IPP Prisoners: Recall System
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Carter of Haslemere(2Â weeks, 2Â days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for welcoming our decision to bring forward legislation to end IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. A further announcement will be made later this year. We are actively working on the right approach to ending the IPP sentence once and for all, but also to put in place a careful and planned approach to recalls. Of course, we want to do the right thing and our approach is one of principle, not just convenience.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, when an IPP prisoner is recalled to prison, they usually spend at least two years or more in prison—so it is effectively a resentencing exercise, but by a probation officer, not a judge. Should they not at least have been charged with an offence by a police officer, rather than merely exhibiting behaviour which, in the view of a probation officer, might lead to an offence?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I have said, we do need recall provisions: there must be some jeopardy if offenders break the conditions of their licence. On the specific point about the time it takes, we have addressed this, partly by what I said earlier, namely that decisions are now agreed by senior decision-makers. We introduced reforms in the Victims and Prisoners Act that reduced the number of IPPs on licence in the community by 936 and—this is the really important point—we are starting to use the risk-assessed recall review, and that has led to the re-release of 61 IPP prisoners many months before their parole hearing would have been scheduled.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Carter of Haslemere(2Â months, 3Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not have anything to add on the noble Lord’s final point, other than that it sounds a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question to me.
On the question about think tanks and so on, I have already said how the principle behind the Bill is that we are seeking to prevent foreign interference in our democracy. As we go through the process with the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. At the moment we are focused on political parties, as I have said, but we recognise the wider landscape he draws, and we will cleave to the principle I have set out.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to give the Electoral Commission more investigatory powers, including the power to require information from third parties, as the Rycroft review recommended. The devil will be in the detail on that. Other regulators have extensive powers to require information from third parties, to search premises, to require third parties to attend for interviews, and so on, which are enforceable by criminal penalties. What powers are envisaged to be given to the Electoral Commission to require information from third parties and how will they be enforced?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point in relation to information sharing. To address the asymmetry identified in the Rycroft review of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill, we will amend the Bill to establish a broad reciprocal statutory gateway for information sharing. Importantly, we will also extend the commission’s power to require disclosure of information outside of a formal investigation, enabling a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.
On criminal liabilities, one of the things that we want to achieve in the Bill is for these matters to be dealt with, as far as possible, by the Electoral Commission, as there are other pressures in relation to police time, and so on. We are decriminalising some minor offences in the Bill, as I think the noble Lord knows, but we do not want to reduce the liability in relation to serious matters.