Prison Recalls: Breach of Licence
Debate between Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Lemos(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Well I hope we do buck the trend, certainly of the last 14 years, but I will answer the noble Lord fully. Recall is a public protection measure, as he knows, and people are recalled because they have broken licence conditions. The way for offenders to avoid recall is to comply with their licence conditions. On his wider point about relationships and rehabilitation, I think he knows, as we have worked together on this before, that I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is saying. If there is indeed a gap between policy and practice, I shall be very happy to champion closing it—with, of course, his wise advice and help.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that special steps are urgently needed to reduce the number of IPP prisoners recalled for breach of licence conditions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I do agree with that, and I am very proud that the Government have announced decisive steps to address the IPP problem. It has gone on far too long and we are going to address it, as the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have announced. I should say, of course, that we shall not compromise public protection in doing that and, with regard to recall of IPP prisoners, we must make sure that the public are safe. But, as far as the IPP sentence is concerned, it must go.
Criminal Justice Reform
Debate between Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Lemos(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, did as Justice Secretary, particularly in relation to young offenders. On the specific point about IPP, I take his warning very seriously. This will be a very heated debate, and I shall appreciate the support of all noble Lords in taking this forward in the way the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, suggested. The Government do not want to be risk averse, nor guided by ill-informed public opinion, but we want to take victims into account, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. However, his warnings will be ringing in my ears as this goes forward.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, I turn to the cause of the prison problem. In my time in the law, I have seen sentences steadily increasing, so that today they are more than twice as long as when I started at the Bar, and far longer than sentences in most European countries. The cause has generally been a knee-jerk reaction to perceived demand from the public for greater punishment for particularly unpleasant instances of a crime, so sentences have been increased by the legislature. Does the Minister consider that this trend, which shows no signs of abating, ought to be examined very carefully, so that sentences are not increased without due regard to the consequences this will have?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The observation that sentences have doubled at the hands of legislators over a few decades is at the heart of the way we are progressing with the Sentencing Act and creating a different structure for these things. I do not know what the intention was, but if it was to win public confidence in reducing crime by doubling these sentences, it has palpably failed. Of course, there are several objectives—not competing ones—that we need to take into account: seeing that justice is done, taking the views of the victims into account, and making sure the public understand why the sentences imposed are the ones being imposed. But we must proceed with all those objectives in a considered and holistic way. That is what seems to me to have been missing.