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

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Community Sentences (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, both the prisons crisis and, more happily, the very wide welcome that has been given to our new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in the media and during the debates on Wednesday, provide a perfect backdrop for this debate on the report from our Justice and Home Affairs Committee, then chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The Minister’s background as a former chair of the Prison Reform Trust and in his family business, which practices what he preaches, gives a great deal of heart to those hoping for deep reform of the criminal justice system.

The Lord Chancellor, in her recent announcement on prison capacity, said:

“Longer term, we will also look at driving down reoffending, because the entrenched cycle of reoffending creates more victims and more crime, and it has big impacts on our ability to have the capacity that we need in our prison estate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]


She made no mention of how to reduce the use of prison, such as community sentences, but my right honourable colleague Alistair Carmichael did, saying:

“The answer surely has to be more than just building more prison capacity. The problem is not that our prison estate is too small; it is that we send too many people to prison, and that the time they spend there does nothing to tackle the problems of drug and alcohol dependency, poor literacy and numeracy skills, and poor mental health, which led to their incarceration. Can we hope to hear in the very near future the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle the issue of the time that people spend in prison?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]


So it was heartening to hear the Minister in an interview with Channel 4 refer to the Dutch experience, saying:

“They have shut half their prisons. Not because people are less naughty in Holland. It is because they have got a different way of sentencing, which is community sentencing, so people can stay at home, keep their jobs, keep their homes, keep reading their kids bedtime stories and it means they are far less likely to commit crime again”.


That completely gels with the report, which emphasises that too many low-level and non-violent offences are dealt with through short sentences, but that these can be counterproductive and more likely to compound the issues that lead to crime in the first place. If someone needs support to move away from non-violent crime, they will have better access to the services that can help them if they are being supervised in the community.

The report’s very first sentences are:

“Crime can be reduced through rigorous sentences served in the community. With the right investment, intensive community sentences can succeed where short prison sentences fail”.


“Rigorous” and “intensive” are key adjectives. The report points out that community sentences are

“demanding on the offender and help them stop committing crime, thereby protecting the public. Breach mechanisms mean that offenders are being held to account”.

It also points out that community orders can save the public purse money, not only through reducing the use of expensive custody—since even the most intensive types of community orders cost less than prison—but through a reduction in reoffending.

But courts are not utilising community sentences as widely as they might. Over 151,000 community sentences were issued in 2012, but the number steadily declined over the following decade to just 69,000 in 2022—a reduction of over half. So the committee understandably reports that there is untapped potential for keeping offenders out of prison and supporting them to avoid reoffending, but the scope for effective results needs to be better understood.

One barrier to overcome is the all-too-widespread perception, reinforced and hyped by much of the media, that community sentences are a cop-out for offenders. The Justice Committee in the other place, under the excellent chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill, said in its report on public opinion and understanding of sentencing:

“Low levels of understanding of sentencing have an effect on the quality of public debate on sentencing, which in turn can have an influence on sentencing policy … There needs to be a step-change in the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General’s Office and the Sentencing Council’s efforts on public legal education”.


Is there more that the Minister believes can be done in this regard? Will the Government be robust when predictable quarters of the press accuse them of being “soft on crime” and point out that in fact changing behaviour is jolly hard work?

Another barrier to greater use of community sentences is the sorry state of the Probation Service a decade after Chris Grayling launched his ideological and disastrous “transforming rehabilitation” so-called reforms, which actually involved fragmentation and part-privatisation. The role of the Probation Service is key, as the report highlights. Lack of sentencer confidence in probation’s ability to effectively deliver community sentencing must have been shaped in part by the chaos and constant policy churn in the Probation Service, which has suffered a disastrous impact on its staff retention.

The Lord Chancellor made a welcome commitment to recruit 1,000 more trainee probation officers by March 2025 but, as she has acknowledged, this is not new investment but a “redeployment of resources”. This is not particularly encouraging. The committee stresses the need for manageable case loads, as probation officers are often managing more than 70 cases. As my noble friend pointed out, the Chief Inspector of Probation in England and Wales, Martin Jones, was reported on Monday as saying that the current model for the Probation Service was not sustainable; unfortunately, one of his suggestions was to reduce the demand on probation officers to monitor people released from prison. Will the Minister respond to those concerns about the non-sustainability of the Probation Service?

Some commentators believe that the issue goes beyond money and that the Probation Service needs a strategic focus, with national leadership and accountability coupled with localised service delivery. There are suggestions around for reorganisation. The committee’s report suggests:

“When services are provided locally, various agencies can cooperate effectively. The co-location and co-commissioning of services are the gold standard”.


Do the Government have any thoughts on the Howard League’s suggestion—I am pleased that its president, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will speak in the gap—of delivering probation work through local community justice partnerships, each with a board including representatives from the police, local authorities, local voluntary groups and members of the community, sentencers, health boards and regional prison management?

The committee’s report stresses that pre-sentence reports produced by the probation service are an essential part of the sentencing process. However, the probation service has been under great stress and has not always been able to produce these reports. Do the Government have any new thinking on how to encourage the greater production and scope of pre-sentence reports?

As others have said, our committee’s report points out that:

“The need for mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment far exceeds the current rate of imposition of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements, which itself exceeds the availability of treatment”.


How will the Government ensure better provision of treatment facilities?

The report wants incentives to be created to encourage low-level, repeat offenders to engage with rehabilitation, and says that

“The approach which underpins Ireland’s ‘integrated’ Community Service Order is a helpful model”.


Do the Government see scope in looking to what Ireland is doing?

The report comments favourably on the effectiveness of “wraparound rehabilitative support” offered to female offenders and some young people, wanting it to be a model for probation services generally. Do the Government agree with those suggestions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on how to avoid the cliff edge at 18, which the report stresses?

Finally, the committee’s report stresses the importance of the availability of housing, saying:

“Being homeless makes it difficult”—


if not impossible—

“to comply with the requirements of a community order”.

I am glad that the new Government are giving long-overdue prominence to the supply of housing, but is the connection to offending being given specific attention?

We clearly have great hopes of the new Government bringing a new approach to criminal justice. We wait with eagerness to hear the detail of the Government’s commitment.