Imprisonment for Public Protection

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Ellie Reeves

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

With great eloquence, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted two of the key reasons why this debate is so important. I concur fully with his views.

In many cases, IPP sentences that had shorter tariffs, of less than two years, have become in effect a life sentence as people have been stuck in limbo, unable to prove that they no longer pose a risk, often for reasons beyond their control. For those IPP-sentenced prisoners, the sentences did not work as intended and instead have become an unfairly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system. I would like to focus my remarks today on those prisoners, as it is those on the shortest tariffs who have experienced the injustice.

Why were IPP sentences abolished in the first place? Although designed to protect the public from serious offenders, IPP sentences were in reality handed down for a far broader range of offences than was intended. They were handed down at the rate of more than 800 a year, moving thousands of people into prison indefinitely. That led to offenders who had committed more minor crimes facing a short tariff but an indefinite sentence.

The Prison Reform Trust published late last year a report that showed that more than half of prisoners still serving an IPP sentence had a tariff of four years or less and 15% had a tariff of less than two years. Custody and imprisonment should be used as a last resort; and indefinite custody, with no fixed end, should be used only where a very serious offence has been committed. I fully appreciate that there are cases in which individuals have committed heinous crimes against humanity and therefore the local communities are extremely concerned about the prisoner’s release. One such case was highlighted to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He and his predecessor in that seat had both worked with the local community to highlight their very serious concerns about someone who had killed three children and impaled them on railings after murdering them in their home.

However, I am most concerned about the non-serious cases wherein someone is sentenced to a short sentence but ends up being imprisoned for years on end. Where people are safe to be released, we should not be keeping them in custody to serve many multiples of their tariff for the crimes that they have committed. That stands against the principles of natural justice, on which our justice system was founded. The more widespread use of IPP sentences than was intended has also led to a number of instances in which offenders who committed the same offence in the same context were handed sentences such that one offender could be expected to spend a lot longer in prison.

Even the author of IPP sentencing, David Blunkett, acknowledges that this was a flawed policy. Lord Blunkett has noted:

“The consequence of bringing that Act”—

the Criminal Justice Act 2003—

“in has led, in some cases, to an injustice and I regret that”.

In 2012, the Government rightly took the decision to abolish sentences of imprisonment for public protection for offenders, meaning that that option was no longer available to judges. However, although that was the right decision, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those who are currently serving an IPP sentence.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise that these sentences have now been abolished. The Parole Board previously aimed to get the IPP prisoner population below 1,500 by 2020, but the latest figures show that the number of people still serving IPP sentences is above 2,400. Given that these sentences have actually been abolished, does my hon. Friend agree that those who are continuing to serve them should be re-sentenced under the rules that exist at the moment?

[Mr Dhesi]

With great telepathy, I, too, will be referring to the Parole Board and the statistic that my hon. Friend has very ably highlighted. I fully agree with her.

As I said, the issue remains of what to do to address the situation of those currently serving an IPP sentence. That is the issue that the current Government have to grapple with. The problem remains a real one for the prisoners, for their families, for the justice system and for wider society, which needs to have confidence in a justice system that rehabilitates people and is fair and proportionate.

Let us examine the continued use of IPP sentences. On 31 March 2019, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) has highlighted, 2,403 prisoners were still serving an IPP sentence and had yet to be released, despite the abolition of these sentences more than seven years ago. Of those prisoners, nine out of 10 have already served the minimum tariff that was handed down to them by the judge at their trial. A large proportion of those still serving an IPP sentence after surpassing their original tariff were initially sent to prison to serve a short tariff. Of the close to 400 people on an IPP sentence with a tariff of less than two years, more than half have served nine years, or more, beyond their original tariff. That is a travesty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who cannot be here today, has informed me that a recent parliamentary question that she tabled has revealed that there are currently 46 women on IPP sentences, yet the Ministry of Justice does not know how many of those women have children. Given that that is such a low number, and given that the impact of mothers’ imprisonment on children is well documented, I believe that that is a shocking admission. The Parole Board predicts that unless changes are made to the situation faced by IPP prisoners, there will still be 1,500 people in prison serving an IPP sentence by 2020.

To illustrate the issues faced by people still serving IPP sentences, I shall draw attention to some particularly tragic examples of the effect that the indefinite nature of IPP sentences can have on those people sentenced to them.

Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Ellie Reeves

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered voter ID pilot schemes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The voter identity pilot scheme that was used in five local authority areas in this year’s local elections signals one of the most disproportionate and ill-thought-out changes to our electoral system in recent years. As the only Labour Member of Parliament representing an area used in the pilot scheme, I feel compelled to give the other side to the story that is being given by those merely repeating buzzwords and top lines on behalf of the Government.

The foundations for the pilot are well known and, arguably, well intentioned. It is true that at election times there is the potential for cases of fraud or voter impersonation. I do not dispute the fact that any attempt at fraud or voter impersonation is wrong, should be thoroughly investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. Electoral fraud is a serious crime, but to suggest that it is a widespread problem is gross hyperbole, and the introduction of voter ID schemes is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

In Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, where they have their own arrangements, there were 21 cases of alleged impersonation in polling stations in 2014, and 26 cases in 2015, amounting to 0.000051% of overall votes cast. In 2016 there was one successful prosecution and three cautions. In 2017 there were just 28 allegations of impersonation and one prosecution, equating to 0.000063% of overall votes cast.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate; she is making an excellent speech. On the point that she has just raised, is that not precisely why the respected and independent Electoral Reform Society is opposed to the scheme? The Equality and Human Rights Commission also warned the Government that a voter ID scheme would have a disproportionate impact on protected characteristic voters, such as those from ethnic minorities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities. That is precisely why the scheme should not have gone ahead.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that the Electoral Reform Society has criticised the scheme, stating that electoral fraud at the ballot box

“is an incredibly rare crime because it is such a slow, clunky way to steal an election—and requires levels of organisation that would be easy to spot and prevent.”

I will talk about protected characteristics later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

No. For the reasons I have already set out and will continue to set out, I do not, in principle, support the changes because, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Reform Society have identified, it is likely to lead to widespread disenfranchisement. I say that 154 people being disenfranchised in Bromley is 154 too many.

[Mr Dhesi]

Studies from the University of California have shown that such schemes are merely a tool for voter suppression. Does my hon. Friend agree? As the Windrush scandal has aptly highlighted, many people within the UK do not even have one piece of ID, let alone several.

[Ellie Reeves]

I agree that the scheme seems to disenfranchise certain groups, and that is something we should all be very worried about. The Labour party has been clear, repeatedly, that we believe the pilot to be misguided. I understand that more than 40 campaign groups that share our view have contacted the Cabinet Office, calling on the Government to drop any further roll-out.