Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q We have heard from two witnesses—you, Sir Nicholas, and Dr Ahmedzai from the earlier panel—on the question of judicial oversight. While we have you here, Sir Max and Mr Ruck Keene, what are your observations on the proposals from those two witnesses that an alternative to a High Court judge overseeing the process would be some form of panel or tribunal, potentially multidisciplinary? What is your view on that and the legal implications for that?

Sir Max Hill: I would say two things. First, it bears weight that, looking at all the provisions in the Bill, the additional level of scrutiny currently being called judicial scrutiny or approval is absent in all the comparative examples around the world. That already makes this a tighter pre-legislative model than we see in other countries that have gone down this route. That is worth remembering.

Secondly, while I am not a family lawyer—I was, but a very long time ago—I think that the family division of the High Court would be very well-placed to perform the sort of exercise enshrined in current drafting, which is not a rubber-stamping exercise, but a substantive consideration of heavily objective medical opinion arrived at by not one, but two doctors, one of whom is not the treating doctor.

I listen to and accept the question of pressure on the justice system generally. That is something the Committee will be concerned about because, if the Bill passes, we want something workable. I heed what Sir James Munby said. The sitting judiciary, for good constitutional reasons, is highly unlikely to say anything. But there is therefore merit in looking at clause 12, under the heading, “Court approval”, and performing quite a simple exercise, which for me would be going through subsections (1) to (6) inclusive and, where it says “High Court”, replace that with something else. Personally, I have an aversion to the word “tribunal”, which indicates a right and wrong or some kind of fault-based system—that is not what we are talking about here. But a panel, as Nick said, is the way to go—

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: A panel appointed by the Official Solicitor.

Sir Max Hill: Whether appointed by the Official Solicitor or not. Dare I say it—because I am sitting next to a very distinguished one—I do wonder about the recently retired members of the judiciary and the role that they could play under a replacement panel system.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: That is what I had in mind—the Official Solicitor looking at the retired judges.

Sir Max Hill: Yes, so there is legal professional capacity among the retired judges—not that they would sit alone on a panel. It would bring with it the extra benefit of having suitably qualified medical professionals, like the Spanish model. So yes, I think that could be done. That is not the same thing as saying that the High Court approval model is fatally flawed and could not be introduced, but I do think there is a viable alternative, which is worth looking at.

Alex Ruck Keene: I have only one observation, and I said this in my written evidence but I also want to say it out loud. You have to think very carefully about what purpose any form of this oversight is actually serving societally, if the oversight panel, whether that be a judge or a panel, cannot decline to approve an application if it considers that the reason the individual is seeking assistance in dying is because of service provision failures by the statutory bodies responsible for meeting their health and social care needs. That is a question of principle, and I want to make sure that that is squarely before you.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Alex Ruck Keene. I noticed the concerns in your evidence about presumption of capacity, and I know that you have written in the past about concerns over different disciplines having different definitions of capacity. Later on in your evidence, you also mention multidisciplinary consideration of circumstances in assessing eligibility. How might that multidisciplinary eligibility assessment alleviate some of your concerns in relation to capacity decisions?

Alex Ruck Keene: We have capacity, but we also have to make sure that it is settled, informed and voluntary, and that we do not have things like pressure or influence going on. It is important to make it clear that we are not just saying that this is about all the weight going on capacity. For instance, if you have social workers involved—if you have, say, palliative care social workers involved, assuming it is a palliative care situation—they are going to be far better informed about what options might be out there than a doctor, potentially, depending on the doctor. Social workers more generally might well have more expertise in picking up signs of coercion or influence than a doctor, but I do not necessarily want to get into, “Some disciplines are good at X” and “Some disciplines are good at Y”—I have come across brilliant examples and bad examples in both zones.

It is partly about multidisciplinariness and also about the fact that you have more than one person trying to talk it through. When I train, I always try to tell people that 85% of capacity assessments are not all that difficult —they are just made difficult because you do not have time or you are not listening—but 15% are more difficult. I think a lot of these will be in the 15% zone, and in that zone, the more people you can have thinking about it, so long as they have an agreed framework within which to think, the more reliable, transparent and accountable the outcome is going to be.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Q I want to pick up on your evidence, Sir Nicholas, in relation to the panel that we have just been discussing with Sir Max. I have three questions. First, what do you envisage the panel doing under your model? Will it be ensuring that a lawful process has been followed or doing something more than that?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: The former.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

Tackling domestic abuse is a priority for this Government. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 sets out a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse, which is improving our understanding of the wide range of behaviours that can constitute this abuse. While not constituting a stand-alone offence, domestic abuse is considered an aggravating factor routinely throughout our criminal justice system, and rightly so. That is the reason why that data is not collected, and that is the position we will maintain.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve prison conditions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We inherited historic under-investment in maintenance and a rising prison population. That is why we have already published our 10-year prison capacity strategy and have plans to invest £220 million in prison and probation service maintenance in ’24-25, and up to £300 million in ’25-26.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. The emergency extra money to tackle the squalid state of our prisons is welcome, but given the £2 billion maintenance backlog, the reality is that the extra money will not touch the sides. This shows exactly why the privatisation of prison maintenance is a failed model. Private contractors may win contracts on low bids, but billions come in as extra cost later. Does the Minister seriously think that current prison maintenance providers offer good service and value for money to the taxpayer?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The right hon. Lady is right. We inherited contracts that were already well progressed; for best value and to move things forward quickly, we decided it was important to keep going with that process. However, I can assure the House that we have an open mind regarding private and public sector contracts in the future. The important thing is to get best value for money and get the job done.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

Q Would it be fair to say that you would need to know fairly quickly whether or not it would be provided through the NHS for planning purposes?

Professor Whitty: That is a key question, and to me that does seem something that Parliament may want to debate. That is not a question for us, but it is a point of principle one way or the other.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Chris Whitty. You said you are here representing the chief medical officer for Wales as well. Health has been devolved for over 25 years, of course. What conversations have you had with the chief medical officer for Wales about the differences in how the NHS operates between Wales and England? What are the implications the Bill Committee should know about?

Professor Whitty: First, I have had quite a lot of conversations—not just with the chief medical officer for Wales, but all the other chief medical officers and indeed a much wider range of the medical profession; I wanted to feel that I was giving a central view of the medical profession in terms of the practicalities. My view is that, in a sense, the principles of the Bill are no different between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the legislation would apply only to England and Wales were it to be passed.

The operational questions we have been talking about will be either subtly or importantly different between the different jurisdictions for a variety of different reasons. I do not think that is a problem, provided it is in secondary legislation and it allows the different jurisdictions to do things in the way that best suits their own set-up. Again, as we saw during covid, different nations will choose to reach the same end state using slightly different practical routes.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q May I develop that a tiny bit? In that case, you would see the timeline possibly being different for England or Wales in order to respect and take account of those operational differences?

Professor Whitty: Yes. I think in principle it would be better to be as close as possible, but if there were important practical differences why it was not going to start on the same date, the more important thing would be to get it right rather than to get simultaneous timings.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Q I hear what you have said already regarding capacity. Of course, the Mental Capacity Act relies on the capacity principles. They include the presumption of capacity, the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity unless all practicable steps have been taken to support them to make a decision, and the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity merely because the decision is unwise.

I also heard what you said about the scaling of decision making, but within the Bill, in some of those scenarios there is no mandating; the word “may” is used rather than “must”. I want to understand your viewpoint on whether it would provide stronger safeguards if those parts of the Bill were tightened to include “must” rather than “may”, and if the reference to capacity were replaced with a separate definition of “ability”, as proposed in our amendments.

Professor Whitty: I am probably not the best person to ask about the exact drafting of the Bill in terms of “may” and “must”, but I can answer the second part of your question, which is really important.

If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity. It would not be able to do that with just one clause; there would have to be quite a lot of clauses, if I am honest. All systems of this sort are going to be imperfect. The reason why I think it is sensible to base yourself on the Mental Capacity Act is that it is well used and well understood in practice by practitioners every day. Having a system with two completely separate groups of assessment, one of which has never been tested in the courts or used outwith this Bill, would lead to a whole set of potential complications and ambiguities, which are not there at the moment because we have a well-tested mechanism through the Mental Capacity Act.

People should move away from the Mental Capacity Act with some caution, because I think that will cause as many problems as it solves. It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that, given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision. That is the foundation of some of the disquiet that people have had, but it is central to how the Mental Capacity Act works in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Q There are some amendments being tabled that would offer further clarification and include more things that have to be considered. I have a similar question to the one I asked the previous panel, when I think you were here in the Public Gallery. Would offering further guidance to your members be welcome, or would you again err on the side of trusting their professional discretion?

Dr Green: As Dr Whitty said, I think simplicity is the key here.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Dr Green, you mentioned the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. What issues have your members raised in relation to this legislation?

Dr Green: In terms of the cross-border issues?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Yes.

Dr Green: I think the concerns are that patients, particularly those from the Crown dependencies, might be looking for some things—for example, report on life expectancy—from doctors on the mainland. I think it is clear that if a doctor travelled to the Isle of Man or Jersey to do the work there, the GMC would be happy for them to do so, but we would want a clear understanding that they would not be at risk of any other legislative problems—from the DPP, for example.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

And of course legislation is progressing in Scotland, which has different definitions from the legislation that we are discussing here.

Dr Green: Correct.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q With the GMC, do you have any commentary on the fact that health is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that we have a different set of jurisdictions in some instances?

Mark Swindells: There are aspects in which the law will differ, including on capacity. As a UK-wide regulator, we have managed to attend to that in our guidance, so that doctors are as clear on their responsibilities as possible when they lie either side of a devolved border. There is a nuanced point with the Crown dependencies. In law, we are a UK-wide regulator, and we know that the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar will choose to use doctors who are on the GMC register. Officially, we do not legally cover those areas, but it does give us some regulatory purchase there. If a doctor wishes to remain licensed to practice on the GMC register, there is a commitment to follow our professional standards.

[The Chair]

I am mindful of time, so this will probably be the last question.

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed, and I will return to that point later, not least because Jack and Paul Sykes told their social workers that they were scared of their dad. The youngest told them that he was “pure nasty”. Their secondary school was so concerned about the domestic abuse at home that it also alerted social services. Yet, on a two-hour contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by that same CAFCASS officer, Jack and Paul were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad then set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his elder brother tried to save him. Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze.

Jack and Paul Sykes were supposed to return to their mother Claire that night. Instead, the boys died at the hands of a known domestic abuser. Their voices were not heard by social services, nor by the court. CAFCASS never heard their voices either. In fact, the day that Jack was supposed to speak to CAFCASS for a welfare assessment was the same day Claire cradled him in her arms as he died. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when he was held in the fireman’s arms as he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Member is making an immensely powerful argument; that is a tragic tale. Does she agree that, as well as domestic abuse being taken into account, perpetrators of child sexual abuse should be taken into account in relation to parental involvement? I support the campaign of my constituent, Bethan Parkinson. Amending Jade’s law to that effect, to include domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, would be a useful step forward.

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree. I will discuss further proposals later in my speech. Jack and Paul would never have been in the reach of a known domestic abuser, were it not for the presumption of contact. Although schools have a statutory responsibility to report suspected incidents of domestic abuse, in contrast the presumption does not put the children of known domestic abusers first.

Ten years on, this place must hear Jack’s and Paul’s voices reverberate loud and clear, because tragically their voices are not alone. Women’s Aid found evidence of 48 child deaths at the hands of a known domestic abuser that took place following a permitted contact visit between 1994 and 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned, recognises that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Child contact is a known risk indicator for domestic homicide, yet we still do not know the true scale of the problem.

The vast majority of court reports are not published, with only 10% of rulings coming to light. Only last month, the sentencing of Sara Sharif’s known domestically abusive father and stepmother for her murder showed all of us that action is urgently needed to change the law. Her life must not be forgotten.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

Well, we have had lots of lists, but Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger are giving evidence, I believe; Lord Sumption is, anyway. These things can be tested and challenged, so the notion that we need to have others is slightly absurd. We have the law lecturer from Cambridge University as well.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I put it on record that I am very grateful that we will be able to find time for a legal adviser. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, because it has become apparent that the Senedd itself will not provide a Clerk to advise us. That seems to be a weak point in the process of making legislation: I think that as legislators we should be able to receive advice on the issue that is non-political and is perceived as non-political, so we probably need to address that in future. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, but I will seek within the time to get a legal advisor who is recognised as an expert in this field.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government share the concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this appalling form of abuse. That is why we made a clear commitment in our manifesto to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults, and I look forward to setting out our position on this in more detail soon.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Four schoolgirls suffered sexual abuse by their headteacher, Neil Foden, who was sentenced in July to 17 years with a two-thirds tariff. The Crown Prosecution Service now tells me that Foden will instead spend half his sentence in prison, because the most serious of his crimes can only be sentenced to 14 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how to safeguard the victims, whose abuser was in a position of trust, because they live in fear of his early release?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am aware of the appalling case that the right hon. Lady mentions. It is horrific and all my thoughts are with the victims of those crimes. If she wants to write to me with more details, I will happily look at the case. As she knows, sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but I will look at the case and meet her to discuss it further.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Llefarydd.

I think the starting point for many of us today is how to resolve the dilemma of what we want for ourselves against the fear of enabling potentially terrible consequences for others. There is a rational fear of the reality of coercion, what drives decisions within families and what individuals feel is best for their family. There is a rational fear of how institutional pressures, lack of resources and, appallingly, the culture in the NHS might ramp up the convenience of death as an affordable option. This is not a new fear. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned Baroness Neuberger’s review of the Liverpool care pathway, which said:

“In order that everyone dying in the acute sector can do so with dignity, the present situation has to change.”

That was in 2013. We know, in the aftermath of covid, how little has changed.

Death as an institutional convenience has never been, and never will be, right. It is our duty to demand good palliative care and address the institutional and resource barriers to it, but that is not a licence to sidestep today’s moral question. The people of England and Wales now expect us as legislators to provide an answer in principle. It is our duty to provide that answer not only in principle, but in process. With that in mind, I will support the Bill on Second Reading if there is a guarantee of sufficient scrutiny to stitch together a complete garment out of what is presently threads and patches that could, as we have heard, be rent asunder in court. If Committee scrutiny cannot make the Bill robust, I will reconsider my support in future votes. Surely this House can ensure that there is both cross-party and small-party representation on the Committee, rather than conventional party proportionality—of course, today we have a free vote.

The implications for Wales, where health is devolved, cry out for proper consideration. I support the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) in her concerns about the Sewel convention and the need for a legislative consent motion in the Senedd. These concerns are equally true not just for Wales but for remote and deprived communities where ill and dying people already suffer disproportionately inadequate health services.

To close, I credit Iola Dorkins of Morfa Nefyn whom I have known for over 30 years and who is presently dying of motor neurone disease. She wears a brace that her husband has adapted to make more comfortable. Today, she is on respite in a hospice in Holyhead, which is 50 miles away from her home. That is the reality of people’s lives as things stand. We need a change in the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Identifying children with a parent in prison is important for ensuring that they receive the support they need. Strengthening family ties remains an integral aspect of our work, which is why our family support workers help to re-establish appropriate family ties and facilitate visits from prisoners’ children. My officials are working closely with the Department for Education to determine how much more we can do in this space.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to support incarcerated pregnant women and mothers.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

We are sending too many women to prison, two thirds of whom are non-violent and over half of whom have dependent children, and 75% of the time the child leaves home after the mother is incarcerated. That is why we have launched the women’s justice board, which will set out its strategy in the spring. Its goal is to reduce the number of women in prison and, ultimately, the number of women’s prisons.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

All Welsh women in prison are held in England, and being far from home adds to the emotional torture of separation from children, but we cannot assess the extent of the separation without public access to Wales-specific disaggregated data. Will the Secretary of State commit to making this information public so that we can ensure that pregnant women and mothers and children have the proper support they need?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The data on how we track the experiences of women across England and Wales will be work that the women’s justice board—once it is up and running—will be able to look into and make recommendations on, which we will pick up in the spring.

IPP Sentences

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were introduced in 2005 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are cruel, unjust and damaging to those who are still serving them. They were meant to be used to protect the public against criminals who had committed one of 96 offences and who were thought still to be a danger after the minimum term or tariff of the original sentence had expired. No level was set for that tariff by the legislation and the open-ended nature of the sentences led to some catastrophic results.

The House of Commons Library, in its excellent briefing paper for this debate, noted one instance where the courts applied an IPP sentence to someone who had served a minimum term of just 28 days. The misapplication of, and erroneous logic behind, IPP sentences resulted in widespread criticism and to the Government being challenged in court over restrictions on ways that IPP prisoners could demonstrate that they were no danger to the public.

Following a joint report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and HM inspectorate of probation that highlighted the low levels of IPP prisoners being released, as well as the unsustainability of IPP prisoners adding to the burgeoning prison population, a ministerial review was carried out. Eventually, after further court cases and public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished on 3 December 2012. By then, more than 6,000 prisoners had received IPP sentences. Fast-forwarding to the present day, according to Ministry of Justice statistics as of June this year there were 1,132 IPP prisoners who had never been released, and a further 1,602 who had been recalled for breaching their licence conditions, making a total of 2,734 IPP prisoners still in our prisons.

Criticism of IPP sentences has come from far and wide. In August of this year, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said:

“IPP sentences are inhuman treatment and, in many cases, amount to psychological torture.”

Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas described them as “morally wrong” and “inherently unfair”. Even Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were brought in, described their introduction as “the biggest regret” of his political career, which in some cases had led to injustice.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Blunkett on the media today saying that one of the alternative options should be secure therapeutic units?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right, and one of the biggest impacts of IPP sentences is on the mental health of prisoners. I will come to that later. She makes a good point with which I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate, and it is an honour to follow the speeches so far. I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I am obliged to speak in this debate because IPP sentences have been raised time and again at our meetings by the trade unions, especially the Prison Officers’ Association and the National Association of Probation Officers. What those unions say is that their members, prison and probation officers, have been placed in an intolerable position because of IPPs. They are made to administer that sentence, which is tantamount to torture, to many of the most vulnerable and damaged people they manage, both in and out of prison.

If we are to be honest, we must first admit it beggars belief that we are still having to discuss this matter today. I will not reiterate the 2022 Justice Committee report recommendations, but it should be noted that the Committee recommended that the Government convene an “expert committee” to advise on any resentencing exercise. That point needs to be repeated—it has possibly been lost in recent debate—because it would of course be up to the Government to appoint such an expert committee, which would include a judge to explore resentencing, and to decide whether to follow its recommendations.

As explained by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, which I thank for its briefing, the expert committee

“could recommend, for example, a staggered release schedule to give probation adequate time to prepare, or prioritisation for those with the shortest tariffs or longest time served over-tariff, or even partial resentencing starting with those previously considered safe for release by the Parole Board.”

That last option would of course include prisoners who had previously been released but since recalled, often for no further offence. The expert panel might recommend any of those models or something else entirely, but—this is important—the Government would be free to pick and choose the option that is most palatable politically and manageable in the present crisis of prisons and probation. That is why the Minister has nothing to fear from a resentencing exercise along those lines, as suggested by the Justice Committee.

It is no wonder that the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, who I had the pleasure of meeting last year with the justice unions, has called for “adequate and appropriate reparations” for IPP prisoners and their families to compensate them for an “inhumane” punishment that

“often amounts to psychological torture”.

She also warned that

“citing public safety as the reason not to immediately resentence IPP prisoners…is misleading”,

because

“the UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released.”

That is fundamental to a society that believes, as I am sure we all do, that that is how justice should be served. I therefore urge the Minister to listen to the UN and not to ignore such international opinions, as his predecessors were sometimes prone to do.

I also put on record my support for the private Member’s Bill introduced in the other place by Lord Woodley, the Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill, which is listed for Second Reading next month. The Bill, which mirrors the amendment moved by Sir Bob Neill to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Session, calls on the Government to set up an expert committee to advise on resentencing and then enact its advice. I urge the Government to back this important Bill or, if they find the full-fat version of resentencing too much to take, to move an amendment in Committee to make it palatable. I most certainly agree with commentators such as Peter Stefanovic that this is a matter of conscience, and that all parties should therefore allow a free vote on IPP reform.

Finally, I will say something through the Chair but directly to people serving on IPP in prison or in the community, and to their friends and families. I know that many of them are watching and listening to this debate, and I know that there are some in the Gallery now. When I speak to them, I want them to know that there are many of us here in Parliament who will not stop calling out this injustice. In both the Commons and the Lords, cross-party parliamentarians will stand up for them. On the left and the right, on the Front and Back Benches, they have politicians in Parliament who will not give up until the problem that Parliament created back in 2003 has been fixed. I do not want them to lose hope, but I do not want to give them false hope either. I do not want them to think that Lord Woodley’s Bill—I know that he will not mind me saying this—will in itself make resentencing a reality. No—the reality is that the power lies with Government, not with Backbench MPs, nor with Lords or Ladies or anyone who is not in government. It is up to the Government to change the law. I am not sure it really looks like the Government presently have the political appetite for resentencing, shameful though that may be.

We should not therefore think that resentencing is just around the corner, even when we consider the Prime Minister’s background in criminal justice and the comments from Lord Blunkett recently, but please do not give up hope now. Hope is a precious thing, and pressure from campaigners pays off. For example, we have licence changes coming into effect on Friday that will mark the end of a living nightmare for at least one person, who I thank for sharing his story with me earlier. I do not need to remind Members that it was a Labour Government who introduced this sentence, which is tantamount to torture, and a Tory Government who abolished it, albeit in a botched way. We have a golden opportunity to end this living nightmare for so many prisoners and their families once and for all. I urge the Minister and his new Government to take courage and do the right thing by justice. Diolch yn fawr.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial team and I have been working closely with our colleagues, primarily in the Home Office, but also across Government. Support for victims sits in different Departments, but we are making sure that we have a “one team” approach to this important matter. I have sought to pull the levers at my disposal in such a way that we gave the Probation Service the time it needed to prepare for the SDS40 changes. I did that because I wanted to ensure that our obligations under the victim notification scheme could be met. I am monitoring progress on that regularly, and I will ensure that any improvements required are made on a continual basis. We keep this under constant review.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Neil Foden is in prison for the sexual abuse of four vulnerable schoolchildren. He was the headteacher and strategic headteacher at two secondary schools in Gwynedd. Foden was convicted of 19 charges and sentenced to 17 years in July this year for his abhorrent crimes. The judge said he showed no remorse. Can the Lord Chancellor advise me how to seek assurance for his victims that Foden will not be released until he has served at least two thirds of his sentence?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can confirm that all sex offences of all types are excluded from the SDS40 measures.