Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Amendment 152 is very simple. The Bill contains a power to change the period of three years. There are two solutions to this. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will address the first, which is whether we should remove the power altogether. The second—my preferred solution —is to alter “change” to “reduce”. “Change” enables you to increase, and I am sure that no one in Parliament wants to see an increase in the period. So I think it would be better to have a power but to make sure that it can be exercised in only one way. Having said that, I very much hope that this will not be controversial and that the Government can agree to this or to something very similar. I beg to move.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I have the privilege of rising on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is incredibly disappointed not to be here. He has a long-standing and unbreakable prior commitment. I know that he would want me to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the kindness that he displayed and for his crystal-clear description of these amendments and of the injustices and technicalities that they address, which any lay person could understand. I am very grateful, as I know my noble friend would be. I share in the tribute to my noble friend. The fact that the former Home Secretary has asked the former director of Liberty to speak on his behalf is perhaps testament to the character of my noble friend.

My noble friend supports all the amendments in this group, most of which belong, at least in initiation, to the noble and learned Lord. He also signed Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, because of this concern that no period should be increased by the Secretary of State.

For my own part, speaking for myself at this moment and not for my noble friend, of the two approaches—taking the power to alter entirely or leaving it as one only to reduce—I rather agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He has done so well in the explanation that I need say little more, other than that I also remember today our friend, his noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for whom righting this wrong, this stain on our justice system, was also incredibly important. Too many people in public life are happy to forget and ignore the mistakes of last week, let alone of two decades ago, but, if this is the House of Elders in our parliamentary system, such as it is, this is exactly the Committee to be embracing the amendments put so brilliantly just now by the noble and learned Lord.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his comments and endorse everything that he said, particularly about the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who we all wish was here today. I will address one or two of the pragmatic issues. The amendments in this group all relate to IPP licences, and I support them all. They are intended to affect the applications of licences to be fairer and speedier, so that we can release or re-release IPPs as fast and as safely as possible into the community.

Clause 48 currently removes the element of annual review in favour of one-off review every three years. However, if the Parole Board decides not to terminate the licence of this point, Amendments 149 and 150 restore the right—removed by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act—to an annual review by the Parole Board. The Prison Reform Trust comments that having a sunset clause of a further two years might just constitute a high bar for some prisoners, and that the Parole Board should be able to terminate the licence after one year, otherwise licences could drag on for years, as before.

The circumstances described in Amendment 152 are probably quite rare, but it is worth ensuring that a person would not have to suffer if they had been recalled but the Secretary of State had revoked the recall, presumably because there had been an error of some kind and they should not have been recalled. The prisoner should not be penalised because of an error not of their making.

Amendment 153 continues in a similar vein, but this time gives the Parole Board the ability to maintain the sunset clause. However, in this case, it is slightly more complicated. Firstly, the Secretary of State can recall if they conclude on reasonable grounds that the prisoner has deliberately revoked the terms of their licence and the safety of the public would be at risk. The Parole Board can overturn the Secretary of State’s decision to recall a prisoner if on subsequent review, and if it is privy to more information than the Secretary of State, it subsequently concludes that the prisoner is not putting the public at risk.

Amendment 157 ensures that the Government use their wide-ranging powers to change the qualifying period using only secondary legislation and that they can revise it only downwards. If they want to revise it upwards, it will have to be done with primary legislation. This is within the spirit of the Bill today. This amendment ensures that a future Government would not be tempted to use this power to make the situation worse for IPP prisoners, not better.

All in all, this suite of amendments is sensible and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, pragmatic. It is offered in a spirit of helpfulness. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see this and maybe feel that it is appropriate to introduce government amendments to this effect.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will first briefly recap some basic points that apply equally to the second and fourth groups of amendments that we will come to.

First, this Government recognise the highly regrettable history of this particular sentence. The Lord Chancellor himself has described IPP sentences as

“a stain on our justice system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 592.]

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly said, the question is what should be done. I will briefly summarise, to encapsulate our debate, what the Government think should be done.

The Government are making some very determined efforts to mitigate the situation of IPP offenders who are still subject to a sentence that was abolished in 2012. To bring noble Lords up to date, there were originally approximately 8,100 people subject to these sentences. Of those people, as of last December 1,227 had never been released, 1,625 had been released and later recalled, and there were still about 3,000 on licence in the community. Currently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, an offender cannot apply to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated until 10 years after first release.

Taking the released and then recalled population first, this is a challenge because that population is slowly rising. The major statutory change in Clause 48 will reduce the qualifying period before the offender becomes eligible for licence termination from 10 years to three years from first release, with a presumption of termination after three years and an automatic termination two years thereafter—provided that the offender can pass two years in the community without further recall. That is, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a huge change and a major achievement for the Government to be proposing. It should substantially mitigate the problem of prisoners being released and then recalled, which we will come to in more detail as this debate continues.

Regarding the second cohort—perhaps the first, depending on your point of view—of those who have never been released, most of these people have come up before the Parole Board, which is responsible for deciding on their release. In many cases, this has happened many times and the Parole Board has decided that it is not safe to release them as the risk to the public is too great. What is the Government’s approach to that problem? Spurred on by the 2022 report of the JSC, to which I pay tribute, the Government are developing a robust, coherent and detailed action plan in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the families, with the aim that each prisoner has a tailored sentence plan, appropriate support and clear objectives to work towards eventual release.

This last cohort is difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out because, aside from having committed very serious offences, many suffer from trauma, mental health issues, substance issues and so on. However, the Government are determined to see this cohort further reduced and to get rid of the idea that there is no hope. In the Government’s view, no one has given up on the IPP prisoners who have never been released. They have to be worked on. That is a hard task, but one that the Government—any Government—should take on.

For example, the number of those released has been reducing over the last two years at roughly 200 per year. There are now 200 of these prisoners in open conditions who are being prepared for further release. It is not as if nothing is going on or as if things are just vegetating and no one cares. The Government are very focused on doing something about this most difficult cohort. That is the overall framework, which I hope your Lordships will view, despite the difficulties of the past, as something of a new beginning for the future.

With that background, I turn to Amendments 149 to 151 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The effect of these would be that, if the Parole Board refused to terminate the licence at the new three-year point, the offender would have the right to apply annually to the Parole Board for a licence determination. As the Government understand it, the offender would be in the community rather than waiting out the two-year period, which results in the automatic termination of the licence. The offender would be able to apply to the Parole Board for termination after one year.

The Government recognise that released offenders in many cases need better support and have accepted all the recommendations to that effect in the recent report of the Chief Inspector of Probation on the recalls of IPP prisoners. However, the Government are not at present persuaded of the need for Amendments 149 to 151, on the following basis. If the offender has applied and the Parole Board, after three years, does not terminate the licence at that point, it does not seem to the Government unreasonable to expect the offender to spend two years in the community with the incentive of the certainty of licence termination at the end of that period. This amendment would enable the offender to make an interim application at the end of year four. That would impose further resource costs on the Probation Service and Parole Board because reports have to be prepared, hearings have to be convened and so forth. It would necessarily take the Parole Board several months to process that application.

We have come back several times in this debate to the pressures on the Parole Board and the time these applications take. It appears to the Government that, even if you could apply after year four rather than waiting until the end of year five, there is probably only a marginal gain for the offender. The Government are not at the moment persuaded on these amendments, although the Government continue to be in listening mode on this part of the Bill, as on every other part of the Bill.

Amendments 152 and 153, also moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, address what one could call in shorthand “questionable recalls”. I think there are two sorts of recall that we should be thinking about. The amendments suggest the possibility of the Parole Board disregarding a recall for the purpose of calculating the two-year period. Perhaps I may first clarify what is considered to be the existing position. If a recall is based on a fundamental mistake of fact—for example, the probation officer thinks that the offender has missed an appointment but the offender is in hospital because of a road accident the previous day—the Lord Chancellor considers that he already has the power in such a clear case to treat the recall as a nullity, as never having happened. That is a relatively clear case and I respectfully suggest that Amendment 152 is unnecessary.

The situation envisaged by Amendment 153 is effectively a challenge to the judgment call made by the probation officer about the recall. Technically it is a decision by the Secretary of State, but in practice of course it depends on the report by the probation officer. Amendment 153 would require the validity of that recall—the “appropriateness” of that recall, to use the word in the amendment—to be considered by the Parole Board and treated as a nullity if the board then considers that the recall decision was not appropriate. Although the Government understand the thinking behind the amendment, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found, in both 2020 and much more recently in 2023, that in practice HMPPS recall decisions are very largely appropriate.

At present, the Parole Board does not have any power to adjudicate on the appropriateness of the recall; its task is to decide on the issue of public protection and whether the offender is safe to release. For that purpose, the Parole Board will typically have much wider and more detailed information than was available to the individual probation officer faced with the recall decision. Amendment 153 would, however, turn the Parole Board process into an appeal from the recall decision and require the Parole Board, in effect, to second-guess what it would have done had it been the probation officer with the information then available to the probation officer.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I should like to better understand this part of the argument. When the noble and learned Lord said he is satisfied that in most cases recall is appropriate, did he mean recall in general or recall in IPP cases in particular? Secondly, when he was discussing the difference between decisions on executive recall on the one hand and dangerousness and public protection on the other, did he not think that there was a relationship between the two? When one is considering dangerousness, one might have a rather different view of what is required in relation to public protection if one or more recalls were inappropriate because they were for non-criminal, minor conduct that at no point presented a danger to the public?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. As to whether I was speaking of IPP specifically, I cannot off the top of my head recall whether the 2020 work was specifically in relation to IPP, but certainly the 2023 work, which is the most recent and the most valuable and which I highly recommend everyone to read, was specifically in relation to IPP when the Government were considering what to do following the JSC report when concern was expressed that recalls might be being made inappropriately. That inspector’s report took a sample of recalls, studied them very carefully; it was thought that a small number were questionable but that the vast majority were appropriate on the basis of the information that the probation officer had at the time.

Up to a point, the circumstances of the recall are part of a general picture of the dangerousness of the offender—I accept that. But the real point is that, when the Parole Board comes to consider public protection, it will have much more information, very often much more up-to-date and fuller, than the information that was before the probation officer at the time, who might well have to take a decision in an emergency on very limited information, but because of the risk, as they see it, to public protection. So it is very difficult, in the Government’s view, to give the Parole Board power to go all the way back and say, “This was inappropriate”. However, having said that, I would like to come back to the question of recall when we get to Amendments 154 and 168, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is a question of executive re-release on recall, which might be another way of approaching that problem. So that is the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 154 in my name and to Amendment 168 at the same time, as they sit together in this grouping. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, and I thank it for its significant input and support for these amendments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who, unfortunately, as we have heard, cannot be with us today, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for adding their support to my two amendments by adding their names.

I shall deal first with Amendment 168, since Amendment 154 is consequential on it. Amendment 168 is about executive release—that is to say, release by the Secretary of State following a recall to prison. At present, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Secretary of State has a power to release a determinate sentence prisoner on licence at any time after the prisoner has been returned to prison. He must not do so unless satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. Amendment 168 addresses a lacuna, which arises in the case of IPP prisoners who are recalled to prison, since the Secretary of State has no executive power to release them, even if it is obviously safe to do so.

Why does this lacuna need correcting? Let us look at the facts. There are, as the Minister has said, 1,625 IPP prisoners who are in prison following a recall. The Justice Committee, in its third report, said that the reasons for recalling IPP prisoners vary, and it was often not because the IPP prisoner had committed any further offence but because of a minor or technical breach of licence conditions. For example, the lack of availability of approved premises, believe it or not, or other suitable accommodation, was sometimes a reason for recall, even though it might, unreasonably in the circumstances, have been a condition of a licence.

Once the IPP prisoner has been recalled, they become subject to the usual parole process to secure their release. This can take months or even years. The Justice Committee found that, between 2015 and 2021, the average number of months spent in prison by an IPP prisoner following recall and prior to re-release was 18 months—the equivalent of three years on a traditional fixed-term sentence. I believe that the average time has now increased, as I think that the Minister said, and that period in prison following a recall has risen to on average 28 months before re-release. That is a wholly disproportionate additional period to serve if the recall was for a minor or technical breach of licence conditions, or if it is apparent that the prisoner is safe to release at an earlier stage.

The Justice Committee recommended the use of executive release for IPP prisoners in such cases, as is possible for determinate sentence prisoners. In their response, the Government stated that they would not accept the recommendation because it

“falls to the Parole Board to determine whether the … release test is met”.

But that fails to explain why determinate sentence prisoners can be executively released when they, too, are otherwise subject to a Parole Board review.

Amendment 168 is therefore about ensuring that like cases are treated alike, when there is no good reason for treating them differently. It provides that the Secretary of State should have a power of executive release at any time following the recall of an IPP prisoner, if the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. That will ensure consistency with the position of determinate sentence prisoners, while ensuring that public safety is not put at risk. There is no logical reason to treat IPP prisoners differently.

Amendment 154 is consequential on Amendment 168 because, if the IPP prisoner is executively released by the Secretary of State following an unnecessary recall, the IPP prisoner should obviously have the period unnecessarily spent in prison disregarded for the purpose of calculating the new sunset clause for IPP licences. However, as a safeguard, the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power in each case to determine whether this is appropriate. This will depend on an assessment of various factors, such as the degree to which the recall was unnecessary and whether the prisoner is safe to release.

In concluding on the two amendments, I can do no better than to refer to the truly tragic recent case of Matthew Price, who last year took his own life while on licence from an IPP sentence. I am sure that the whole Committee will join me in expressing the deepest condolences to Mr Price’s family. The coroner said that:

“Matthew’s mental well-being had been adversely affected over a significant period of time by the continuing impact of serving an”


IPP sentence, because of anxiety about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. The shocking thing is that Mr Price had been on licence for nearly 10 years. That demonstrates the devastating mental impact that an IPP sentence has. On 22 February this year, the coroner issued a so-called regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, in which he stated that there was

“a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken”

urgently. My amendments would not be enough to remove that risk completely, but they would help by providing another avenue of release from a recall while, crucially, ensuring the safety of the public. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept them, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to rise in support of my old boss, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere—one of the finest government lawyers I had the pleasure of working for and learning from in the late 1990s. He served Governments of both persuasions with such distinction that he went on to become the first ever counsel to No. 10, such was his expertise in these and other matters. It is wonderful to see him deploy those skills, including in the devastating way in which he has just argued for his two amendments in this group.