Ministers, who I know are putting fresh impetus into this, to explain how the IPP action plan will provide the hope that IPPs need, and need quickly. We cannot just accept an indefinite continuation of the status quo.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is an honour to take part in this debate and to listen to the unanimous views. I predict what the remaining Back-Bench speakers’ line will be on the Bill. It is clear that the overwhelming spirit of this House is to support the Bill, introduced in such a powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Woodley.
The arguments have been made and there is no need to repeat them all. I would like to emphasise the mental health aspects of how this works. There is no doubt that the mental anguish caused by these indeterminate sentences is one of the cruellest aspects of the entire affair. Looking back to 2020, a report from the Prison Reform Trust, No Life, No Freedom, No Future, set out in graphic detail how the indeterminate nature of these sentences destroys people’s life chances and their mental health. They are fundamentally damaged by the way this cruel law operates.
A particularly concerning aspect is the way in which poor mental health works against those who are incarcerated. Instead of being seen as a need that has to be addressed, it is seen in certain circumstances as one of the factors that leads them to continue to be incarcerated. The lack of support to address these issues compounds the problem. I came across a statistic of particular concern. The prisoners are placed under a responsibility to demonstrate their innocence, effectively—that they are not going to commit another crime, even though it is always impossible to prove a negative. Yet some of them, one recent figure being 840 out of 2,800, are in prisons where they cannot undertake the work needed to prove that they can be released. The sheer cruelty of this policy has to be acknowledged.
I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister is aware of all of this. He is hearing all our speeches and no doubt recognises this and, I suspect, fundamentally agrees. The Government have to be brave here. They will come under criticism and there will be hard cases; there is no doubt about that. But the Government need to be brave and adopt the approach set out by my noble friend Lord Woodley in his Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I would like sincerely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing this debate today.
We have discussed this in your Lordships’ House so many times that it is sometimes hard even to find something new to say about it, yet here we are, finding new sources of anger at this injustice. Imprisonment for public protection was always a disastrous tactic. I agree that some of the judges and lawyers involved really ought to have understood that. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, also said, we have common ground among a quite odd bunch of noble Lords. It is just like the fish farms debate: we have an immense range of people with very different ideologies, yet they all feel the injustice of this issue.
On the issue of IPP prisoners held for years beyond their sentence, last month, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, said:
“We are not considering a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, because that would automatically release a number of people who we do not believe it would be safe to release”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/24; col. 214.]
I do not know whether that has been updated but it is a massive cause for concern, because it simply is not true. As lawyer and campaigner Peter Stefanovic points out in his film on this issue, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee says that a resentencing exercise, overseen by a panel of experts, for everyone still serving an IPP sentence is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by that sentencing. It recommended that the panel explore how resentencing could happen in a timely way, but one that would not jeopardise public protection. That does not mean the immediate release that the Justice Secretary suggests; she must know that, and if she does not she really ought to.
We cannot say that we have a justice system if we have an innate injustice such as this. The sentencing and continued imprisonment of IPP prisoners has just been cruel. We Greens are well aware that prison is overused as a tool of justice. Far too many people are imprisoned, when there are much more effective ways of rehabilitation or stopping reoffending.
I can understand the anger of people who say that we should look up serial rapists and murderers and throw away the key, but in this instance, we have, for example, a 17 year-old who steals a bike or people who grab other people’s mobile phones. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone listening to this debate would not agree wholeheartedly with us. This was a Labour Government’s mistake. It is down to this Labour Government to fix it. We definitely need a free vote on this in both Houses. If we do not have one, it will be yet another injustice heaped on these prisoners.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, my contribution to this important debate, as part of the “odd bunch” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on bringing this Bill to your Lordships’ House and on his remarkable speech.
During the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act, there were many well-informed and impassioned speeches on IPP prisoners from all sides of the House, as there have been this morning. Many speeches referenced the remarks of a previous Lord Chancellor that the continuing situation of IPPs was a “stain” on our criminal justice system. We know this, given the levels of mental distress, self-harm and suicide among IPP prisoners. As many have said, hope has been extinguished from their lives. I hope that my own MP, Andy Slaughter, as the chair of the Justice Committee in the other place, will urge action on this.
I wish to make two brief points. First, significant voices have been raised to say that a resentencing exercise is the only fair and just way of dealing with the situation for IPP prisoners. These voices include Dr Alice Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, and the House of Commons Justice Committee report in 2022, which described the IPP sentence as “irredeemably flawed”. The committee proposed in this Bill would provide the structure and parameters to ensure that an effective and fair way forward could be found for dealing with this situation.
Secondly, talk from Governments—both the previous Government and, regrettably, up until now, the current Government—about resentencing not being appropriate abjectly fails to recognise and accept that it is the state that has extinguished hope in these prisoners. The state must therefore act to restore hope and address the most egregious of injustices. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about this in his response.
My noble friend Lord Woodley has done this House, this Government and this justice system a service in bringing forward this Bill. I wish it speedy passage to the statute book. I look forward to voting for the helpful amendments which will come forward in Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing forward this Bill. I am conscious that one of the obligations on us in this House is not to raise expectations falsely among prisoners and their families as to what is likely to be achieved. We have heard many passionate speeches in favour of the resentencing proposed in this Bill. We are about to hear one—possibly two—speeches putting the case against resentencing. The last of those will be determinative. The Government are not going to agree —they have made that clear—to a resentencing exercise. They say that, for those who are out on licence, the measures passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act, which had cross-party support—proposed by a Conservative Government and now implemented by a Labour Government—should deal with them in the next couple of years, and the issue should go away.
The question is about those in prison. For them, there is the action plan. I have a degree of confidence in the action plan—in both the officials behind it and the plan itself. I think there is a seriousness of purpose and intent on the part of Ministers and officials in making this work. An annual report will be published shortly, and I am sure we will have an opportunity—we should have an opportunity at least—to debate it in this House when it appears and hold the Government to account over the action plan.
The difficulty is that, although the action plan will push ahead and, I imagine, secure the release of those IPP prisoners with whom it is easy to engage, there will still be a residue. There will be a number of IPP prisoners whom it is going to be very difficult for the Parole Board to recommend for release. I want to think ahead to what we should be doing, thinking and discussing about those people. They could potentially, if nothing is done, remain in prison for the rest of their lives, not because of the crime they committed but because of the position—often damaged by mental health issues—they are in today.
One thing worth asking about them is why they should continue in prison at all. Why are they part of the prison system? In so far as they were in prison in the first place as a punishment, that punishment has been discharged and served; they are way beyond tariff. Many of them are in secure mental hospitals. Maybe a mental health setting would be more appropriate for many of these people. It is not easy to get into a mental health hospital if you are in prison—it is a little bit like that joke in “The Importance of Being Earnest” that you cannot get into Wandsworth prison after 4 pm; it is very difficult to get into prison. It is difficult to get into a mental health institution. Should we make it easier, or should we establish a single location—perhaps using part of the underoccupied open prison estate—where those prisoners who do not qualify for mental health hospitals could be brought together? The curative powers of the Probation Service and the Prison Service could be brought to bear on them to help them get out, rather than being left in a prison context.
Time has run out, so I simply put that thought there and I hope the Minister might be able to respond. If he cannot today, could he at least give us some assurance that he will give thought to issues like that? This potentially quite large number of people who might never be released under the existing system deserve thought now. If resentencing is not on the cards, something along these lines should be considered.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; he has nicked half of my speech—we will have words afterwards, I am sure. Seriously, however, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on all the work he has put into bringing forward this Bill. We have had well-informed, passionate and eloquent speeches from all noble Lords.
We have an outbreak of consensus in the House today—I and all noble Lords very much welcome the Bill. It would right an injustice perpetrated on the unfortunate rump of individuals sentenced to indeterminate sentences, who, after years, are still languishing in prison. Some of the case stories that noble Lords have brought this morning will stay with me. I particularly wanted to address that rump of people. According to Sir Nic Dakin’s recent letter, 1,132 prisoners have never been released from their indeterminate sentence. I have spoken many times about the torture these prisoners face, so I will not bang on about it again, particularly in the light of all the examples given this morning.
I welcome the changes made by the last Government in shortening the licence period and all the good things that they introduced—which have been alluded to by previous speakers, so there is no need to repeat them. Concerted efforts are being made by the noble Lord and people in the Prison and Probation Service to make as many of these people as possible fit for release. It seems to me that this is contingent, at least in part, on the energy, effort and, frankly, money and human resources available to expedite this. Progress on releasing these prisoners is slow, to say the very least. UNGRIPP, the prisoners charity, estimates that, at this pace, IPP prisoners will still be in prison in 10 years’ time. But I fear that the situation is worse than that, and I will explain why in a minute.
I thank the Minister for his letter, together with Sir Nic Dakin MP, outlining all the changes for the better that are currently happening. But the conclusions they draw—especially the concept of resentencing resulting in a mass exodus of IPP prisoners—are faulty in my view, and several noble Lords alluded to this. For the 1,132, the torture continues. We—the Government—have treated these people so badly that many are damaged now and may never be deemed safe enough to be released.
The Minister has been most generous with his time for those of us wishing to see the end of this final chapter of this sorry saga. Last week, a cross-party group of us met to discuss the best course of action. We all argued strongly for resentencing, as has every noble Lord who has spoken this morning and reiterated these arguments. There is no need for me to reiterate them. Several suggestions have come forward for how this could be expedited. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, talked about the Justice Committee and all the thought, energy and effort that has gone into that. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, suggested that we do not impinge on the justice system any further and recruit some retired High Court judges and King’s Counsels.
I challenge the Minister on what we should do with those people who will never be fit for release. Is he seriously suggesting we leave them in limbo, in a constant state of psychological torture, for ever? What will the Government do if they will not conduct a resentencing exercise with these sad individuals? If any of these 1,132 were to be sentenced for the same crimes today, one sentence they would absolutely not be given is an indeterminate sentence for public protection. So why not be honest with them, resentence them and give them appropriate treatment for their current state of mental health, rather than leave them there and do nothing?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for introducing the Bill and enabling the House again to focus again on this important topic. We have heard many insightful and well-researched speeches. This is a tragically long-standing issue—I dealt with it when I was a Minister, and I remain grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular, and others, for the time they spent with me on the matter then.
You could make two speeches this morning from the Opposition Front Bench. One would be overtly political: it would say that IPP sentences were introduced by Labour and were and remain a disaster. It would say that this problem was created by a Labour Government, and it is up to this Labour Government to sort it out. It would say that we do not need more criminals on our streets. All of that would be true, but it is not the speech I propose to give. I will instead focus on what we can actually do, practically, to resolve this problem, and on what I regard as the real issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, reminded us, the previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who did so much good work in this area, called the present state of the IPP issue a
“stain on our criminal justice system”.
The same phrase, cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, was used by the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and they were both right. So I propose to look at the problem, look at how we can improve the position, and set out the response of the Opposition Front Bench to this Private Member’s Bill.
There are two important facts to begin with. First, IPP sentences were abolished by the then Conservative Government in 2012—the Lord Chancellor was the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Hazelmere, pointed out, the problem was that no transitional provisions were put in place. That happened 12 years ago, which is relevant—I will come back to that. Secondly, just under 1,100 IPP prisoners have never been released on licence and a further 1,600 or so were released on licence but have since been recalled to prison. Those two facts, taken together, remind us of the following points, which must be kept in mind as part of the debate.
First, those still in prison and who have never been released on licence were sentenced over 12 years ago. During that time, they will have been prepared for and attended several Parole Board hearings, and the Parole Board, which is independent and expert, will have concluded, on all the material before it, that it was not safe to release them. Secondly, for those prisoners and those released on licence and then recalled—again, because they were originally sentenced at least 12 years ago—unless their underlying crime was one of considerable seriousness, a resentencing exercise, even if it were possible, would likely result in their immediate release. Putting those two points together, that means that a resentencing exercise would likely result in the immediate release into the community of people whom the Parole Board had recently decided were still dangerous and should not be released. I suggest that we cannot easily contemplate that.
I will add a third point: a resentencing exercise would be logistically and practically difficult, not only because of the impact on judicial time but, more importantly, because of the fact that, in some—or perhaps many—cases, the underlying paperwork is unlikely to be available in full. Therefore, I suggest that a resentencing exercise, which is at the heart of the Bill, is not the answer—my noble friend Lord Moylan therefore correctly anticipated the position of the Opposition Front Bench. But that means that we need to identify what the answer is, because doing nothing is simply not an option.
Let me sketch out some principles. First, the focus must be on two separate groups. For the first group—those who have never been released—the focus must be to get them successfully through a Parole Board hearing. For the second group—those who have been released on licence—the focus must be to make sure that they are not recalled to prison or, if they are, to enable them to do better next time they are released: to get out and to stay out.
Secondly, we need to be clear-eyed about who we are dealing with. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that people did little more than steal a Mars bar and were just unlucky to receive an IPP sentence rather than a traditional determinate sentence. In fact, to have been sentenced to a IPP sentence in the first place, the trial judge must have concluded, under Section 229(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that there was
“a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm”
were the defendant to commit further offences—and not just any further offences. There was a list of specified offences in a schedule to the Act, including rape, murder, GBH with intent and so forth. In other words, the trial judge will have found as a fact that there was a significant risk of the offender killing, raping or seriously maiming someone else. That was the statutory test of dangerousness, which was a legal threshold to being given an IPP sentence in the first place.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I interrupt with trepidation, because my noble friend is such an excellent lawyer, and I am not a lawyer at all. However, am I not right in saying that, while that test did exist, it existed only in the second period when IPP sentences were imposed? It was very much a point of the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood that in the early years of the IPP sentence judicial discretion was almost nil, and the finding of fact was simply a matter of asking, “Have you committed this offence and previously committed another?”, both taken from two separate lists. I am not sure that all the prisoners who are still in jail and who have never been released would be covered by the point that my noble friend makes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I cannot get into all the detail because of time, but for those sentenced even earlier, in the first period, unless the underlying crime was really serious, you end up with effectively immediate release, in respect of people who have been determined by the Probation Service to still be dangerous. That is a real underlying problem.
That leads me to the third point, perhaps the most tragic in the entire debate. We have to confront the possibility, or probability—this is a terrible stain on our state—that for some people now in prison under an IPP sentence the reason they cannot effectively be released, and the reason they are failing Parole Board hearings, is because they have been in prison so long. They have become institutionalised. I am very sorry to say it, but it is a Kafkaesque situation—if Kafkaesque is the right word—and a stain on our justice system, but we have to be clear-eyed about the position that we are dealing with.
As we know, this matter was looked at by the Justice Select Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill. I am pleased to say that he is now, and deservedly so, Sir Bob Neill KC. The committee made two main recommendations. The first was on resentencing, which I have dealt with—and, with respect, we disagree with the committee on that point. Secondly, it suggested that the licence period be reduced—and here we are in full agreement. The old position was that you could not even apply to terminate the licence until a decade had passed. The committee recommended a reduction of the licence period to five years, while Lord Chancellor Chalk reduced it to three years, and added a presumption that it would lapse at the end of three years, unless there was a good reason to extend it. For those recalled to prison, he introduced a two-year licence period for those released after that initial recall, with an automatic lapse after two years, not a presumption. That structure is the best way in which to deal with this issue.
Lord Chancellor Chalk went further. He set in place programmes to encourage prisoners to be prepared well for the Parole Board hearings, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the work ongoing in relation to that—because that is the key to getting someone out on licence in the first place. He also introduced automatic referral to the Parole Board so that prisoners do not need to apply for release, but rather the case automatically comes before the Parole Board.
This is about balance between protecting the public, which any Government need to have at the forefront of their mind, while making sure that those subject to an IPP sentence are fairly dealt with. That means that we need to ensure that we do not release dangerous people into the community, but it also means that those who have been released and are no longer dangerous should not live with a sword of Damocles above their heads.
It is sometimes pointed out that those released on an IPP licence can reoffend. The truth is that lots of our released prisoners reoffend, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, either now or perhaps in a letter, with a comparison of the rate of reoffending of IPP prisoners with those released under other provisions. I would be especially keen to see the data comparing the reoffending rate of IPP prisoners released on licence to the reoffending rate of those released under the early release scheme introduced by the Government early this year, of which we have had not very much data. In due course, I would be interested to see that comparison, because I would not want IPP-released prisoners to be unfairly stigmatised when, in fact, we have a significant reoffending rate for prisoners generally.
I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We will support him in steps to ensure that those still subject to IPP sentences, those in prison, on licence, and on recall receive all the assistance they need.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble lord, Lord Woodley, of Wallasey, for securing this Second Reading of his Bill. The aims behind it are undoubtedly admirable, and I respect the way in which he and colleagues have put their case today, demonstrating the depth of their knowledge and their willingness to continue engaging constructively with the Government. In particular, I mention my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I value your Lordships’ continuing engagement on this matter, building on the IPP reforms legislated for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which this Government are implementing in full, and which has already reduced the numbers of people serving IPP sentences in the community by two-thirds.
I would not want to repeat what has already been said in the debate today, but I will set out the Government’s broad approach to IPP sentences and our position on the Bill. I say at the outset that I recognise the challenges faced by IPP offenders who remain in the system. As CEO of the Timpson Group, I met and employed 30 people who were serving IPP sentences. These are human beings we are talking about, and I am sure that noble Lords find it as difficult as I do to hear the details of individual cases when I visit prisons and sit in cells with IPP prisoners.
The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and I am determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders, especially the 2,694 still in prison, to finish their sentences. We are also clear that the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public. That was the thinking behind the measures that we took to alleviate pressure in our prisons and prevent the total breakdown of law and order in our country. We must never lose sight of that need to keep the public safe. Every offender still serving an IPP sentence in prison remains on our watch-list, and we have a duty of care to them.
While we must ensure that prisoners are treated fairly and given every opportunity to make progress towards their release, public protection must always be at the forefront of any action we take on this issue. That is what the public, and in particular the victims of IPP offenders, want, need and expect. It is right that IPP offenders are risk assessed and released only when it is determined that they can be safely managed in the community. It is also right that those determinations are made by the Parole Board. If resentencing were to take place, in line with what is proposed in this Bill, the Parole Board would no longer play that critical role—and in fact, its previous work in each case would be disregarded entirely.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released automatically. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance, whether for any or all IPP prisoners through any partial resentencing. As I set out when I repeated the Statement the Lord Chancellor made in the other place on 22 October, IPP sentences are not included as part of the wider recent independent sentencing review, as the review is looking at sentences which remain on the statute book.
I realise that this is a disappointment to noble Lords in favour of the Bill. However, I assure colleagues that we remain committed to making serious and meaningful progress, at pace, for those serving IPP sentences. To do so, we must focus on reducing their risk: this is the best way to move them closer to obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Wolfson and Lord Moylan, will be pleased to know that the first IPP annual report, which was delayed because of the general election, will be published today. It covers HMPPS’s activity on IPP sentences during the reporting period to March this year and contains a refreshed IPP action plan which emphasises the delivery of front-line services to help offenders reduce their risk.
As a starting point, offenders must have accurate, up-to-date and effective sentence plans which enable them to access support to make progress towards their rehabilitation. They also need to be in the right prisons—ones which can offer the services specified in their sentence plans. As things stand, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton made clear, around 30% of IPP offenders are not in appropriate settings. I am clear that this is not good enough and I am determined to address it as a matter of urgency, working with HMPPS to make sure that people are transferred to the right prisons wherever that is necessary for them to make progress. It can and it will improve.
We must also ensure that HMPPS knows where each IPP prisoner is on their journey through their sentence. Every prison region now has detailed information on its IPP cohort through a dedicated IPP data dashboard. We can use this information to create new tailored plans to ensure that they are in the best prison to access the interventions and services they need to aid their rehabilitation. For the first time, every IPP prisoner is being given an internal progress rating, reviewed every six months to monitor progression. This traffic light system will allow us to identify those never released and not engaged in a sentence plan, ensuring that we can direct resources to those who need it most. Each prisoner will also be regularly assessed by a range of experts through dedicated IPP progression panels to ensure that they have a clear path to release.
These are vital changes, which will ensure that people on the IPP sentence have the right sentence plans, understand what is required of them and face fewer barriers to making progress towards a safe release. In addition, I am pleased to confirm that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to include consideration of the IPP sentence in his independent review of offender health. This will help us to better understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.
I also reassure colleagues that this Government are committed to increasing accountability. The Lord Chancellor will lay the first statutory IPP annual report, under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, before Parliament next summer, to set out the work HMPPS has been doing to support those serving IPP sentences throughout the current reporting period. The report will highlight where sufficient progress is not being made and enable us to take action where necessary. We will continue to review the IPP action plan to ensure that it is delivering results and adapts to any opportunities to do more. This will include supporting those who have never been released and those who have been recalled to custody, both of which my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, highlighted.
Recall remains an important tool for keeping the public safe and there is no evidence to suggest that IPP offenders have been recalled unnecessarily. Indeed, contrary to the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation’s thematic review of IPP recalls concluded last year that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary to protect the public, albeit that in some cases it was acknowledged that better support could be provided when individuals are on licence outside prison, prior to recall being instigated.
Though improvements to our approach in prisons are clearly necessary, I am grateful to colleagues across HMPPS for everything they are doing to support IPP offenders. With continued support, all IPP prisoners for whom it is safe and appropriate can and will be released.
The idea of an expert resentencing panel was specifically mentioned by my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Woodley and Lady Blower, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Burt of Solihull. As I have said, the Government are determined to support those serving the IPP sentence to make progress towards safe releases, but I do not think it is fair or appropriate to raise false hope by setting up an expert panel on resentencing.
I recognise the proposal of my noble friend Lord Woodley, for a partial resentencing exercise. As your Lordships will appreciate, there would need to be a strong legal justification for treating one cohort of offenders differently from another serving the same sentence. Partial resentencing of a specific cohort would not address the Government’s public protection concerns and the vital role of the Parole Board.
My noble friend suggested resentencing those who have been released and who are now serving their sentence on licence in the community. These offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the Victims and Prisoners Act. These reforms provide for a much greater chance of earlier licence termination, either at the end of the reduced qualifying period or after the two-year automatic period, while also enabling them to access the support to successfully reintegrate into society. There is also no requirement for them to prove again, once in the community, that they are still safe to be released. At the end of the qualifying period, the Parole Board will simply consider whether the licence should be terminated; otherwise, it will terminate automatically, so long as the person is not recalled in the following two years.
My noble friends Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett also questioned why the Government will not establish an expert advisory committee to advise on the operation of a resentencing exercise. This is not a new issue and your Lordships have debated it many times, including during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act in the last Parliament. Despite the expertise across this House and elsewhere, nobody has been able to identify a way of resentencing those serving the IPP sentence in a way that would not involve releasing offenders who the independent Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. Again, the Government would not want to give false hope to those serving the sentence. I think that establishing an expert advisory panel would run that risk.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett spoke about legal challenges to the IPP sentence and the possibility of setting up a panel to expedite IPP cases through the Parole Board. There have been multiple applications to the Court of Appeal since the introduction of the IPP sentence, both successful and unsuccessful. Recently appealed cases have not set a new precedent and were for specific legal reasons. Individual cases do not warrant a full review of all IPP sentenced individuals for the purposes of speeding up the parole process or supporting the Court of Appeal and, crucially, this would not have an impact on the Parole Board’s assessment of the release test.
Reviewing IPP cases for consideration at the Court of Appeal would be a large undertaking, which would encroach on the independence of the judiciary and effectively replicate the role the court already provides. The Parole Board reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly. The assessment as to whether the statutory release test is met is required at each review and a prior sift would be ineffective as, legally, every case must be reviewed by the Parole Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, raised the challenges around recall and asked about the differences between recalls and reoffending levels of those serving the IPP sentence and those on other sentences. Regrettably, we know that this cohort of offenders does reoffend and are recalled when their risk cannot be safely managed in the community. The threshold for the recall of IPP offenders is significantly higher than for determinate sentence offenders, requiring there to be a link to the behaviour surrounding the index offence before a recall can be issued. I will, however, write to him soon with available figures.
Mental health and preventing harm or suicide were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is a tragedy when someone takes their own life and our thoughts go out to their loved ones. It is crucial that we provide the right interventions at the right time to prevent people harming themselves, and we are working closely with healthcare partners to that end.
Those who have a severe mental health need and require detention under the Mental Health Act are referred and assessed to determine whether transfer to hospital is needed. The Mental Health Bill, introduced on 6 November, includes vital reforms to support people with severe mental illness in the criminal justice system. It aims to speed up access to specialist in-patient care, ensuring that offenders, including IPP prisoners, and defendants with severe mental health needs can access appropriate and timely support in the most appropriate way.
The UN special rapporteur’s call for IPP sentences to be reviewed was talked about by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Blower. I met Dr Edwards a fortnight ago and set out, as I have today, the work we are doing through the IPP action plan to boost support and make progress for IPP offenders.
In closing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for continuing to shine a light on the situation faced by IPP offenders. I share his concerns and his compassion. I was very pleased to meet him and several colleagues last week to discuss this important issue and I hope noble Lords will take up my offer to meet regularly to continue those discussions. It is very important to me to continue to engage with all stakeholders and to understand their concerns and perspectives on the IPP sentence. That is why I will be attending the next HMPPS IPP external stakeholder challenge group meeting in December, where I look forward to meeting more of the campaign groups and independent bodies which have a strong interest in improving outcomes for those serving the IPP sentence.
While the Government cannot support the Bill today, we agree that everything must be done to support those serving IPP sentences. I am working with HMPPS and the Parole Board to continue making progress, but I realise there is much more to do. Any action we take on this issue must and will be taken swiftly, while upholding our first duty of protecting the public. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
A lot of what the Minister has said was reasonable and progress, but I did not get a sense that he is responding to what some of us called this Kafkaesque situation. He said that it is not safe or appropriate to release some people. Does he accept that he is not really conveying that he grasps that these people are victims of the state? The cruel injustice and psychological torture they have suffered are partially the fault of the state. If this is not to be added to the list of other scandals, something must be done which may be outwith the scale of other criminal justice challenges. I did not really get a sense that he sees it in that dimension.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point. I believe in the IPP action plan. I spent a lot of time reviewing it with colleagues and I want to engage with it for all those 2,964 people serving IPP sentences so that they are in the right prison and get the right support. My priority is to support HMPPS colleagues carrying out the action plan, because that is the best route to get these people out of prison.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their thoughtful, enlightening and informative contributions, which have outlined the tragedy and scandal that is undoubtedly out there. The Minister’s contribution leaves a void in my mind: we are still not treating the prisoners or their families as an absolute priority and with the respect they deserve. There is no doubt as we sit here today that many prisoners’ families will be watching or listening to this debate. They, like me, genuinely believe that this is as big a scandal as the Post Office and infected blood scandals, terrible as they were.
There are 90 dead—not nine or one, which would be bad enough, but 90. Many of them unfortunately took their own lives as a consequence of having no hope, as, in fairness, the Minister just mentioned. Thousands are sitting in prison with no hope. It is unbelievable.
I listened with interest to the Minister, a man I have a great deal of respect for. I absolutely acknowledge his actions before he came into this place, employing, as he said, 30 IPP prisoners, all of whom he had no problems with and who were decent employees and did their job—those might not be his exact words, but he knows what I am saying. I know that he knows what he is talking about, and I know that he cares. That makes his disappointing answer even sadder.
The Minister kept saying that the first thing we need to do is make sure that the public are safe while putting in place a variety of changes, many of which we all welcome and can see the benefits of right now, as he mentioned. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that our system at the moment, compared to what he thinks we should try to do—and I believe he is truthful in what he says—is not fit for purpose.
The Minister had the decency to introduce me to one of his senior Parole Board people last week. I thank him again for that, but even that gentleman said that, if they had a person out for recall who was put back into prison, it could take 12 to 18 months at a minimum before their case would be reheard, irrespective of the fact that they may already have served 10, 11, 12, 15 or 16 years in prison. With the greatest respect, where is the duty of care not just to the general public, which I will come back to, but to those prisoners, many of whom, as I said earlier and the noble Baroness just said, have become mentally unstable as a consequence of their treatment? Where is the duty of care to them and their families?
The Minister has not given any logical or legal reason why he cannot look at partial resentencing. He said that he does not think it would be fair for a particular reason, but where is the legal problem or impediment in resentencing those two groups found to be safe by the Parole Board? If there is such a legal opinion stopping him doing it, I would be most grateful if he could show it to us. If you cannot stop it, with the greatest respect, all of us should stop waffling here and start to do the right thing. As that old adage goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way. With a genuine Minister like the noble Lord, there is a way for us all to try to help, but we will have to wait and see.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies and Lord Wolfson, and others mentioned the mental state and health of these prisoners after having gone through such turmoil in recent years. Here lies the other problem with the proposals on the table. When people have given up and lost the plot because of what has happened to them, how on earth could they ever turn around and be fit to get through the Parole Board’s criteria? There is no way they could, to be quite honest. Nevertheless, I look forward to this Bill being given a Second Reading.
Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]
Friday 4th July 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberImprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 19-I Marshalled list for Committee - (2 Jul 2025)
Lord Woodley
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.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
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.
Lord Moylan (Con)
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.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
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.
Lord Garnier (Con)
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.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
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.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
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.
Lord Balfe (Con)
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.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
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.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
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.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
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.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
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.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
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.
Lord Woodley
“(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.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
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.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
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.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I remind the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking limit for this debate is 10 minutes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
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.
Lord Moylan (Con)
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.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
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.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
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.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
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.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
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.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
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.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
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.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“(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.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
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.