Sentencing Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Forgive me.

I want to be brief, because the speeches have been eloquent and passionate. All the bases have been covered, but in the absence of, for example, my noble friend Lord Blunkett, whose amendments I signed, it is important that someone from the Labour Benches conveys the concern that persists in the Labour Party. That includes people who are incredibly loyal to the Government and incredibly proud of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson. The anxiety and concern at this profound injustice is very live and real.

I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other aspirations and amendments in this group. I agree that administrative mechanisms have not been enough. They do not show the signs of being enough to prevent more suicides and self-harm from what the noble and learned Lord put very well as having been a collective miscarriage of justice. When miscarriages of justice are perpetrated by the judiciary, there are appeal mechanisms and even executive pardon mechanisms to deal with them, but this was perpetrated by the political class: by the Executive and the legislature.

To the credit of the coalition Government, the IPP sentence was ended, but the response in relation to those already incarcerated was inadequate. These people, frankly, rot in prison. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put it very well: some of these people have now been incarcerated—some even without any release—for offences that would never have justified life imprisonment. They are decades beyond tariff. This is unconscionable, and something must be done.

I know very well from regular meetings and from all the engagement and work that my noble friend Lord Timpson is doing that he is committed to getting these people out, if at all possible, but administrative mechanisms do not seem to be enough. I hope he will forgive me for saying that, in these meetings and in that engagement, some of us have observed even institutional intransigence in some parts of the institution about dealing with this. Frankly, this was a legislative disaster and it will require a legislative solution. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make this 11th-hour concession. That may prove difficult— I do not know—but, at the very least, I would hope that he might consider a free-standing Bill that the Government could bring forward, with cross-party support, to provide a mechanism to deal with the remaining relatively small number of people suffering this profound injustice.

Administrative mechanisms and “wait and see” are plainly not going to work, not least because of the point about zero risk that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, earlier this evening and has come up in a number of speeches. There cannot be zero risk. There is not zero risk with people in the mainstream population who have never been convicted of an offence so, of course, there is not zero risk in relation to this cohort. Any risk that they pose has probably been exacerbated, as was put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, by this appalling state-sponsored miscarriage of justice of collective proportions.

It is time for all of us to play our part on a cross-party basis, which is why I shall be listening as anxiously to the reply from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, opposite. This is a political problem and an institutional problem, and it will take good will from all sides to deal with it. We spoke earlier about the purposes of imprisonment. The legitimate purpose of imprisonment was never supposed to be political point-scoring, yet that political point-scoring has created all sorts of problems that have escalated in the past three decades, so I hope that there can be some olive branch offered from that side of the House as well.

I know that the Minister is committed to justice and has proved in his extraparliamentary life what can be done with genuine courage and a commitment to turning people’s lives around. This, I know, is on his mind. I am asking him to consider a legislative response, rather than just leaving it to administration, because that has not been sufficient. I support the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but there is a lot in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said too. It is perhaps a shame that we did not have a single offering, but I firmly believe that there will have to be a legislative offering, ideally from the Government. Otherwise, this stain—the word of my dear friend and former mentor, the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—will carry on, perhaps beyond our own lifetimes, and I for one would be seriously ashamed of that.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there are amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He has asked me to say that he is mortified that he cannot be here today and that he sends his apologies to the House that he is not able to be here to move them.

I have my own amendment in this group, Amendment 78, which is carried forward from Committee. It is a very modest amendment making an administrative change that relates only to prisoners who are out on licence, to make it easier for some of them to discharge their licence. I am delighted to say that it had a reasonably good welcome in Committee from the Minister and that he has brought forward his own amendment, the government amendment in this group, which effectively does what I was proposing in my Amendment 78, so of course I have no intention of moving that and I encourage noble Lords to support the government amendment in this group.

Turning to the main question, we have the essential problem. I am not here to beat up the Government. I say straight away that there are difficult issues here for Ministers, and not just Labour Ministers. I have seen very good people as Conservative Ministers struggle with the same issues in the past, and that would be true if they were Ministers from other parties. The issues are genuinely difficult because of the question of public protection. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, complete protection of the public is not possible. The way in which we try to maximise protection for the public in these cases is through having decisions about release made by independent bodies, in particular by the Parole Board. Ministers of both parties have been very clear that nothing is going to happen, and nobody is going to be released, unless it is with the say-so of the Parole Board.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has crafted his amendment very much with that in mind. The Parole Board follows certain procedures, and those procedures are not fixed in stone, it seems to me. The procedures, of course, are up for argument. The fact that it is the Parole Board that must decide is not up for argument, but how the Parole Board works can legitimately be up for argument.

What the noble and learned Lord has done is try to change those procedures, to change the emphasis so that the prisoner is given an incentive to engage with the Parole Board: an incentive that, if certain things are complied with within a certain period, the Parole Board will say yes, rather than the current system, where the prisoner goes through hoops and then finds out afterwards whether the Parole Board is going to say yes or no.

That is a shift in balance; it is a change merely in the way that the Parole Board works. However, just to make 100% certain that the danger to the public is not increased, the noble and learned Lord has, of course, included the measure that he mentions, whereby the Parole Board can rescind any such conditional offer if it finds that it is not working out.

It seems to me that the Ministers should be able to have an open mind about a proposal such as that, because it does not touch the red lines that they are so concerned about. It is merely a change in the way the Parole Board approaches its task, but one that has a better prospect of success.

Similar remarks could be made about the proposal from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. Again, the independent body in this case would be a panel of judges, or a judge operating from a panel, and again, the Secretary of State would have a final say—the Secretary of State could override it at the end—so there would be a fail-safe built in.

I think it is fair to say that either of these mechanisms would have a dramatic effect in altering the balance. While there would still be some prisoners, I frankly admit, who probably would never meet those criteria, or at least not without a great deal of work, it would start to address that residue that is finding it very difficult to move, and it would do so in a way that does not cross the Government’s red lines.

I have every sympathy with the Minister who, as other noble Lords have said, has worked extremely hard on this. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for him to be able to embrace some sort of change, while protecting public safety. I hope that he can step forward and say something positive that we could carry forward for the future. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, chooses to divide on this amendment, I would feel obliged to follow him into the Lobbies, but I would much rather hear it said by the Minister that he will be able to find that compromise that would allow all of us to work together in this direction.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, the case has been made clearly and persuasively, with no significant objection, but it is a difficult issue of public policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, there is a risk—there is this downside risk of a case that will make headlines in the newspapers—but that has to be set against the certainty of the harm that this policy is causing to many people at the moment.

We know that. It is well attested, and my noble friend the Minister knows that full well. So we have to accept the risk and embrace the opportunity to greatly help people who are suffering in our prisons from this policy. I will listen with care to my noble friend’s response to the debate. I very much hope that he will be able to give us some hope, but I will find it difficult to join my colleagues in the government Lobby.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s second point illustrates his first point: if there is no purposeful activity available, how can one enforce the denial of an early release by virtue of a person’s failure to comply with a purposeful activity?

I want, briefly, to go back to the late and much lamented Lord Ramsbotham. In his book about prisons, which I know the Minister will have read many times, he said that the three things that will reduce repeat offending are that a prisoner, on release, should have a place to live, should be able to return to a loving relationship and should have a job. I took that very much on board when I wrote a paper nearly 20 years ago entitled Prisons with a Purpose. I wrote it when I was the shadow Prisons Minister, in the days when my noble friend Lord Cameron was the leader of the Opposition.

I visited about 75 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units during that time. One of the things that struck me was that there were some wonderful examples of purposeful activity going on in a number of prisons but, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has pointed out, it very much depended on the leadership of the prison. If you had an inadequate governor, you had an inadequate regime within the prison, particularly within the education and training sections of that prison.

I have made a few visits to a number of detention centres and I remember being taken with great pride by the governor on duty to a workshop in a great big shed in a West Midlands category C prison. I will not name it, because things may well have changed by now. In the workshop were adult men aged between 21 and goodness knows what, and they were making hairnets. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a market somewhere for hairnets. But I equally had no doubt then, and have no doubt now, that the prisoners in those workshops, having been released, would never go to work in a hairnet factory. So, it was just time filling.

I went to another prison in Wales, where I saw male adult prisoners sorting blue plastic bits from green plastic bits and putting the blue ones in one tray and the green ones in the other tray. They were apparently parts of some electrical connection system. Again, these are the sorts of activities that would achieve nothing in so far as Lord Ramsbotham’s provisos were to be complied with.

I went to an open prison in the south of England where, far from the prison, prisoners and prison officers taking advantage of the farmland and market garden within their premises, now long closed of course, I found men playing cards behind the wheelbarrow sheds—and who else was in the card game but a couple of prison officers? Again, this is just time filling.

The problem is further exacerbated by prisoner churn. If you are sentenced in, say, Canterbury Crown Court and are sent to Canterbury prison that evening, within a few days or weeks you will be transferred to Maidstone prison to allow others to come in. Maidstone prison will be receiving prisoners from Maidstone Crown Court. The Canterbury prisoners who have been moved to Maidstone will be required to move to Lewes, then from Lewes to Southampton, and from Southampton to Winchester. So there is, metaphorically speaking, a jumbo jet of prisoners moving around the prison estate. How can they do any sensible activity? How can they go on any sensible course if, having barely started it, they are then moved to another prison?

I am happy to advertise on behalf of Timpson. I have seen a number of its workshops in operation in prisons up and down this country, and I have been served in shops by graduates of the Timpson in-house system in prisons. There, people are learning a real job that can translate from inside prison to the high street. They can go out and earn a living, pay their rent and taxes, and look after their dependants. That is the sort of work we need to see done, and more of it, in prisons.

That is why I wholly applaud Amendments 65 and 67, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham: they hit the nail on the head. If we do not have real, genuinely purposeful, activity in prisons, the whole thing is a sham, and you will get repeat offenders coming in and out like a revolving door, and the prison population will simply grow and grow.

So, whether we vote on this or not, it is absolutely essential that the Government get a grip on the way in which training and education are dealt with in our prisons. I know of course that the Minister knows this personally—he has known this for 30 years—but lots of people in government do not, and lots of people at the Treasury do not, either. They do not seem to realise that by reinforcing failure—junk in, junk out—all you are doing is wasting the public’s taxes and not producing one ounce of public safety.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had better stand up quickly, while I could still take the pleasure of agreeing with everything that has been said so far on this group—if the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me.

I have Amendment 98 in this group, which concerns remand, but I support every sentiment that I have heard so far about the other amendments. In particular, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate, because it is important that sentencers, like legislators and the public, are constantly reminded of the seriousness of incarceration and its justifications and purposes. They are: public protection, rehabilitation, deterrence and justice for victims—not political virtue signalling, which has too often been the purpose over the last 30 years, during an arms race involving people from all sides of our political discourse. In no small part, this has led to the current crisis in our criminal justice system, let alone in the prison system. So I certainly support that.

--- Later in debate ---

As far as I am concerned, my noble friend Lord Timpson is a breath of fresh air in politics around these issues and in the department. I have been so glad of his engagement on this and other issues. The Government say that they are not currently able to repeal this anachronistic and slightly barbaric provision in the Bail Act, but if he could at least indicate some ambition for a direction of travel whereby we could get some more data and end up with adequate provision for protecting vulnerable people—whether they are witnesses or defendants—I would be incredibly grateful to hear that in his reply.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was so quick to assume that I was going to say something with which she would disagree. I hope, in fact, to disappoint her: she might be able to agree with what I am about to say. I added my name to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 52. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with every detail of her amendment; the reason I added my name, now and in Committee, is that I strongly believe that we need greater clarity about the purpose of prison.

Other noble Lords have given some very good arguments and reasons as to why the right reverend Prelate’s amendment deserves support. I am not going to repeat those. I am just going to make one comment of my own—and I will try to be very brief—which is that there has been a very big change over the past 50 years. There was a notion—it was certainly current when I was young—that the purpose of prison was based on a classical notion of justice; that is, that the perpetrator had incurred a debt to society, a debt which was to be discharged by a fixed period of imprisonment, after which that perpetrator was free to go. Nowadays, we do not hear about that form of justice. The rhetoric and the argument we hear—it appears across all parties; it is not an accusation against this Government or this Minister—are that the purpose of prison is the protection of the public.

Now, that is a hopeless case. It is hopeless, first, because its logic ends with every prisoner being subject to an indefinite sentence. We are back to the thinking about IPP prisoners, to whom we are going to come later this evening. If the protection of the public is what you are aiming at, that is the logic of where you are going. Secondly, it says nothing about the prisoner; it is entirely outward looking towards the public. It leaves the prisoner there in prison, but to what purpose as far as their activity, their purpose while they are there, is concerned? That is why some of the suggestions made in the amendment, and the suggestions made by other noble Lords in this debate about activities for prisoners and facilities, are so important.

Thirdly, it has been one of the contributing factors to longer and longer sentences, because if you are constantly under pressure to think about protecting the public, and you have a huge 25 year-old man in front of you who has done something very violent and you are going to have to think about protecting the public when you send him down, you are going to have to think about quite a long sentence. I think that adds to the longer sentences which are at the root of the problem that we are facing and which this Bill is to some extent intended to address. We will not complete this task in the course of this debate, obviously, but at some stage we need to have serious thought about trying to get back to some notion of justice and querying this idea that the purpose of prison, and the purpose of the criminal justice system, is the protection of the public, because of the dangers I think that involves. It has crept into our thinking without a proper debate as to its consequences, and I think it deserves some challenge.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister has probably been in your Lordships’ House long enough to understand how rare it is that we are getting a degree of unanimity around the House on the amendments that we have debated so far. I am the first to admit that I am not particularly socially savvy when it comes to how people run the country, because I do not get the idea that we put people in prison for their own protection, when prison is a really dangerous place for vulnerable people to be. Also, as I have told the Minister before, I am extremely anxious about people being put in prison on remand for many months, because people on remand face the poorest access to healthcare and the highest rates of self-harm and are routinely held in the most overcrowded and unstable parts of the prison estate. Courts have no control over which prison they go to and for how long.

It seems that we are here trying to correct an injustice: that vulnerable women and children are put into a prison where they are clearly not safe is horrendous. I know that there is an inquiry about this, but the Minister is seeing and hearing from people who know where the problems lie, so I urge him to take this back to the Ministry of Justice—I am sure he will. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment, through the Mental Health Act, that remanding people for their own protection on mental health grounds is wrong, but this power has to be removed completely. It really does not fit with a decent society, and I would be very happy to vote for quite a few of these amendments if they went forward.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is extremely difficult to speak after two such very powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has advanced again the resentencing option which was originally proposed by the Justice Select Committee in the other place, under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill when he was a Member of Parliament, on a unanimous, cross-party basis. It therefore cannot be dismissed as some reckless and trivial proposal; it should be taken with great seriousness. However, I am not going to elaborate further on it now because it has been debated already. The noble Lord has an extant Private Member’s Bill which would give it effect.

It is fair to say that the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is new at debate in your Lordships’ House and it emanates, as he said, from a report produced by the Howard League. There are two points in what the noble and learned Lord said that I want to present in my own way. The first relates to the action plan, which has been excellent in many ways. It has achieved a great deal but, as I said at Second Reading, the difficulty with it is that there is a large number of people—nobody can put a figure on it, but consensually there is an idea that it is several hundreds, maybe nearly 1,000—who are the hard cases left after the action plan has done its work and has resolved the issues in relation to the, if you like, low-hanging fruit. We are left with several hundred people for whom it is clear the action plan is never going to be a solution. If there is no other way out for them than the action plan, then, in effect, the Government are saying that they will stay in jail until they die, because what else is there? There is no other route out.

The noble and learned Lord has presented a proposal which would help. The process would be that the prisoner would apply for parole, be refused parole, but then the Parole Board would at that point be obliged to set a date, up to two years later, on which the prisoner would be released.

The second point is that it could be represented that this is, in effect, an automatic release that follows two years after they have failed to achieve release—but that is not the wording of the amendment. I draw noble Lords’ attention to proposed new subsection (5), inserting new Section 28(6B), which says that the Parole Board, having set the date,

“may issue such directions to facilitate the prisoner’s release at the specified future date as it considers necessary having regard to its duty to protect the public”.

This is not a reckless and automatic release that follows without any effort on anybody’s part from the decision to refuse parole. The essential idea is that the machinery of the Probation Service should be brought together and energised under the direction of the Parole Board to provide those tailored services and that tailored support, such as education and courses, and the other measures that are necessary to ensure that that person is safe to be released. That is the objective.

Let us remember that many of the people who will not be released through the action plan are in that group because they have ceased to engage with the system. Having been through the effort to achieve parole in the past and having suffered the severe psychological blow that can arise from having been refused and knocked back, many of them will simply not go through that again. But if you could offer them a date, if you could say to them, “Here is hope, in two years, if you do these things”, perhaps we can get that engagement, and perhaps those people for whom there is otherwise no exit could be engaged and brought to be released, with the approval of the Parole Board and the support they need to get them to that place. If that support turns out to be expensive and difficult to provide and requires a superhuman effort on the part of the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Ministry of Justice and the other organs of the state, is that not the least we owe those people now? That is why I really hope that noble Lords will be able to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and that the Government will be able to relent. It might need some work in detail, but I hope the whole House will be able to support the principle behind it.

Briefly, there are also amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which relate to the parallel—and in some senses, almost deeper —scandal of DPP prisoners. Noble Lords will be aware that, in essence, the only difference between DPP and IPP prisoners is that DPP prisoners were sentenced when they were under 18. Those people are still in prison. They almost certainly should not be, but they are. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, deserve support.

Finally, and I feel this is very much an anticlimax, my own Amendment 109 is almost bloodless in its technical insignificance in comparison with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It is a very modest proposal and entirely administrative. I very much hope that the Minister will support it.

The amendment would allow IPP prisoners, who are in the community already serving a licence, annually to apply to the Parole Board for the discharge of that licence. In the Victims and Prisoners Act, we reduced dramatically the statutory period of the licence, and we made it easier for people to be discharged. Hundreds of prisoners have had their licence terminated as a result of that; it has been the most significant step so far in removing the scandal of IPP prisoners.

However, there are administrative difficulties, whereby if someone misses out on their discharge, they have to wait another whole two years before they can be considered again. What I am simply doing in my amendment is introducing the idea that they could apply—I would expect nobody to do this, unless they were supported by their probation officer—after one year, not two years, to have their licence discharged.

There is no threat to the public in this. We must remember that these people are already living in the community, and all the amendment seeks to do is give them permission to apply for something. The decision whether to discharge their licence finally—not to release them from jail, because they are in the community already—would still rest with the Parole Board. There is no risk to the public at all in doing this. It is a modest administrative change that will help some—not many—prisoners get rid of the stigma of this sentence sooner and resume their lives in the community as free subjects.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, my contribution this evening will be brief, only because there is a long evening ahead for the many noble Lords on the Front Bench and no lack of enthusiasm and commitment to continue working with other noble Lords who have spoken this evening to get this mess sorted out. I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley, who has taken up the cudgel so strongly; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, whose commitment could not be doubted after his contribution this evening; and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has hunted with me for a very long time now—since I first came to your Lordships’ House, it seems.

Before speaking to my Amendments 116 and 117, I note that the three contributions that have been made already illustrate the urgency of getting this matter resolved once and for all. All three Members have put their finger on one of the tragedies of the IPP sentence, which, ironically, was in part intended to deal with the two strikes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned. The tragedy reflected in the action plan wording that the noble and learned Lord read out—what was originally intended was never in the Bill itself; it was a matter of interpretation—was one of the terrible twists of life that we now have to untangle. The main issue I have picked out concerns those people who have been in prison for so long that their mental health has inevitably deteriorated. As the noble and learned Lord said, psychiatrists have accepted that now, in a way that was not recognised in 2003—we should have done that, and they should have done that, but we did not.

On the amendments from my noble friend Lord Woodley and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe that, if we could build in a formula that allowed the transfer of some of those prisoners to a secure medical setting for support to be given—I am not talking about Broadmoor or Rampton; there needs to be an intermediary alternative—then it might be possible to accept the two-year imperative. That would go a long way to meeting what my noble friend is seeking to achieve in his amendment: to move this on rapidly. The commitment to help from my noble friend on the Front Bench is unequalled, and I pay tribute to him. Listening and responding from the Front Bench is not easy—I know that, because I was there for eight years and experienced all kinds of constraints. My noble friend understands what we are talking about, so perhaps, with some creativity, we could think of a way to achieve this aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will now address these amendments, which were spoken to very powerfully, on the imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentence. As noble Lords know, this is an issue that I also feel very passionately about. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley for his tireless efforts on this issue and for his amendments, which seek to resentence all IPP sentence individuals. I am also grateful for the reflections from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the requirements of a resentencing exercise and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ludford, for their thoughtful words on this important issue.

I hope it is clear that the reason for not resentencing IPP offenders is to protect the public and safeguard victims. Although we are determined to support those in prison to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk. Resentencing would result in offenders still in custody being released even when the independent Parole Board has determined—in many cases repeatedly —that they are too dangerous to be released, having not met the statutory release test. My noble friend’s amendments would allow the court to confirm an IPP sentence for those who might have received a life sentence, but this would not prevent the resentencing and release of those who do not fall within the proposed parameters but who the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released.

The amendments also provide for the substitution of an IPP sentence with a hospital order. However, at the imposition of an IPP sentence, the courts already had the power to issue a hospital order under the Mental Health Act if there was evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed. Additionally, if a prisoner now has a severe mental health need to an extent that detention under the Mental Health Act may be appropriate, they will be referred and assessed clinically to determine whether a transfer to a mental health hospital is warranted. This has always been available to those serving the sentence.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would provide IPP prisoners with a release date within two years. Again, in this circumstance, individuals would be released who have not been considered safe for release by the Parole Board. The addition to this amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would provide a limited safeguard. This would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the Parole Board for the release date to be varied or set aside. However, when considering an application to set aside, the Parole Board would be required to release the prisoner or fix a new release date at the following hearing. The Parole Board already reviews IPP cases at least every two years and, in many cases, more regularly.

We have to remain focused on the best and safest way to support IPP offenders as fast as possible to a safe release. It is important to remember that IPP offenders received their sentence after being convicted of a violent or sexual offence. Therefore, for any decision that removes the protection of the statutory release test, we must be comfortable with the prospect of these offenders living in our communities; that is what we would be demanding of the public.

We know that individuals received the IPP sentence because they committed a sexual or violent offence. Extended sentences were available alongside the IPP sentence, but the sentencing judge decided that an IPP sentence was appropriate for the offender at the time. Under that sentence, a person is released only following assessment by the Parole Board. There would be considerable risk to the public and victims if we released those serving the IPP sentence who are currently in our high-security establishments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but does the noble Lord accept that, in many cases, especially in the early part of the IPP regime, judicial discretion was almost nil? It was not that the judge determined that an IPP sentence was appropriate; rather, the guidelines given to him said that in certain circumstances, where the offence for which the person had been found guilty and an earlier offence for which they had been convicted appeared on a certain table in a certain configuration, they had no choice but to give an IPP sentence. That is how the sentence was imposed in many cases. There were circumstances where two people were prosecuted for the same crime, which they had carried out together. One of them had a history which brought this table into operation, the other did not. One would get an IPP sentence, the other a determinate sentence appropriate to that crime, although they had both been involved. That point, which is of capital importance, has never been fully recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Judicial discretion was not exercised or exercisable in the case of many of these sentences.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, could he also reflect that this took place on a Court of Appeal ruling two years after the implementation of the Act in 2005? That judgment then determined the hearings and therefore the sentences granted by judges, consequent on that Appeal Court ruling.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness.

I find myself speaking in the company of very distinguished and knowledgeable noble Lords, with great judicial experience and knowledge of the sentencing system in its widest sense. I am not in that company. I would venture to say, though, that I have considerable sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve here. I have doubts about the efficacy of ever longer prison sentences, and indeed about their purpose. Listening to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I allowed myself a measure of doubt about whether we have a clear notion of the purpose of prison. After all, prison as we understand it is a relatively modern idea; it goes back only to Jeremy Bentham. It is a sort of 200-year experiment. If the right reverend Prelate is going to give us an opportunity, in the course of the Bill, to give some consideration to what we are actually trying to achieve and whether we are succeeding, that might be of some general benefit.

However, I want to follow the speech so eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, when he spoke about IPP prisoners, a subject also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This scandal continues to fester. At its height, in 2012, there were 6,000 prisoners subject to the IPP regime. According to the latest figures supplied by the Ministry of Justice, 14 years later, that figure has now come down to 2,422 in custody, 1,476 of whom are on recall. Nearly 1,000—946—have never been released, 14 years after the sentence was abolished. Many of them, I think nearly all of them now, are beyond the tariff that they deserved and were given at the time of their original sentencing. Many of them are years, as much as a decade, beyond the tariff that they were given.

One has to acknowledge progress and good will. Undoubtedly, the Minister, but also his predecessors from a previous Government, have come to this task with great good will, a recognition of the injustice and a wish to bring it to an end, but the furthest that they have been able to go when dealing with those prisoners who are in prison is an action plan, which has not materially changed with the change of government. The last Government, as we know, made considerable progress, in the Victims and Prisoners Act, in alleviating the position of prisoners who are out on licence, but my focus is on those who are not out on licence but still in prison for one of the two reasons I have mentioned: either never released or on recall.

The action plan has certainly seen a reduction in numbers—even in the last year, numbers have been reduced—but if one focuses briefly on those who have never been released, one sees that the action plan is losing its effectiveness, because one is getting to that number of prisoners who will always be a challenge for the probation system to approve for release, many of them because of mental health difficulties acquired as a result of their experiences while serving the sentence. The challenge for the Minister is to recognise that there needs to be something over and above the action plan to help deal with those people and find some path back to giving them justice—justice being simply that one serves the sentence that arises as a result of the crime one has committed. We see very little sign of that, but the Bill offers us opportunities to do it.

We have seen ideas. The Justice Committee in the Commons, late in the last Government, had a proposal for resentencing—the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has a live Private Member’s Bill which would put that into effect. We have great hopes, I think, in the report of the Howard League more recently, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—who I am glad to see in his place and due to speak later in this debate—the essential effects of which were described by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. The question for the Minister is whether he intends, with vigour, to take up some of the ideas being offered to him; whether he will use the Bill as a means of doing so; and whether he will enter urgent talks. I cannot criticise him for failing to talk to noble Lords. He has been very good about holding cross-party round tables—in fact, his secretary is in the process of organising another one for next month—but will he sit down, as my noble friend suggested, in the course of the Bill and engage in cross-party discussions as to how the Bill can become a vehicle for addressing, in particular, those who have no hope of release, whether through the recommendations of the Howard League or some other means? That would be a huge advance.

I leave those thoughts with noble Lords. It is a huge omission that the Government have so far not included them in the Bill. The Minister began by saying that they were not included, but there are enough of us across the House to see amendments tabled, perhaps with some effect, to bring them back into the Bill. This is the opportunity in this parliamentary session to do that and, if the opportunity passes, more time will be lost and more unjustified suffering will be endured as a result of our lack of dispatch and engagement with this issue.

IPP Sentences

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recommendations in the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform entitled Ending the detention of people on IPP sentences: expert recommendations, published in June.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

This Government welcome and share the Howard League’s determination to support those serving the IPP sentence, but we cannot take any steps that would put the public at risk. For that reason, we remain firmly of the view that the Parole Board must determine that a prisoner serving the IPP sentence is safe to be released, having regard to the statutory release test, and that the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare offenders for release. The report includes a range of additional, complex recommendations which we are exploring in full.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, wrote to a constituent in 2021:

“As IPP prisoners spend longer and longer in prison without any prospect of release, their mental health continues to decline, and they start to display behavioural traits which makes their release even less likely”.


So he gets it. The Howard League report, which has a foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, makes innovative recommendations as to how the residual prisoners—those who have never been released; there are about 1,000 of them—could make progress through the Parole Board systems. Will the noble Lord agree to discuss this with his new colleague and to make a formal response to the Howard League report, ideally in writing?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister, my new boss, shares my determination to do all we can for those serving IPP sentences and their families while ensuring that we do not take any steps that put the public at risk. Having visited prisons for over 20 years and met many IPP prisoners, I completely agree that a number of them need support with their mental health. That is why the IPP action plan is the right place to support those people, especially as we updated it on 17 July, and the progression panels with senior psychiatrists are already making a difference. In the last year, 154 IPPs have been released who have never been released before. But we have a lot more to do, and I will write to the noble Lord in due course.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question, and I agree with her. I have met IPP prisoners, both in prison and in the community, who are not fully aware of the situation they are in and what they need to do from here, so she raises a good challenge to me and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, which I will take away and reflect on and get back to her.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, next.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, given that so many of those prisoners serving this sentence who have never been released are suffering from chronic mental illness, is it not time for them to be considered for transfer and treatment in a mental health setting and not in prison anymore? I mean that systematically, and not simply ad hoc, as when individuals are transferred, as I know some are, to a mental prison. In that connection, what consideration have the Government given to the proposal from the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the development of a regime parallel to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act to offer support to these people if they do achieve release through that route?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

There are 241 IPP prisoners in secure mental health settings as of the last figures published. It is those who are of real concern to me, because they are so far away from being safe to be released. We need to make sure that we support them—as in the example I gave earlier of the prisoner whom I met recently—in their journey. The work that the Government are doing on the Mental Health Act, with the provisions being put in place, will, hopefully, contribute to a more successful outcome.

Prisons: Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Question to our attention. It is almost impossible to improve on the passion and commitment that she showed in her speech, despite her struggling with a cold.

There has been improvement in the last couple of years. These poor prisoners are receiving a great deal more attention than was the case a few years ago. There are no bad people involved in this problem: everybody involved in it is trying to make it better. That goes for Ministers, officials, the speakers in the Room, the Commons Justice Committee and so on. Everybody wants to make it better. I fully respect the commitment and seriousness of the officials, particularly at the MoJ, who are trying to make the action plan work. But, in the end, there is a failure to grasp politically that, for a plan to work, it needs an objective. What is lacking in this plan is a clear notion of what success would look like. What are we aiming to achieve?

As far as prisoners who are out on licence are concerned, the great advances made through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024—it received Royal Assent just before the Prorogation of Parliament—are now being implemented by the new Government. I hope that that will help to deal with the issue of prisoners who are out on licence and that, in a sense, that issue will start to go away over time.

The problem is IPP prisoners who are actually in prison and, in particular, those who have never been released. I would say that an action plan should have as its objective the reduction of that number to zero—it has to be a reduction of that number to zero. At the moment, 11 have not served their full tariff, so perhaps we should say that, today, success would look like reducing that number to 11, but that is not a target in the action plan—that is not what it aims at. I am not sure what the action plan does aim at, except to make the system, which is very clunky and difficult—the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to this—work somewhat more smoothly and to try to make it join up. It will always leave this dilemma that the Parole Board will act according to the same criteria that will apply in every case, as far as the protection of the public is concerned, but with no recognition of the injustice done to these prisoners.

There will be a number—possibly we would all agree that there will—who will probably never be safe to release. Do the Minister’s officials have an estimate of that number or of its scale? I have reason to think that they have made such an estimate, but it is for him to say. We are now coming to the point where we will have to grapple with that figure and those people, because as you move people out of prison, perhaps for the first time, it gets harder and harder to carry on doing so. You will come to the people who will not pass this test. Do we have an estimate of that number? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is very committed on this issue, but I have not yet heard senior Ministers in the Commons start to express, and say things about, that mindset that shows that they now regard these people as victims rather than offenders.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the House and to his place on the Government Front Bench. He is getting an easier ride on this statutory instrument in your Lordships’ House than might be the case in a more populist environment, but I have no difficulty in lending my support to it as well. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I want to focus my few minutes on IPP prisoners.

It is clear, of course, that there are mathematical challenges involved in reducing from one percentage to another a quantum that starts out being indeterminate, and so a straightforward application of reducing from 50% to 40% the sentences imposed on IPP prisoners is not going to work. That is obvious and straightforward, but it does not mean to say that we should be passing by these prisoners when we consider this instrument, and yet that is in fact what we are doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, gave some figures earlier. Your Lordships’ House is familiar with this scandal, and she described not only the numbers but the mental health issues people are suffering. I would add only two things. She did not mention—I am sure she would have, had she gone on—the mental health problems caused to the families of IPP prisoners, which are serious and persistent and have gone on for years, in many cases. Nor did she say, as has been said by other noble Lords—not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on a number of occasions—that the root cause of these mental health problems does not arise from the prisoner himself, or in a few cases herself, but from what we have done through the criminal justice system to these people. It is on us that they have these mental health problems.

I read in the press—here, I am possibly setting myself up to be slapped down by the Minister—that the Minister has said that IPP prisoners cannot be included here because they are peculiarly, particularly or distinctly dangerous, as opposed to prisoners with determinate sentences. As I am sure he would agree, on reflection, that is simply not the case. What is distinctive about IPP prisoners is not the danger they pose but the nature of the sentence they are serving. There are far more dangerous people with determinate sentences who will be released at the end of their sentence, however dangerous they are, be it after 40%, 50%, 67% or 100% of their sentence. The doors of that jail will open and they will walk free, however dangerous they are. It is not the danger they pose to society that determines whether prisoners are released; it is the character of the sentence imposed on them, and that needs to be borne firmly in mind. With that in mind, I have three questions to put to the Minister. I will fully understand, of course, if he is not able to answer them today, and if he is not, I am sure he will want to take the opportunity to write.

The first question is—and this is crucial—will the Minister confirm that the implementation of the IPP action plan remains a top government priority, and a priority in his department, and that that has been communicated to officials? That is absolutely crucial: if the IPP action plan is to be carried forward and have effect, it has to be understood that Ministers are totally behind it—as, I think the Minister would acknowledge, the last set of Ministers were totally behind it before they left office.

Secondly, can the Minister give any indication as to when the Government will bring into effect those parts of the Victims and Prisoners Act, passed just before Dissolution, that relate to the licence conditions of IPPs and the term that they must serve on licence before the sentence is discharged, and the matter is related to executive release by the Lord Chancellor, and so forth? All those elements relating to IPP prisoners were agreed and passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act just a matter of weeks ago.