Prison Recalls: Breach of Licence

Debate between Lord Woodley and Lord Lemos

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There are several parts to that question; let me try and answer them quickly. On the question of recalls for administrative breaches, we are trying to improve the administrative procedures and use technology to ensure that, as far as possible, offenders on licence can avoid recall for those reasons. Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right: the way to avoid recall is to prevent people becoming homeless and support all the protecting factors that prevent reoffending or, indeed, recall. Since we started our community accommodation service in HMPPS, we have helped to house 36,000 people, and the number of homeless ex-offenders has come down, but there is more to do. Finally, on the 56 days point, the reason we have done that, as the noble Lord knows, is to ensure that something meaningful and purposeful can happen when people are recalled.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, picking up on the last two speakers, there are countless people serving IPP sentences who have been recalled for no further offence but who have to wait up to two years to satisfy the Parole Board that they are indeed safe for release. Does the Minister agree that IPP prisoners who have been deemed safe for release should not have to prove yet again that they should regain their freedom?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I think my noble friend knows my views on this; we have worked closely together. He is a tireless campaigner on behalf of IPP prisoners and I pay tribute to him for that. We are going to end the IPP sentence without compromising public protection, and that includes ending the licence period.

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

Debate between Lord Woodley and Lord Lemos

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I disagreed with the right reverend Prelate and now I am going to disagree with the policeman—former policeman. I do not accept that characterisation. The situation on the specific question that the noble Lord raises about knowing where tagged people are is that by Christmas, because we are rolling out our plan, probation officers in every region will know the whereabouts of people on tags within 10 minutes, so the situation that he describes should not arise. I do not accept that there is no plan. I have already said that this is an important part of the future. It is an important part, for example, of the work that we are doing on domestic abuse in relation to alcohol tags. GPS tagging is improving. This will continue and it is extremely significant.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister knows only too well that the private sector is due to pocket an extra £100 million as a consequence of the expansion of the tagging service. As I said only last week, it is on its knees. It is very difficult to see how we can improve the situation when we have unacceptable strings on the table for the unions to accept. Therefore, does the Minister agree that HMPPS needs to remove these strings and give the staff a bigger slice of this £700 million pie, as opposed to their going on strike, which we do not need at all in this country?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend—my good friend—will understand that I do not want to comment on the negotiations that are under way, but I will say this: the staff of HMPPS have risen to challenges that many of us would find impossible. I pay tribute to them and they deserve credit. As we ask more and more of them, we will of course work with them to ensure that they are motivated and properly rewarded.

IPP Prisoners: Recall System

Debate between Lord Woodley and Lord Lemos

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Of course, recall should be used the interests of justice and not lazily, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that recall remains a vital public protection measure and that safeguards and oversight have been strengthened for IPP cases, partly as a result of his work. There has been a 31% decrease in IPP recalls in 2025 compared with 2024. All IPP licence recall decisions are now agreed by senior HMPPS decision-makers precisely to mitigate the point that the noble and learned Lord makes.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fantastic to see that we are now moving along the road of getting justice for IPP prisoners, but, once an IPP prisoner has been deemed safe and released by the Parole Board, that should be the end of the matter: IPP finished. If they are recalled for no further offence, it should be for the normal 56 days, like every other prisoner on a regular sentence, not back to the torturous, indefinite IPP sentence. For the sake of fairness, justice and equality for all prisoners, does the Minister agree?

Criminal Justice Reform

Debate between Lord Woodley and Lord Lemos

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lord, I warmly welcome this Statement. The Government’s commitment to end the IPP scandal, as has been mentioned, is long overdue. A transition with public protection at its heart is the right way forward, but may I suggest that we start straightaway with what I call the low-hanging fruit: the IPP prisoners who have already been found safe for release but have been recalled to custody for no further offence? That is about 80% of the recalls. Around 1,000 IPP prisoners could be released safely under supervision like this, so will the Government consider this option as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done, along with many other noble Lords on all sides of the House, to move us forward on the question of IPPs and how we regularise the situation. I should reinforce this: it goes without saying that we are not going to release people the Government or Parole Board think are dangerous, and we will put in place arrangements to make sure that we do not.

On recall specifically, we are planning to consider whether we can make more use of the risk-assessed recall review. I am happy to discuss this with my noble friend and others to address some of the concerns raised, but the recall powers are there for a reason and we do not propose to get rid of them. We are proposing to make sure that they are used in a way that keeps the public safe, but does not keep people in unnecessarily.