IPP Sentences

Debate between Bambos Charalambous and Liz Saville Roberts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were introduced in 2005 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are cruel, unjust and damaging to those who are still serving them. They were meant to be used to protect the public against criminals who had committed one of 96 offences and who were thought still to be a danger after the minimum term or tariff of the original sentence had expired. No level was set for that tariff by the legislation and the open-ended nature of the sentences led to some catastrophic results.

The House of Commons Library, in its excellent briefing paper for this debate, noted one instance where the courts applied an IPP sentence to someone who had served a minimum term of just 28 days. The misapplication of, and erroneous logic behind, IPP sentences resulted in widespread criticism and to the Government being challenged in court over restrictions on ways that IPP prisoners could demonstrate that they were no danger to the public.

Following a joint report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and HM inspectorate of probation that highlighted the low levels of IPP prisoners being released, as well as the unsustainability of IPP prisoners adding to the burgeoning prison population, a ministerial review was carried out. Eventually, after further court cases and public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished on 3 December 2012. By then, more than 6,000 prisoners had received IPP sentences. Fast-forwarding to the present day, according to Ministry of Justice statistics as of June this year there were 1,132 IPP prisoners who had never been released, and a further 1,602 who had been recalled for breaching their licence conditions, making a total of 2,734 IPP prisoners still in our prisons.

Criticism of IPP sentences has come from far and wide. In August of this year, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said:

“IPP sentences are inhuman treatment and, in many cases, amount to psychological torture.”

Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas described them as “morally wrong” and “inherently unfair”. Even Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were brought in, described their introduction as “the biggest regret” of his political career, which in some cases had led to injustice.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Blunkett on the media today saying that one of the alternative options should be secure therapeutic units?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right, and one of the biggest impacts of IPP sentences is on the mental health of prisoners. I will come to that later. She makes a good point with which I agree.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Bambos Charalambous and Liz Saville Roberts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher).

Noble peers in the other place have given the Government a chance to reconsider the irreparable damage that passing the Bill will do to Britain’s international reputation by undermining the rule of law. We must be clear that using the powers in the Bill will break international law, and attempts to justify that by saying that it will be done only in a limited and specific way are laughable. When it comes to deciding what the impact of the Bill will be, I prefer to listen to two Lord Justices and five former Prime Ministers regarding the rule of law.

The Bill will also affect Britain’s ability to influence matters globally. As the former Conservative party leader, Lord Howard, asked: how can the UK reproach Russia, China and Iran for their conduct, when it is prepared to break international laws? That runs contrary to the principle of good faith set out in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which governs so many international treaties and allows nations to enter agreements with free consent and good faith.

Why should anyone trust negotiations by a nation that gives itself permission to go back on its word? I think we found the answer to that today, when the Prime Minister decided that he would remove the offending clauses if a deal is done. Such a stance is hampering negotiations by fostering mistrust in other nations. Is that not a further erosion of Britain’s place in the world? The rule of law, keeping one’s word and the sanctity of treaties were once bywords for Britain’s respectability, yet we now see a Government who are trashing Britain’s reputation. The Lords recognised that, which is why they voted to remove part 5 of the Bill.

Measures in part 5, which peers rightly voted to exclude, give Ministers the power by secondary legislation to disapply powers to Northern Ireland, in clear breach of the Northern Ireland protocol. In doing so, Ministers will, without any scrutiny, be able to subvert the rule of law and break international law. The measures in the Bill are also contrary to the dispute resolution articles in the withdrawal agreement.

Government Members have in recent weeks been complaining about the lack of scrutiny and opportunity to challenge the Government’s restrictions imposed on England due to covid-19, yet they seem blithely willing to surrender power to the Executive and have Ministers make decisions away from Parliament. This is not so much taking back control as relinquishing all power. What is worse is that the measures will be put beyond any meaningful judicial review.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is a bad Bill, which the noble Lords in the other place have tried to salvage. There can be no rational dispute with the logic that they have applied in trying to get part 5 removed. The Bill disregards the rule of law, trashes Britain’s international reputation and gives power to the Executive, away from parliamentary, public and judicial scrutiny. The Lords amendments go some way to fixing this mess, but if the Government seek to disagree with them I will vote against.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). I have spoken on numerous occasions about the invidious creeping damage that the Bill will do to devolution; therefore the decision to press ahead without changing course, while unsurprising, does nothing but drive home the disregard that the Government have for Wales and its people.

First, the Bill attacks the devolution settlement by hollowing out and reserving the Senedd’s powers—powers for which the people of Wales have voted not once but twice. This is not merely an abstract argument about constitutional arrangements; the Bill paves the way for the deregulation of goods and services. That means that in the coming years we can expect a weakening of devolved standards in Wales, with bad consequences—from substandard beef finding its way into the diets of people in Wales to landlords providing inadequately regulated services in the private rented sector.

Turning to the Lords amendments, I support the exemptions from market access principles for existing regulatory divergence, as agreed under the common frameworks approach, as they safeguard existing Welsh standards and policy divergence, such as the minimum unit pricing for alcohol. However, the amendments do not offer protection to future legislation, and offer no protection, therefore, to future divergence.

The Lords’ removal of clauses relating to additional financial powers is also welcome. These measures are completely disproportionate to the aims of the Bill and act as a cover for further centralisation of power by the UK Government. The removed clauses would reserve state subsidy powers to this place, while undermining a future Welsh Government’s ability to manage and invest in the economy, cutting across devolved areas such as health, education and housing.

Lord Thomas said it well when he said that clause 42 is unnecessary and

“will enable the UK Government to spend funds in ways that the UK/English Government think best, but which the people of Wales, for example, may have rejected. That is not democracy. In effect, it would give legislative underpinning to the now discredited principle that the Government in Westminster know best”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 574.]

The Senedd’s Finance Committee has noted that the constitutional and financial implications of the Bill passing unamended would undermine devolution and set in motion the means for the UK Government to reduce the Welsh block grant in future. We should be alert to that. In addition to the Finance Committee, two other Committees of the Senedd have called on the Senedd to withhold its consent to the Bill. Consultation without consent is a deceit. Consultation without the power of veto is worthless.

The removal of clauses in part 5 related to the Northern Ireland protocol is welcome. Plaid Cymru, of course, unequivocally supports upholding our international commitments in the EU withdrawal agreement. The Government’s disregard for the rule of law internationally, coupled with their bulldozing of the UK devolution settlement, exemplifies their totalising approach to governance, with power and control at the heart of their modus operandi. When the Prime Minister described devolution as a disaster he insulted our young democracy as a disaster. The Bill is entirely consistent with the contempt in which the Government hold Wales. If the Government can talk up sovereignty and taking back control, then Wales can seek our sovereignty, our control and our independence.