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

Lord Woodley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Woodley]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate today and to lead this important legislative campaign to abolish, once and for all, the great injustice that is imprisonment for public protection—or IPP sentences.

Parliament abolished IPP sentences on human rights grounds in 2012 but not, unfortunately, retrospectively, leaving thousands stuck with no hope and serving long, long-discredited, sentences. At least 90 prisoners have taken their own lives. Some are now free, both from prison and from licence in the community, having jumped through the right hoops—at least those who were fortunate enough to have the hoops to jump through.

I pay tribute, though, to the previous Lord Chancellor, and the current one, for making significant changes to shorten the licence period, ending this living nightmare for around 1,800 former IPP prisoners earlier this month. But many prisoners are still living this nightmare, and it is those people who I focus my Bill on, which quite simply seeks to convert these never-ending IPP torture sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end date, giving them hope.

There are three groups we are concerned with here. The first is the never released IPP prisoners, of which there were 1,095 at the end of September this year. The second is the recalled 1,600 people who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release, but who have since been recalled to prison due to a licence breach, though in the majority of cases for no further offence. They now need again to prove to the board, 18 months or more into the future, that they will still be safe for release. The third is those now out on licence—around 1,200 people currently considered safe by the Parole Board, yet still living in a state of fear and paranoia about recall to custody.

My Bill seeks to resentence all three groups eventually, along the lines suggested by the Justice Committee in the other place back in 2022. In fact, the Bill mirrors the amendment first moved by the committee’s widely respected former chair, Sir Bob Neill, to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and then in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, resentencing was described by the committee as,

“the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence”.

Crucially, the committee also recommended setting up

“a time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary”.

The role of the expert advisory committee is extremely important but rarely, if ever, acknowledged by the Government. I sincerely hope the Minister will address this concern. The expert committee, hand-picked by the Government, alongside the judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, would be free to explore all options for resentencing and to make suggestions for how this could indeed be achieved, balancing the important fundamental principle of justice with the importance of public protection. My Bill then calls on the Government to enact legislation to enable this resentencing to take place for all three groups, but in whatever order the committee advises, perhaps prioritising those with the shortest tariff or the longest time over tariff.

At this point, I make an apology for a couple of flaws in the Bill, which have been graciously pointed out to me by Nicholas Cooke KC, a former deputy High Court judge who has himself handed down IPP sentences. There are two flaws for us to be concerned with, and I will immediately table amendments that I hope will address them both in Committee. I genuinely apologise in advance if the following is less suited to Second Reading than Committee, but I believe that the Bill must be in the best possible shape if it is to find any favour with His Majesty’s Government. I hope there are elements of the Bill that the Minister might find palatable.

The first flaw relates to Clause 1(6) about imposing no heavier penalty than the original tariff. Of course, the tariff was set as a minimum release date, equivalent to a standard release of 50% of the way through a sentence, which now, of course, is 40% with SDS40 involved. The correct maximum penalty to be imposed with resentencing, therefore, would be double this tariff. My first amendment will clarify this.

The second flaw concerns those people who would otherwise be sentenced to life imprisonment had IPP not been available and who are still considered a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. I accept that there should be provision for keeping an IPP sentence in place in those circumstances, although I suspect this would apply to only a relatively small number of cases.

None of this is meant to distract from the very real need for movement by this Government on resentencing. I am aware, as are your Lordships, that the Government’s current position, as in Opposition and like the previous Government’s position, is that resentencing will not be considered on the grounds of public protection. This has been expressed by new Ministers, but there appears to be some confusion as to what resentencing actually means.

Most recently, at a Westminster Hall debate last month, Minister Dakin expressed concern that

“resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 242WH.]

With respect, this is a distorted reading of the Justice Committee’s report, and I hope the Minister will address this discrepancy in due course. The missing point, as was highlighted, I think, by every other speaker in that debate apart from the Opposition spokesperson, is that the expert advisory committee would be there to ensure that this is not the case. For example, the committee could advise that releases should be staggered so that probation can properly mitigate any risk, with suitable licence periods imposed. Please can we move the argument on from automatic release and no supervision to the practicalities of what a fair and safe resentencing exercise would actually look like?

My Bill proposes, as did the Select Committee, that everyone on an IPP sentence—all three groups mentioned earlier—is resentenced within a set period of time. But if the Government cannot stomach what was described in last month’s debate as the “full-fat version” of resentencing then perhaps they might consider partial resentencing, which might look, for example, at just the second two groups to start with: those who the Parole Board has at one point considered safe for release. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing this safe for release group is less problematic. Or it might look at just the third group: those currently released and living as normal lives as possible in the community. Surely the public protection argument against resentencing them is non-existent, so why will the Government not consider sentencing these people who, I repeat, the Parole Board currently consider safe?

The Minister in the other place made a valiant effort to explain why at the debate, claiming resentencing would

“halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 243WH.]

But of course, as I just explained, that would be entirely up to the Government. If the Government wanted to continue the risk management and support, all they would have to do would be legislate for this as part of a resentencing exercise.

I hope all these issues can be properly explored in Committee if the Government grant time for it, but before I sit down I thank the dozens of individuals and organisations that have contributed to this really important debate. Most of all, I thank all the IPP prisoners and their families who have written to me with such heartbreaking stories of injustice. My message to them and to all those still serving IPPs in prison or in the community is: please do not give up hope. Likewise, I do not want to give false hope. They deserve better from us all.

It is up to the Government, and the Government alone, whether my Bill becomes law, in whole or in part. IPP reform is clearly a matter of conscience, with the principle of justice to be balanced with protecting the public. Therefore, there should be a free vote on this Bill in both Houses, in my opinion, but I want to work now with the new Government to resolve this scandal for good. If that means making compromises to make progress then I am prepared to do just that. I want to use the Bill to find common ground to bring resentencing a step closer, even if we do not reach our final destination immediately.

Let us work together to end this scandal and give hope, at long last, to the hopeless. History is being written right now, and my plea to the Government is this: do not be on the wrong side of history. Do not wait for the ITV docudrama to cast you unfairly as uncaring, cold-hearted time-wasters who left damaged people—many of them broken by the state—to rot away in prison while those in power stood by wringing their hands. No. Let us work to find a solution before any more lives are lost to this terrible stain on our precious justice system. In that spirit of co-operation, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their thoughtful, enlightening and informative contributions, which have outlined the tragedy and scandal that is undoubtedly out there. The Minister’s contribution leaves a void in my mind: we are still not treating the prisoners or their families as an absolute priority and with the respect they deserve. There is no doubt as we sit here today that many prisoners’ families will be watching or listening to this debate. They, like me, genuinely believe that this is as big a scandal as the Post Office and infected blood scandals, terrible as they were.

There are 90 dead—not nine or one, which would be bad enough, but 90. Many of them unfortunately took their own lives as a consequence of having no hope, as, in fairness, the Minister just mentioned. Thousands are sitting in prison with no hope. It is unbelievable.

I listened with interest to the Minister, a man I have a great deal of respect for. I absolutely acknowledge his actions before he came into this place, employing, as he said, 30 IPP prisoners, all of whom he had no problems with and who were decent employees and did their job—those might not be his exact words, but he knows what I am saying. I know that he knows what he is talking about, and I know that he cares. That makes his disappointing answer even sadder.

The Minister kept saying that the first thing we need to do is make sure that the public are safe while putting in place a variety of changes, many of which we all welcome and can see the benefits of right now, as he mentioned. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that our system at the moment, compared to what he thinks we should try to do—and I believe he is truthful in what he says—is not fit for purpose.

The Minister had the decency to introduce me to one of his senior Parole Board people last week. I thank him again for that, but even that gentleman said that, if they had a person out for recall who was put back into prison, it could take 12 to 18 months at a minimum before their case would be reheard, irrespective of the fact that they may already have served 10, 11, 12, 15 or 16 years in prison. With the greatest respect, where is the duty of care not just to the general public, which I will come back to, but to those prisoners, many of whom, as I said earlier and the noble Baroness just said, have become mentally unstable as a consequence of their treatment? Where is the duty of care to them and their families?

The Minister has not given any logical or legal reason why he cannot look at partial resentencing. He said that he does not think it would be fair for a particular reason, but where is the legal problem or impediment in resentencing those two groups found to be safe by the Parole Board? If there is such a legal opinion stopping him doing it, I would be most grateful if he could show it to us. If you cannot stop it, with the greatest respect, all of us should stop waffling here and start to do the right thing. As that old adage goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way. With a genuine Minister like the noble Lord, there is a way for us all to try to help, but we will have to wait and see.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Davies and Lord Wolfson, and others mentioned the mental state and health of these prisoners after having gone through such turmoil in recent years. Here lies the other problem with the proposals on the table. When people have given up and lost the plot because of what has happened to them, how on earth could they ever turn around and be fit to get through the Parole Board’s criteria? There is no way they could, to be quite honest. Nevertheless, I look forward to this Bill being given a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. Yes, I hope the panel will engage with the whole sector, and there are so many experts who have so much experience. As far as the scope of the sentencing review goes, it will be reviewing the framework around longer custodial sentences, including the use of minimum sentences and the range of sentences and maximum penalties available for different offences and how we administer them. The panel will also review the specific needs of young offenders, older offenders, female offenders and prolific offenders. It has a lot of work to do, and we hope it will do it by the spring.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, there are 1,800 prisoners serving IPP sentences, as the Minister knows. One has been in prison for 12 years for stealing a plant pot; another has been in for eight years for stealing a mobile phone. At the same time, there is no review. When we look at prison places, I look forward to the Minister’s efforts in reviewing this situation, which cannot go on any longer. Does the Minister agree with me that we do not need large warehouse prisons? As the Prison Officers’ Association says, we need something local—something that can be looked after socially in the local area—and that makes sure that reoffending does not take place.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. As for what kind of prisons we need, I think we need a good mix of prisons of all shapes and sizes and in all locations. On IPP sentence prisoners, I am sure the House knows me well enough to know how deeply troubled I am by the state of the lives of IPP sentence prisoners. It is not included in the sentencing review because I feel we are already making good progress, albeit early progress. The IPP action plan is solid and we need to push on fast with it.

I am looking at two things at the moment. One is that 30% of IPP sentence prisoners are in the wrong prison for helping them fulfil their needs to get out of prison. I am also heartened by a dashboard that we now have so we know where every IPP prisoner is and where they are up to with their sentence—it may not sound much, but it is a game-changer for how we can support people to work through their sentence. So I want to make rapid progress. I also reassure my noble friend that, when I was running the family business, I managed to work alongside 30 colleagues who were IPP prisoners and they were absolutely fantastic, and the second chance that they were given was paid back in buckets.

Prison Officer Pension Age

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on the first question, the Treasury has overall responsibility for setting pension arrangements for the Civil Service; that is not an MoJ responsibility, and my noble friend correctly makes that point. As for “lock until you drop”, can we please distinguish between the age at which you get a full pension and the age at which you can retire, which is something quite different? A prison officer does not have to work to the age of 68 to qualify for any pension; he can retire earlier on a smaller pension and then, unlike most situations in the armed services, he can return to work—in a less front-line role, typically. He will continue to work and earn a pension, as well as the other pension he has already accrued. It is not at all clear that prison officers under the present scheme are worse off than they would be if they were in the armed services, especially given the higher contributions the latter have to make.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, prison officers are, unfortunately, banned from taking industrial action and the Government are, in my opinion, exploiting this unjustifiable restriction. Lifting the pension age to 68 is a classic example of this, and looking after violent, overcrowded and understaffed prisons is not a job for older workers. Does the Minister agree that this policy, which is “lock until you drop”, is reckless, dangerous and plain wrong?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government are unable to agree with the somewhat colourful language used by the noble Lord. The Government have the highest regard for our prison officers, who stand on the front line in prisons and are some of our finest public servants.

However, it is as well to remember that the pension contributions paid by prison officers are much lower than those paid by other uniformed services—between 4% and 6% for prison officers, as against 12% to 15% for other services. These days, if you are a young person in your 20s or early 30s entering the prison service, you are not necessarily thinking about what you are going to get when you are 68. You may be more than satisfied with a lower pension contribution now.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

It is also quite a palaver to secure an affirmative order; it is not that simple and there are a lot of processes to be gone through. Also, it would require a one-hour debate in your Lordships’ House. Assuming any change was desirable, it might be simpler to use a suitable Bill to effect any change needed.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I support of all the IPP amendments debated now and later this evening. First, I express my sincere regret for being unable to speak at Second Reading, as this is a subject, as colleagues know, that is very dear to me and of great interest to me and I have raised several times in your Lordships’ House.

I had the humbling experience of meeting and listening to former IPP prisoners, who had served from five to ten years more than their minimum sentence, and family members of prisoners who have served more than 15 years over tariff. I have to tell the Committee that it was a heart-breaking occasion, knowing that there was no end to their injustice in sight, no hope for the thousands of prisoners and family members who are treated so inhumanely, not enough courses to help them to apply for a review and not enough opportunities within the justice system to even give them a review.

As has been mentioned, IPPs were abolished over a decade ago, so how on earth can it be that so many people—almost 3,000 of them—are still living through this never-ending nightmare? I agree with the Justice Select Committee and the UN special rapporteur on torture that resentencing represents the only way forward for resolving the IPP scandal and for justice at long last to be done.

Importantly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, we must not forget the psychological effects of IPPs on prisoners and families alike, as the Justice Committee’s report so vividly highlighted and has been further demonstrated by the high number of suicides that we have tragically seen. Likewise, the UN special rapporteur, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, describes IPPs as “psychological torture” and says it is

“tragic that so many mental health challenges appear to have been caused—or at least aggravated—by the uncertainty of indeterminate sentences”.

I agree with that. This is a miscarriage of justice on an industrial scale. It may not presently have the profile of the Post Office scandal, but nevertheless it is a cruel injustice that has gone on for far too long.

I understand—as, again, has just been mentioned—that both Front Benches have previously been resistant to resentencing on the grounds of public safety. Of course, in an election year no one wants to look soft on crime. However, to quote Dr Edwards:

“It is the responsibility of the UK government to protect public safety, but citing this as the reason not to review IPP sentences is misleading. The UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released. Locking people up and ‘throwing away the keys’ is not a legal or moral solution”


to this terrible problem. I agree, but if either Front Bench is still in need of more political cover to do the right thing, I suggest that Amendment 167C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which we will come to soon, fits the bill. That amendment would delay resentencing until the chief inspector was satisfied that the Probation Service could adequately protect the public following any resentencing exercise. The long- overdue release and justice for IPP prisoners should not be blocked over the excuse that the Probation Service cannot cope, but Amendment 167C might be the compromise needed to unlock that puzzle—a pathway out of this political impasse. I sincerely hope it is.

I urge the Committee to summon the post-war spirit of 1945 and back Amendment 167C from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I know that IPP prisoners and their families are watching us here, hoping but also fearing what might be coming round the corner. Our Parliament must strike up the courage to act and correct the injustices that we can all see if we just open our eyes.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support this array of amendments on IPP, both the current amendments and the ones that will follow. As the Committee will know, I am a regular visitor—twice a month—to prisons across the UK, and I will visit another one tomorrow morning. On a regular basis—two a month—I meet many incarcerated men and sometimes women, and many who have left prison over the last 10 years, and I have found relentless IPP tragedies around every corner.

I shall refer to one story from a meeting in December, when a man came up to me and said that he had been released from an IPP sentence 14 years ago but was recalled back to prison in September after he forgot to inform his then probation officer that he had gone on holiday with his wife in August for two weeks to Spain. This is just sheer stupidity, let alone the fact that this system is organising to persecute people compared with recognising their renewal. In his case, and not just because I have now met him twice, he does not deserve the taxpayer to spend nearly £50,000 for an extended period to make sure that he is further detained and punished.

I hope the Minister will gather up all his strength and either accept this array of amendments in one gulp or go back to the Lord Chancellor and determine to bring back an effective set of government amendments that will allow us to end this appalling stain of injustice and unfairness. Another man I met eight years ago from a prison in Kent had been recalled three times. From an initial sentence of seven years, he had done over 24. The persecution of this man’s mental abilities was blatantly obvious; he was no risk to anyone. I can tell noble Lords that since we campaigned for his release, and he has been released, he is an honourable citizen paying his taxes. That is how we should treat many of these men—they are largely men—to see that they are given the opportunity to prove their new life.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, that is, in effect, the present position. The Government have no interest in holding these prisoners, especially given the pressure on the prison system generally. The Government’s fear, worry and concern is public protection, for the reasons I have given.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the special rapporteur, Dr Alice Edwards, whom I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting last month with the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, stated forcefully that:

“The UK, as a society with a strong rule of law tradition, has measures in place to protect the community after individuals are released”.


Why then does the Minister think that these measures will be ineffective in the case of IPP prisoners?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government replied in detail to the learned special rapporteur with a letter of over 13 pages on 23 December, to which I refer your Lordships. I look forward to further debate and discussion on this matter when we are dealing with the Victims and Prisoners Bill.

Joint Enterprise: Young Black Men

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks of Lord Bellamy on 14 June (HL Deb col 1990), what steps they are taking to address concerns that joint enterprise case law operates in a harsh way against young black men.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, joint enterprise case law is primarily a matter for the judiciary. The CPS applies that case law and race plays no part in individual charging decisions. Recognising concerns about possibly disproportionate use of the joint enterprise case law, the CPS has piloted the collection of data on joint enterprise homicide prosecutions. Informed by the results of that pilot, published on 29 September last, the CPS aims to commence a full national monitoring scheme early next year.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

The new data that the Minister mentioned confirms, unfortunately, that young black men are disproportionately affected in joint enterprise prosecutions, as campaigners such as me have warned for many years. Black people are 16 times—I repeat, 16 times—more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws. It is absolutely shocking, as I am sure your Lordships all agree. Does the Minister therefore agree that this proves indisputably that joint enterprise is being used in a racist way by prosecutors, and basically as a dragnet to hoover up black urban youth?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, if I may respectfully say so, the results so far of the pilot prove nothing of the sort. The pilot showed a high number of black males in joint enterprise cases in the 18-24 age group and a high proportion of white males in the 30-59 age group. Those figures, taken alone, do not establish discrimination; disparity on its own does not establish discrimination. That is why, to get to the bottom of this, the CPS will build on the pilot and the national monitoring scheme will commence next February, together with other measures that the CPS is taking.

Miscarriages of Justice

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent miscarriages of justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, miscarriages of justice occur relatively rarely within our justice system. In criminal cases, the Criminal Cases Review Commission will investigate possible miscarriages of justice and, if necessary, refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The Government have recently increased legal aid for such cases. The Law Commission is also currently conducting an independent and wide-ranging review of our appeals system to ensure that it is operating effectively.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the Minister’s Answer, but honestly, I am increasingly concerned that, whether through joint enterprise, guilt-by-association sentences or IPP sentences abolished a decade ago but not retrospectively, there are still thousands of prisoners who are rotting away with little or no hope of finding justice. It seems to be going nowhere. So, what is the Minister doing to correct these obvious miscarriages of justice, particularly as the Government have already accepted, at least on joint enterprise, that BAME groups are disproportionately affected?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, first, on joint enterprise, it is a long-standing principle of the criminal law that persons who go together to commit a crime are jointly liable, irrespective of whoever threw the brick or fired the shot. There is a great deal of jurisprudence on this subject, and it is true that there is some concern that the existing case law does operate in a harsh way on certain young black boys and men. The CPS, to which I would like to pay tribute, is engaged in a six-month pilot, which started in February 2023, to review joint enterprise cases in several CPS areas. It has also established a joint enterprise national scrutiny panel to review the interim findings of the pilot and several finalised joint enterprise cases. At the end of September this year, the results of that review will be published. This, I understand, will also be considered in relation to the Law Commission’s investigation into the appeals process.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, those who have been present for the last group will inevitably experience déjà vu, for which I make no apology. The implications of this legislation for the people upon whom obligations are being placed is clearly an important aspect of the Bill. It is not about the principle, where our position has been made clear; it is about the inadequate thought and consideration that has gone into preparing this legislation.

These clauses are a form of conscription—compulsory enlistment for state service, typically but not necessarily into the Armed Forces. Requiring transport workers, going about their normal work, to undertake state service—additional responsibilities mandated by the Government—constitutes a form of conscription. I will not take this too far but, for seafarers, it is effectively a return of the press-gang.

As the Minister alluded to in his remarks on the previous group, for transport workers there are already provisions for this sort of activity in the immigration Acts. People get deported in accordance with the law when they have no right to remain in the country. That raises the question: if it is already happening, why are these additional powers required?

I would argue that there is a highly significant difference between the existing practice and that proposed in the Bill. There is no dispute about that difference. The front of the Bill states that the Minister is

“unable to make a statement that … the provisions of the … Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.

That is the human rights convention. This makes an enormous difference when we come to the imposition of additional responsibilities on employees. It is clearly a matter of concern to transport workers that they will be required to undertake actions when the Government cannot provide an assurance that, in doing so, they are not impinging on an individual’s human rights.

It therefore behoves the Government to take extra care when preparing such legislation. It is perfectly clear that this care has not been taken. There is a total lack of any assessment of the consequences and a failure to undertake any meaningful consultation with those who will be directly affected by the legislation or even their employers. With these amendments, I am asking the Minister to take the opportunity to review the provisions in this part of the Bill that impact on individual workers before it returns on Report.

I turn to the amendments specifically. They would simply delete those provisions that are of serious concern to rail staff and seafarers—as expressed by their trade union, the RMT—and to employers across the transport industry, where I understand there has been little or no consultation about their practicalities.

Amendment 57B would amend Clause 7 by deleting subsections (12) and (13). Here we have the powers for the Home Secretary to require train “owners”, as the Bill puts it, to “make arrangements” to deport individuals who fall foul of the legislation. It gives immigration officers the power to instruct people employed as train guards, for example, to detain and even restrain someone the Home Secretary is seeking to remove from the UK on passenger rail services. In effect, guards on passenger rail services will be turned into prison guards, acting under the direction of the Home Secretary and not that of their employer.

It is worth reminding the Committee that transport workers are routinely advised not to put themselves in situations of conflict when performing their contractual duties. They signed up to provide a transport service, not to act as untrained and inexperienced prison guards. This approach of lack of confrontation was uppermost in people’s minds around the enforcement of face mask wearing and other aspects of the Government’s Covid-19 response. Why is this situation, which is more extreme, any different? I understand that the RMT has tried to contact, and spoken to, transport Ministers and employers in the industry to seek their support in opposing these provisions.

I turn to seafarers. The captain of a ship will also be subject to these provisions. In practice, that would mean immigration officers directing the ship’s captain, who would then be obliged to instruct the ship’s crew to detain and even restrain people, subject to the Bill’s provision.

When the Immigration Act 1971 and other legislation to which the Minister has referred already contain significant powers to control migration, why are these additional powers required?

Amendment 58A would delete Clause 9(1) and (2). These provisions add rail employees to the list of transport workers subject to fines—criminal penalties—of up to £5,000 under Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971, in relation to the removal process. This rush to legislate has been undertaken with scant regard to, and certainly no consultation with, workers on their responsibilities, even when they could be prosecuted if someone being transported in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of State were to “disembark”, as the legislation puts it, or were not removed from the UK. In effect the Government are threatening transport workers, particularly rail and shipping staff and their employers, with criminal sanctions if they fail to impose custodial conditions on people submitting a claim for asylum in the UK. Once again, the Government do not appear to have undertaken any impact assessment of these proposals, particularly what they mean for individuals.

Amendment 71B would delete part of Clause 11(1). There are already significant powers in the Immigration Acts for an immigration officer to instruct the captain of a ship or aircraft to detain a person being removed from the UK if they have not been granted leave to remain or have attempted to enter the UK illegally on a ship or aircraft. But Clause 11(1) significantly amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

The effect of this provision is that the Secretary of State, rather than the courts, will determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for, for the specific statutory purpose. If the Secretary of State does not consider that the examination, decision, removal or directions will be carried out, made or given within a reasonable period, the person may be detained for a further period that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, reasonably necessary to enable arrangements to be made for release.

The concern is that the Bill appears to give the Home Secretary much broader powers to require the detention of people on ships and aircraft for long periods of time. This is likely to mainly affect services chartered by the Home Office or the Home Secretary, but clarification is needed on the impact on the ships’ crews, who will potentially be stuck in port for an indeterminate period of time under the instruction of the Home Secretary.

As with the concerns I have raised over the contents of Clauses 7 and 9, the provisions in Clause 11(1) put seafarers and other transport workers in positions of conflict and potential harm at the instruction of the Secretary of State.

Given these concerns, I press the Minister to answer the following questions. First, will transport workers be prosecuted if they do not detain asylum seekers in line with the provisions of the Bill—actions clearly outside their contract of employment?

Secondly, what impact assessment have the Government conducted of these amendments, which bring transport workers and their employers into the scope of the legislation with the threat of criminal sanctions? If they have made an assessment, will they reveal it?

Thirdly, what consultation have the Government conducted with employers across the transport industry regarding these powers? I asked a question in relation to the previous group. I would have pressed the Minister at the time but, since I have this second bite at the cherry, I raise it now: what consultation has taken place? If there has been none, will they swiftly organise some? Will they include the results of such discussion in the fondly awaited impact assessment?

Fourthly, what discussions have the Government had with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland over the effect of these requirements on Transport for Wales, ScotRail and cross-border rail operations?

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, as we can see, there has been an inevitable crossover between this group of amendments and the previous ones, as the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Balfe, mentioned. I rise in support of this last group of amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Davies.

For workers, there can be no doubt: it is somewhat disgraceful that Ministers are seeking to make transport workers responsible for detaining and even restraining asylum seekers. The TUC says that this idea shows “total disregard” for these workers’ ethical views and legal obligations. As has been mentioned, the RMT has put this in even starker terms, as did my noble friend Lord Davies a few seconds ago: these proposals will turn train guards into prison guards. Think about those words for a moment; it cannot possibly be right.

Clause 7 risks putting transport workers in situations of conflict, while Clause 9 increases their exposure to criminal sanctions and drags train managers and others into the removal process. This is surely completely unacceptable and unnecessary. The legislation is vindictive and inhumane. It seeks to exploit boat crossings in the channel to stoke resentment against refugees and migrants seeking asylum in this country.

These amendments are probing in nature and designed to draw out the Government’s reasoning behind these appalling proposals. They would protect transport workers from the terrible burden that Ministers seek to place upon them.