Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I have no time today to talk about what is in this Bill, only to talk about what is not but plainly should be: IPP prisoners, a subject already touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. This Bill represents a further step toward sentence inflation and must inevitably lead to a greater prison population and more overcrowding. Remedying the IPP regime would not only help cure a great and growing injustice in our system, it would also make some contribution—if perhaps only a modest one—towards reducing, instead of endlessly increasing, the prison population.

The very first sentence of the impact assessment for this Bill, under the heading,

“What is the problem under consideration?”,


speaks of too many offenders

“not serving a sentence that reflects the severity of their crime”.

Tell that to the remaining 1,722 IPP prisoners never yet released from their sentences—sentences which, by definition, were imposed before 2012, when the whole discredited IPP regime was abolished by LASPO, although, alas, only prospectively, not retrospectively.

Of those 1,722 prisoners—these figures come from June of this year—96% have passed their tariff expiry date and 555 have served over 10 years beyond their tariff term, which is the term specified, in the words of the impact assessment, to reflect

“the severity of their crime.”

Astonishingly, of those, 207 have actually got a tariff term of less than two years. Are these not appalling figures?  Indeed, many of them have served well beyond the statutory maximum determinate sentence for their offences.  Frankly, this is a system of preventive detention which some know effectively as internment.

That is not the end of the problem because in addition there are now in prison a further 1,332 IPP prisoners recalled under the licence provisions; therefore, making more than 3,000 IPP prisoners still incarcerated in our prisons. Recalls are a growing problem. The number is increasing year on year. The great majority are not for further offending but rather for often comparatively minor non-compliance with release conditions, such as not giving their correct or up-to-date address—and they do not always find that easy—or for mental health reasons.

All these IPP prisoners, whether never yet released or recalled, have to discharge that most difficult of burdens to prove for release that they would then be safe. In the meantime, they and their families live in a Kafkaesque world of uncertainty, hopelessness and despair. It is small wonder that there have been many suicides among this population: twice as many IPPs even than ordinary life sentence prisoners. It is self-harm. It is also small wonder that Justice Ministers past—Tories such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and Michael Gove—have recognised the manifest injustice of all this and called for reform. Indeed, on 31 July I hope at least some noble Lords read Matthew Parris, who devoted his whole column to urging the Government to have the political will—as he put it, the guts—finally to deal with the gross injustices that these prisoners continue to suffer. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity at long last to do something for this cohort.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard part one
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to do that. As I am sure everybody recognises, that was not the point I was making. I appreciate that it was regarded as lame by some people, but the point that I sought to make was that the distinction and purpose of the amendment was to expand the definition from prison officers to other people working in prison. My point was that from the way in which it is drafted—and I appreciate that it could be redrafted—it could and would be read so broadly as to include prisoners who were doing jobs in prison. It was certainly not what I was saying to place prisoners doing jobs in prison with chaplains and others who are working in prison. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to make that clear, if it was not already.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

I seek one matter of clarification, although I should not need to. Is there no way, apart from raising the maximum sentence by legislation, by which government could bring to the attention of the prosecuting authorities, sentencing courts and so forth the aggravating features that cover all these amendments? There are the emergency workers in the first place, and the nauseating offence of potting, which I confess not to have heard of before, and assaults on prison officers. There are those who find themselves, in the ordinary course of their employment, exposed in these highly vulnerable circumstances to miscreance of an obvious character. Is there no governmental input to the Sentencing Council? Can the Government not influence those sorts of bodies to isolate the fact that these are manifestly aggravating circumstances, which should go to raise not only the likely sanction being imposed but the likelihood of prosecution?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

As the noble and learned Lord knows far better than I do, one has to distinguish between aggravating and mitigating factors and the likelihood of prosecution. With regard to the Sentencing Council, I am confident that it already has that point on board. The question before the Committee is that of maximum sentence rather than aggravating or mitigating factors. I have also said—and, I hope, explained—that there is clear guidance in place to make sure that, when these offences are committed, they are dealt with either through the courts or through prison adjudication.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in thanking the coalition of organisations that have briefed us on Part 5, because they are experts in the field. The short debate we have had reveals the crying need for a comprehensive review of driving sentences. The Government’s push is towards increasing penalties—longer prison sentences—and each of these amendments tackles an issue that needs attention that the Bill is really not going to provide.

The four amendments in this group have little in common with each other. I agree with the local and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on the difference between different offences which could have a very similar outcome. There is a world of difference between causing death while drink-driving or drug-driving, which is a conscious decision that you make, and causing injury or maybe death by carelessly opening your car door: that is at the other extreme. By chance, I saw such an incident last week. I saw a motorist drive up carefully and park, then get distracted by their passenger who had left something behind and who leapt back into the car to retrieve it at the last moment. The driver opened the car door in the path of a cyclist who was not showing lights and it was at night. Now, no great injury was caused in that case, but it could have been. I was standing there waiting to cross the road and I have absolutely no doubt that it was nothing other than distraction and carelessness from a driver who was driving carefully. There is a general push in the Bill towards stiffer sentencing, whereas we should be looking at more effective and appropriate sentencing for drivers, the overwhelming majority of whom are not of the criminal classes and do not have a criminal intent when they drive.

We also need to be designing our roads in a way that makes them much safer. The number of amendments tabled to Part 5 relating to road traffic reinforces my view, and that expressed here today, that we need a thorough review of the laws and penalties that govern driving. I shall say more about this later on my own amendment on this issue. Finally, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who drew attention to the inconsistency of the current legislation. Add to that the fact that it is wildly out of date and there really is a need for government action.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I had proposed to speak specifically to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s amendments, which are in another group but, frankly, these amendments are all mixed up together and I am rather surprised that they are not grouped. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. What it surely comes to, first, is that it is a good idea to look at the astonishing way the law has developed over recent decades.

When I went to the Bar 60 years ago, basically there was dangerous driving and careless driving, as there has been ever since. As now, there were well-recognised meanings and levels within the process of administering this law, and the courts—the magistrates’ courts particularly—and the practitioners know about that. There was also the very rare and very grave offence of motor manslaughter—manslaughter in the context of motoring. That applies to gross negligence cases and is a common-law offence. There is no maximum sentence but life is available. Then, gradually, over the years, sentences became more draconian. A two-year prison sentence was made available for death by dangerous driving. Then, in 1988, 14 years—seven times the original sentence—became the stipulated maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Now, of course, it is proposed to go from 14 years to life. Is it really contemplated that, short of some quite extravagant case of manslaughter, anybody really ought properly to go to prison for more than 14 years?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I agree with every single word of it. I am as culpable as he is in relation to this. I was a junior Minister in the Home Office at the time, and the Lord Chancellor did not foresee the consequences of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who I am glad to see in his place, described as

“the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system.”

Our purpose on these Benches is to participate in a coalition of people with a view to persuading the Government to make sensible changes to the regime to get rid of this injustice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, have referred to. The amendments before the Committee today provide a number of sensible options, but we put them forward, or support them as part of that coalition, with a view to reaching agreement with the Government to do something about them.

I may try the patience of the Committee too much, but I will speak to the amendment to which my name is put, and then I will speak again indicating the Labour Party’s position on the whole range of amendments. The amendments I speak to at the moment, therefore, are Amendments 208A and 208C, which deal with the position in relation to those IPP prisoners who have been released, and what the Government should be doing about them. I add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Blunkett to the Prison Reform Trust, which has provided an incredibly valuable briefing to the whole House. I also thank the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has done the same; Frances Crook, who has, over a very long period, provided real guidance to policymakers on these issues; and UNGRIPP, a group of friends and prisoners who have suffered as a result of this regime.

I turn now to the probing Amendments 208A and 208C, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He gave the figures. The basic proposition is that to reduce reoffending, energy and resources need to be devoted to ensuring that IPP prisoners who secure their release are able to live successful lives thereafter, avoiding recall to prison. That is what is best for society and for them. Without this, the current incidence of recall will soon, as my noble friend said, lead to a situation in which the number of people serving the IPP sentence may start to grow rather than decrease. From 30 September 2015 to 30 June 2021, the number of never-released IPP prisoners fell by 61%, from 4,431 to 1,722.

However, at the latest date for which I have figures, which is June 2021, there were 1,332 people back in prison having previously been released—more than double the number of five years ago. Recalled IPP prisoners who were re-released during 2020 have spent an average of 20 further months in prison before re-release. The hopelessness and despair that engenders is incredibly effectively described in the Prison Reform Trust’s report No Life, No Freedom, No Future. Its findings are based on data provided from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service on recalls and re-releases and on interviews with 31 recalled IPP prisoners. A briefing from the Prison Reform Trust said:

“The report found that IPP prisoners’ life chances and mental health were both fundamentally damaged by the uniquely unjust sentence they are serving. Arrangements for their support in the community after release did not match the depth of the challenge they faced in rebuilding their lives outside prison. Risk management plans drawn up before release all too often turned out to be unrealistic or inadequately supported after release, leading to recall sometimes within a few weeks of leaving prison, and for some people on multiple occasions. The process of recall also generated strong perceptions of unfairness.


At its worst, the report found that the system … recalled people to indefinite custody”


for what appeared comparatively trivial matters,

“defined needs (e.g. mental health) as risk factors … ignored the impact of the unfairness of the sentence on wellbeing and behaviour … could not provide the necessary support; and … provided no purpose to time back in custody or a plan for re-release.”

Not all IPP recalled prisoners endured that, but it was common enough to say that the system needed looking at overall. As I indicated, many IPP interviewees suggested that the recall decisions were taken too lightly. At most, 23 of the 31 participants had not been convicted of a subsequent offence when they were recalled.

What to do about it? To prevent the current situation continuing—and I am dealing only with people being recalled—there are basically eight things to do. First, the process for licence review should be automated, and the qualifying period reduced from 10 years to five. That is in line with Amendment 208D. Secondly, the test for recall should be changed. It should be that there is imminent risk of the person committing an offence causing serious harm, and that that risk cannot be managed in the community. For other things, such as not staying at the address named in the conditions, other measures should be thought about—for example, adjusted reporting requirements, use of electronic tags and curfews. Thirdly, where a person has been charged with a further offence, the normal criminal justice processes should apply, with a court considering whether remand in custody is appropriate for the new alleged offence. Fourthly, if a person is convicted of a further offence, the court should decide what happens to that person, not an official. Fifthly, if a person is convicted of a further offence and the court decides to recall them under the provisions of their IPP sentence, the Parole Board should be required to consider release alongside any considerations of discretionary release that attach to the new sentence—for example, an extended determinate sentence. Sixthly, IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence and not being re-released on the papers by the Parole Board, should have the right to an oral hearing if they so wish. Seventhly, if the Parole Board panel upholds the decision to recall, it must set a fixed date for a further review. Eighthly, all recalled prisoners should be entitled to annual reviews of their continued detention at an oral Parole Board hearing with free legal representation.

We, on this side of the Committee, are very much aware that proper measures need to be in place to provide public protection, but that has to be balanced against a system where once people on IPP are released, they are not recalled except when something significant has happened and there is proper and serious support. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, first, I commend, as others have, all those who have, in recent times, been building the road on which we are set today—none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. For many years, I have urged, with no success thus far but with great hopes today, the reform of what remains of the IPP sentencing regime. It is in no way hyperbole to describe it, as I already have, as the greatest single stain on the justice system. Indeed, it is a deeper, growing stain because of the situation with the recalls.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, as I have supported the PMBs on this from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, over recent years. The reasons for raising the age by the—goodness knows— modest enough margin of two years, from 10 to 12, are cumulative and compelling. If there is any objection to this amendment, it is that it does not go far enough, but I do not make that objection.

I have three reasons for supporting this. First, a 10 year-old’s mental capacities are not comparable to those of an older adolescent or adult. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has made these points about maturation, and I will not repeat them.

Secondly, criminalising these youngsters while they are still developing their identities and character and growing socially and emotionally is deeply damaging to their self-esteem and future prospects. Brand a child of 10 or 11 a criminal and that is how he will come to see and identify himself, and so he will behave in future. The subsequent criminal records of those who have been thus branded bear this out. Their records attest to it.

Thirdly, whatever their wrongdoing and however grave—to call it criminal is of course to beg the question—they will be dealt with in the same basic way whether they are convicted under the criminal justice system or dealt with through corrective welfare processes. If they need to be detained securely, they will be. The necessary measures can be imposed whichever route is taken, whether they are prosecuted as criminals or treated as however gravely miscreant children requiring correction. The public will not suffer if in future they are recognised as children who have done something dreadfully wrong rather than wicked criminals. On the contrary, the public will benefit. These children are more likely to lead law-abiding lives in future if we change our system at last.

It is high time to banish the long shadow of the tragic Bulger case—it has already been mentioned today—that, alas, is still cast and obscures the realities and common sense on this issue.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I also rise to support Amendment 220. When I was chairman of the Commission on Justice in Wales, we looked at this issue and had extensive evidence, including from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Without hesitation, we recommended that, were it free to do so, Wales should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, consistent with United Nations obligations it has untaken.

I agree completely with what has been said about the profound changes in the understanding of mental capacity that have taken place over the last 10 years in particular. I urge the Government not to delay any further a change to make our country no longer a laggard on this issue but one that is at least catching up. There are problems, such as knife crime, but the age of criminal responsibility is not the way to deal with them.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

What I am saying in putting forward this provision is that you want to send a clear signal that a certain sort of evidence is not admissible. In order to make it easier for people to come forward, you need to have much clearer lines than we have had previously. There has been a whole variety of evidence that English law has said is not admissible, even though many people would think it was probative, because it is the safest way overall to deal with trials—it is the safest way to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between complainant and defendant.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

Surely the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord must be at cross purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it on the basis that the witness is saying, “I wouldn’t do this, not only with this man but I wouldn’t do it with anybody, ever”, and the evidence is that she has. Is that perjury simply to go unresponded to in any shape or form?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am afraid I did understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It is exactly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has put it. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right in the way that he analysed this amendment: it would exclude that evidence. I understand that that is the consequence, and I am saying it is a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these two amendments and I hope the Minister will agree to take them away. I did so, first, to support my noble friend Lord Bach, and, secondly, not so much to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on her actual amendment but to try to develop a debate on the role of police and crime commissioners. As my noble friend has said, unfortunately we have had little opportunity to do so since the Bill in 2011 and the Act that was subsequently passed came in.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, I led for the Opposition at that time. We were very glad to work with her and opposed the concept. It was defeated in the Lords and the Bill went back to the Commons without a reference to police commissioners, which was subsequently put back in. The fear at the time was always that it would risk undermining tolerant policing in this country by bringing political partisanship too close to police operational matters. I suggest that there is still that fear around the way in which PCCs have operated. There have of course been notable successes—I mention my noble friend Lord Bach, Dame Vera Baird and David Jamieson in the West Midlands as examples—but there have been failures too. A number of police and crime commissioners have had to resign prematurely under what one might call somewhat unfortunate circumstances.

During the passage of this Bill we have debated policing quite extensively, particularly in relation to lamentable performances on domestic violence. My noble friend Lord Bach, whom I rarely disagree with, thinks that nine years is too short a period on which to make a judgment. However, I think I am entitled to point out that on the cultural issues which are very much at the heart of police failures in relation to domestic violence, I cannot see much evidence that this new leadership has been able to tackle those effectively.

A two-part review of PCCs is going on at the moment. The first part reported in October last year and there is a second review. It is interesting that this review is not getting anywhere near the heart of the issues around PCCs. It is also interesting that, in the first review, a lot of reference was made to the dismissal process for chief constables, which reflects the fact that there has been a fallout in many areas between the PCC seeking to exert his or her power and the chief constable. There has been instability. Because of this, there is a shortage of candidates for chief constable roles—not surprisingly.

Of course, the tension between chief constables and police and crime commissioners was built into the legislation. PCCs were there to provide political leadership for policing in their area, but they were not responsible for leading their force. Police chiefs retained operational independence, making independent decisions supposedly free from political interference on operational matters. Of course, there is no definitive list of operational matters, nor an expectation that operational decisions should be free from political scrutiny altogether. Inevitably, a grey area was built in between policing matters that PCCs can influence and those that are at the operational discretion of chief constables.

Going back to our debate on the Bill, where policing culture and failures in domestic abuse have been so evident, it is interesting that Ministers and noble Lords who have debated this extensively have laid responsibility clearly at the hands of chief constables. PCCs have hardly had a mention. Why not? If PCCs cannot get a handle on crucial issues such as this, what on earth is the point of them in the first place?

Obviously, the model that the Government started with was a US model. The logic, when they first brought in the Bill, was for PCCs to be given much more power than they have been given because of their democratic accountability. However, the Government backed off, partly through fears of politicisation, but also because of the usual Whitehall paranoia about letting go. One of the stated aims of PCCs was for police forces to stop looking up to Whitehall and be more accountable locally. If anything, in the last 10 years, we have seen more and more interventions by Home Secretaries into the work of chief constables and pronouncements on strategic policing requirements. Home Secretary interventions have become the order of the day. The end result is utter confusion as to where accountability lies, ambiguities and tensions between the role of the PCC and the chief constable and a sense that policing lacks effective direction.

I look forward with interest to part two of the review that the Government are undertaking but, when one looks at the areas that they are inquiring into, it seems that none of them goes to the heart of the issue of what PCCs are really for and whether they are going to be given the powers to carry that out. That is a matter of regret.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I briefly but strongly support Amendment 292D, but not the other two—I say that without needing much elaboration. I have two main reasons for supporting Amendment 292D. First, it is promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for whom I always have the greatest regard. He now has the expertise and experience of this job, so his judgment on it, as he knows what he is talking about, is surely worth listening to. We should take advantage of the expertise that he now has in this field and his appreciation of the crunch issues that are involved.

The second main reason is this: I am generally against these absolutist or purist positions such as those adopted uniquely—it appears—in this legislation. Once you have sinned, you are out for life. It is ridiculous. Some small measure of discretion or flexibility is generally an advantage. Of course, it is unlikely to happen that often, but we have surely heard two wholly compelling instances where it is a flagrant injustice to say to these people, now in maturity, having served the public, that because of one slight error in their youth and having strayed once they are never eligible again. This is a point of genuine principle: we ought not to pass this opportunity of putting it right.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his amendment. He could have added police officers to his list of occupations that would not have been barred. He chose not to, but it seems rather odd that only police and crime commissioners can be excluded entirely by a previous conviction.

I do not agree with the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not know whether I have unique experience, but certainly I have experienced both police authorities and PCCs as a chief constable and then as a commissioner. Having been the person held to account, I am probably the person to whom you would least listen—I may have the most prejudice. I find both roles to be about equally effective and, frankly, equally ineffective.

Police authorities had the great benefit that they were a broadly based group of people, rather than one person. They were not directly elected, but they tended to create an awful lot of committees. The consequence of creating committees is that things take an awfully long time: that may not be understood here, but people take a lot of time to make decisions. That was my experience. Police and crime commissioners, where you could get a good relationship, tended to make quicker decisions, but, frankly, in somewhere like London, they struggled to be representative of the nearly 9 million people or to hold all the views—particularly of minorities —through one person. That was a challenge, but it could be overcome at times. Certainly in London, which was my latest experience, there has been a plethora of accountability regimes, whether it be a police and crime commissioner selected by the mayor, the Home Secretary, 32 local authorities, the police and crime scrutiny committee and a number of committees of Parliament. I am not sure that that made it better accountability; it just made more of it.

We ought to think carefully about how we govern the police. I am not sure that this is the best way to address that problem. It could be improved, but I am not sure that this is the best way. There are three reasons for this. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the fact that you are only getting one applicant for the role of chief constable good evidence that this is because of PCCs? It may be, but I think that it is more to do with the fact that the officers who are applying believe that the solutions have already been determined. They believe that the police and crime commissioners, usually with the sitting deputy, are going to select that person, whereas in the past, with police authorities, at least there was a broad spectrum of people and it was far harder to arrange a conspiracy. I think that it is good evidence, but perhaps for the wrong reason. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is not helping the police leadership to develop in the future.

My objections to the amendment are around logistics. If we end up having a referendum at every PCC election, the danger is that we will end up around the country with a mixed tapestry of governance. In some places it would be PCCs and in some places it would be police authorities. We might even flip them at the succeeding election, although I guess that you would not get one if you had a police authority—there would not be another opportunity to have a referendum and then reselect a PCC.

In our current police tapestry, we have 46 forces, 43 of which have local accountability. This has to happen nationally, whether it be the police authorities or PCCs; we need to make national arrangements to govern these things. We already have a complicated arrangement: with 46 governance sets—with different governance sets as well—that is a tapestry too far.

If these things are to be changed, we should look at it properly, and in the round. We should see what has worked and what has not to make improvements. What we should not do is decide it locally. This is a role for government; the governance of the police should be set centrally. There may be local affiliations, but the Government have responsibility to set the governance of the police. As I have said before, I would have far fewer police forces, which might make this a little easier. Whether one agrees with that or not, I would not have a referendum every time a PCC is elected.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Everyone who has provided evidence has shown that the review and the guidance needed for the probation service is desperate. It is not a trimming of the sail—the term used by one of the officials yesterday—but a lifeboat, because these individuals deserve justice. The Minister in Committee in the House of Commons said that this was unjust. I have accepted that it is totally unjust and has worked out in a totally unacceptable way. The Government acknowledging that and taking steps forward will at least give us momentum and start the ball rolling to put this wrong right. I hope that when we hear from the Minister in a few minutes, we can be assured that, as tentative as the steps may be, we are at last making some progress.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking only to Amendment 80, I mention that I also support Amendment 81 in this group. Amendment 80 is the one amendment in this entire Bill that could reduce—if only by a tiny fraction—the prison population, which most of this Bill is, of course, calculated to enlarge. More directly and importantly, it would go some small way towards ending a long-standing and ever-growing injustice, now recognised by many as the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system with regard to the cohort of IPP prisoners.

Amendment 80 applies only to some of the 1,700 or so IPP prisoners still in prison after the abolition of the whole discredited scheme nine years ago by LASPO. The amendment applies just to two categories within the 1,700: those who have now served more than 10 years beyond the tariff sentence—in other words, more than 10 years over the proper punishment for their offending —and those who have now served more than the statutory maximum determinate sentence prescribed by law for their offence. For these people this is manifestly preventive detention—frankly, it is internment by another name.

Your Lordships may like to know that, of the 570 IPP prisoners who have served more than 10 years beyond tariff, 200 had tariffs of less than two years and another 326 had two-to-four-year tariffs, so only very few—44—had more than four years. Your Lordships may also like to know that the UK has more indeterminate sentence prisoners, lifers and those on IPP, than any other of the 47 countries in the Council of Europe including Turkey and Russia.

Unlike life sentence prisoners, who are serving life for the gravity of the crimes they have actually committed, IPP prisoners are there simply for what they might do in future—what, in short, they cannot prove to the satisfaction of the Parole Board that they would not do on release. The uncertainty, hopelessness, utter despair and sheer misery of the prisoners and their families need no emphasis. It is small wonder that there have been many suicides and that the rates of self-harm among these prisoners are more than twice that of life sentence prisoners.

In urging this amendment, I stress the essential modesty of the proposal. It is purely a reversal of the burden of proof. It still leaves the public protected against those who can be shown to be dangerous. If the prison authority responsible for their continued incarceration, with all the various reports from prison staff, medics and so forth, can still show that the prisoner would pose an unacceptable risk on release, then they will not get out. The amendment goes nothing like as far as many would wish and think appropriate.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who, alas, is not in his place, abolished this scheme in 2012, I understand he wanted to abolish it retrospectively as well as prospectively but was not permitted to do so. Michael Gove, after ceasing to be Lord Chancellor. recognised the intrinsic injustice in the Longford lecture. Matthew Parris recently wrote in the Times how the Government need the guts to reassess these cases.

I end, as I did in Committee, with this question: suppose one of these IPP prisoners with a tariff of a one-year sentence representing his criminality, is more than 10 years beyond that and still unable to discharge the burden of showing the Parole Board that he can be safely released without risk. What should happen? Should he remain incarcerated for another five, 10 or 20 years, or do we as a nation accept lifelong internment for this group? I hope not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure this is protocol, but it might help progress if I indicate to the House that, in discussions with the Minister, we had come to an understanding that we were taking steps forward in a way that would start to unlock this problem. In what he has just read out, the Minister has fulfilled what he agreed with me, and I trust him. On that basis, I recommend to colleagues that we accept the offer of the Third Reading amendment and the commitments that have been made on both procedure and recall, and we move forward on that basis this evening.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot pretend to be wholly content, let alone happy, with what the Minister has been allowed to say today. It falls dramatically short of providing any sort of an answer to the final question I asked earlier: are we to keep these post-tariff detainees in effect endlessly and for life? It is surely no answer to my point to say that reversing the burden of proof is unlikely to make any difference. That is even less a reason to object to this amendment.

I repeat that I am very far from happy but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, we have at least got some assurances, for the first time, that Ministers will look again at the plight of these IPPs and make some improvements at least to the recall regime—hopefully the first step in a re-evaluation of the entire remaining IPP problem. The other consideration that now weighs on me is the point that has been made that the Justice Select Committee in the other place is now deep into its full-scale IPP inquiry and its eventual report must surely inform the Government’s approach. In the meantime, alas, it provides something of an excuse for the Government to do little of great note.

It is clear that there is huge support for Amendment 80 around the House. What is ultimately needed is political will. For my part, let us hope that the Select Committee will call for proper reform and for the political will to deal with it, and that that is now shown. Meanwhile, I confess that I am deeply disappointed, as will be the IPP prisoners and their families. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, points out, I have no alternative but to not press my Amendment 80.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

On the basis of the Minister’s statement, and not wanting a pyrrhic victory, which would end in defeat and even greater hopelessness for those we seek to help, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 79.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Strongly though I support it and absurd though I too think it is to allow for some possibility of a jury trial with the jury sitting otherwise than in the actual courtroom, I had no intention of speaking tonight until I learned that my noble and learned friend Lord Judge could not. As I seem to be the last judge standing this evening and feel so strongly about this, it seems that I should say a word. But I urge all of your Lordships to recognise that if my noble and learned friend had been speaking, he would have said the little I propose to say so much more tellingly and convincingly that the House really ought to add enormous weight to it.

All I say is that the whole value of a jury, sacrosanct in our law of course, is that they are there and part of the atmosphere. They watch the whole thing unfolding, see the witnesses and sense the entire development of the arguments as they emerge. My noble friend Lord Carlile made a number of these points, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has just done. The whole aura of the process and the fact that the jury recognise in the courtroom that they are, for the first time, having to apply themselves to this critical question—is this man or woman guilty or not guilty?—is lost and dissipated if they are not there. I urge your Lordships not to provide for this suggested possibility, for who knows in what circumstances it would be? They can be only circumstances that do not justify having a separate jury.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the amendments he moved or spoke to on proceedings involving children and health screening, and with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We support those amendments, but I will speak to Amendment 97CA from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the use of live links in jury trials, to which I have put my name.

This amendment raises two important questions about the nature of juries and of jury trial. First, how important is it to the trial process that juries see and hear witnesses give their evidence live? Secondly, how important is it to the trial process that the relationship and balance between judge and jury is live rather than remote? On the first issue, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made the point that jury trials depend, more than anything else, upon the ability of jurors to weigh up the evidence of witnesses. They have to assess two things: veracity, or whether the witness is trying to tell the truth, and accuracy, or whether he or she has got it right.

As others, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, have said, after nearly two years of the pandemic we have all become completely familiar with the process of remote discussion and meetings. None of us, I feel, would now argue that remoteness makes no difference. In this vital area of our national life, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out, we entrust decisions about the guilt or innocence of those charged with serious crimes to juries of 12 who listen to and weigh up the evidence of witnesses, and make decisions about truth or falsehood, reliability or inaccuracy, honesty or dishonesty, and intent, accident or misadventure. Those jurors will certainly consider objective evidence that has the same effect when seen or heard remotely as it has when seen or heard directly. But much of the evidence they will hear, and usually the most critical evidence in jury trial cases, has to be subjectively judged, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. That is done by references to the witnesses’ demeanour, body language, response to cross-examination and emotional responses.

These are matters on which juries might initially and quite legitimately disagree. Their assessment—the different assessments of all 12 of them—will be the subject of detailed discussion during their deliberations and depend upon impressions. We would be undermining our jury system by depriving jurors of the opportunity, in the case that they decide, to share their experiences of the witnesses and the experiences that they have had live. I do not believe that undermining the jury trial in this way can possibly be justified.

On the second point about the presence of the judge, counsel and jury in the same place, the role of the judge and jury and the relationship between them is a delicate one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the judge’s position is to ensure that trials are conducted in a responsible and serious way. I also think there is considerable importance in that relationship that the independence of juries is maintained. A stock sentence that judges quite properly use when summing up is when they tell the jury, “It is a matter for you, members of the jury,” and it is.

However, for juries to make the decisions they are charged with making, they must not feel to be, seem to be or, still less, actually be at a disadvantage compared to the judge who has seen and heard and assessed the witnesses live. When the judge recounts a particular piece of evidence in summing up, juries must not be cowed or persuaded into accepting what they may perceive to be the judge’s view of the evidence. They must be able to say to each other: “He or she may have said that, but I did not believe that witness—did you see how scared they looked?” That is what jury independence means. Jury independence is fundamental to our system and why it is so important. For that reason, I completely support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has given us an opportunity to make things a lot better. During that quite irritable debate two days ago—I was irritable, anyway, and I think people got irritable with me—on this policing Bill, it struck me that we just should not have as many women in prison. Some of the things that women go to prison for are ridiculous. It costs a lot of money; it disrupts lives, especially for the women, their children and their support networks; and there is an opportunity cost when compared to the opportunities that we should be providing via rehabilitation and reintegration. Women go to prison for things like not paying their TV licence or their council tax, and that really should not happen. It is hugely disruptive, the cost of doing so exceeds the unpaid debt many times over, and lives are ruined.

For the vast majority of women in the criminal justice system, solutions within the community are much more appropriate. Community sentences could be designed to take account of women’s particular vulnerabilities and their domestic and childcare commitments. Existing women’s prisons should be replaced by suitable, geographically-dispersed, small multifunctional custodial centres. More supported accommodation should be provided for women on release in order to break the cycle of offending and custody. Prisoners should have improved access to meaningful activities, particularly real work, education and artistic and creative facilities. And, of course, all prisoners should be able to attain levels of literacy sufficient to allow them to function effectively in modern society.

That all seems so obvious, but it does not happen at the moment because this Government are obsessed with being “tough on crime”. What does that mean? If it means sending more and more people to prison then it is a very disruptive and damaging way of handling the problem of crime. A royal commission seems an incredibly sensible way forward just to rethink the way in which we handle prisons, prisoners, crime and, in particular, women in prison who really ought not to be there.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I too support this proposal. The objectives set out in each of the paragraphs (a) to (h) of proposed subsection (2) of the amendment are plainly and urgently needed. It should not be necessary to establish a royal commission to focus on, pursue and achieve these objectives, but plainly it is necessary. These deficiencies have been identified, recognised and discussed for years but, as for getting anywhere in terms of achievement—on the contrary.

The main parties on both sides of the House, not least this Government, seem ever more intent on winning the law and order vote. Sentences are being increased; minimum and mandatory terms are being imposed. We now need the impetus, the force, of no less than a royal commission to start to recognise the intense problems of our whole penal system and to start to set the matter right.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, I do not regard the United Kingdom’s place at the top of the incarceration league table for western European countries as a badge of honour. It seems to me that this fact in itself calls for a broad strategic view of how sentencing is working in this country and why it is that we send so many more people to prison than other countries do.

One of the issues seems to be that criminal justice, particularly sentencing, has become a political football. A sort of auction has been going on between the main political parties over the last 20 years or so to discover who can present themselves as the toughest on this issue. I do not mean to minimise the effect of crime on victims or on society as a whole, but short sentences in particular are surely counterproductive. The best way to school a young man in crime and anti-social behaviour is to send him to prison for three or six months.

It seems to me that one of the great possible achievements of a royal commission would be to take some of the political sting out of this issue and to inject some rationality and even some science into it. I strongly support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I too support this amendment; I did at Second Reading. Indeed, I have added my name to the amendment but too late for it to appear on the fifth Marshalled List. The case for it could hardly be simpler or more compelling. Frankly, the illustration of the scooter helmet from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, ought of itself to be enough to carry this. I am against absolutism and total purity and inflexibility routinely, but flexibility and discretion are almost invariably required to be welcomed and valued, and they are here. It is nothing short of bizarre, absurd and conspicuously unfair to single out this one public office as one from which people are uniquely disqualified in the circumstances already sufficiently indicated. I need not waste another word. My only regret is that the amendment is not being put to the vote.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for many years in this House —sadly, on opposite sides of it—but I have never heard him make a stronger argument for anything. The only reason why I cannot say that I will support him is because I have not written a little note to my noble friend the Chief Whip.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walney. Noble Lords will recall—if they were present in Committee—that, in supporting the Bill, I did none the less raise some mild questions about noise. It is a shame the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not here, because I thought he was very compelling in the arguments he made, as a former police chief, as to why these measures around noise were manageable and relevant.

I will listen very closely to what my noble friend the Minister says on this, but I feel pleased that the Government have come forward with the clarifications that they have. I would add—to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said—that when I think about the Bill and the reason why I support the measures within it in principle, I start from the summer of 2019. I did mention this before, at an earlier stage of the passage of this Bill. This was a point at which there were new forms of protest and demonstration through the summer, and a lot of people who, unlike noble Lords, do not go on protests, were rather concerned about the way that things such as blocking Waterloo Bridge and bringing Oxford Circus to a complete standstill—and this went on for days—were supported by Members of Parliament and very senior high-profile people.

That kind of behaviour was so alien to the way in which people in this country normally protest. It was very alarming to people and we have to remember that we cannot argue in favour of that aspect of our democracy in terms of protest, without also reminding ourselves that some people who were alarmed at the support for that kind of behaviour also looked at Parliament in real concern when we did not respect democracy in the years before that in the way that we ignored the change that some people wanted to make by using the ballot box. I do think we have to see this in the bigger picture.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, we are at Report stage—although it would be very easy to misrecognise it as Second Reading. I have been supporting the Government this afternoon—but not at this stage and probably not for most of the rest of the debate.

The fact is that this amendment—and most that follow—to my mind, we must support. I entirely accept that it is nonsensical to suggest that by Clause 56, and most of those that follow, the Government is intent on repression. They are not trying consciously to suppress our hallowed rights of protest, of demonstration and of assembly. That is not the position. But I suggest strongly that that is the public perception—that is what the public believe—and understandably so, because it is such an overreaction to anything that has happened.

I too excoriate Insulate Britain: they behaved outrageously and undemocratically, so flatly contrary to the rule of law and wider interests, that we must amend to ensure that they are arrestable and imprisonable without going through the process of contempt of court proceedings in future. But these provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, simply lack all common sense, they lack all balance and measure, and they are counterproductive.

The noble Baroness behind me suggested that we all, and the wider public, protest things such as stopping the Tube trains, but I would remind your Lordships—I think I have just read—that those who committed that apparent offence were resoundingly acquitted. The fact is that if we pass laws such as this law, that is going to be the reaction: the Government are going to be regarded as tyrants and the public will not play.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I tried to say that I think we do not want to muddle up too many things. The Bill might have been brought forward in order to deal with the popular revulsion at things such as the M25 sit-ins or getting on top of the Tube, and we have heard that from a number of noble Lords.

The point about this set of proposals, though, and things such as the triggering noise, is that they do not solve that problem. That is what drives me mad. The second lot of amendments—which were brought in anti-democratically in terms of process—at least looked like they referred to that set of egregious demonstrations. So that is that bit.

One thing that has been said which I think is very important is that there is a fractious atmosphere in society, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about last time we had this discussion, which is that people feel very strongly about some of the issues of the day. They are not prepared to always say that they support the right of demonstration; they think that something else is going on.

But one thing they definitely think is that the police are biased. They think that the police are erratic. Some people will say, “Well, the police won’t intervene because they’re all too busy taking the knee or driving around in rainbow-coloured vans”. Other people will say, “The police are acting like far-right stormtroopers protecting different types of people.” There is a public debate going on about the role of the police.

So, my objection to these amendment is that not only does it concentrate on noise, which nobody has ever complained about—who has brought that up?—but it puts the police in an even more invidious position. I do want to know how the Government will deal with that. The SOAS policy briefing, which I thought summed it up well, said that the Bill

“compels the police to make decisions about whether protests can go ahead, and therefore forces the police to become a visible and controversial actor in ordinary political debate.”

I think that this will make the position of the police much worse, so even if you are not on the side of the right to protest with no ifs and no buts—as I am—from the Government’s point of view and the Home Secretary’s point of view, who say they are doing it to help the police, they are actually putting the police in a position where they are wandering around assessing noise levels and therefore choosing which demos go ahead, which everybody will think is to do with politics and not procedure. So there seem to me to be some unintended consequences of that approach.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I came cold to this debate, as it were, to hear what was to be said. I am certainly not an expert on the law, but I have had quite a bit to do with the Companion over the years, and I remember vividly a time when it was quite routine, on Third Reading, to present amendments that clearly should have been debated earlier. The authorities of the House at the time—and I may have been part of that—decided that we needed to tighten up the circumstances in which amendments could be laid at Third Reading. But—and this is a huge “but”, which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has already dealt with—it was always assumed that there would be flexibility in the decision about the admissibility of amendments at Third Reading.

There were occasions—I would have come armed with them if I had anticipated this debate—when the usual channels would get together, during or after Report, and say, “Look we really can’t resolve this now, we need to put down an amendment at Third Reading”. Had it been challenged by either Front Bench or by anyone among the usual channels, that would have been resolved at that point. But nearly always, there was such a common-sense argument about, “Well, we’ll let this one go at Third Reading, the air needs to be cleared with this at Third Reading”, that it was agreed among the usual channels; it was never seen as completely Stalinist rule. Indeed, as my noble and learned friend has said, there is flexibility actually written into it. But I can say with confidence that this issue has been addressed in the past. It seems to me overwhelmingly the case, in the way my noble and learned friend described it, that quite clearly it should come within the auspices of the Companion, with the agreement of the usual channels, to be able to debate this hugely important issue at Third Reading.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I deeply regret the deformity to our law which results from the Harper amendment, made, as your Lordships know, for Third Reading. A mandatory life sentence for murder is one thing—indeed, one must recognise that, although entirely understandable, even that is questionable—but a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter cases now spotlighted by the Harper amendment is really quite another.

I will content myself today by saying that not only may it cause a great injustice but it may be that, if one were a defence counsel in one of these cases, one would positively welcome Harper’s law and emphasise to the jury the awesome consequences of a conviction—consequences from which juries might well shrink. If this matter now goes back unamended to the House of Commons, I suggest that the other place may wish to reflect on those consequences. To pass as potentially unjust a law as this may prove to be counterproductive and a disaster for long-term justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, following my commitment and undertaking to the House on Report, I am pleased to be able to bring this package of amendments relating to imprisonment for public protection—IPP—before the House this afternoon. I thank sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—and I understand why he is unable to be in his place today—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Moylan for their commitment to this cause and continued engagement with me on this matter. We have had a series of meetings and calls, which have been invaluable. They offered me their considerable wisdom and experience both of this subject and of this House in order to get this amendment—if I may put it this way—across the table and over the line.

It was made very clear at all stages in this House that there was enormous strength of feeling that some beneficial change for IPP offenders was both right and necessary. I am pleased that we have cross-party support for this sensible, proportionate and effective change that will provide such benefit but at no risk to public protection.

I committed on Report to bringing forward an amendment which puts the Secretary of State’s policy of automatic referral of applications to terminate the IPP licence on to a statutory footing. This would enable all eligible IPP offenders to be referred to the Parole Board for consideration for licence termination at the appropriate time. The new clause that I have tabled delivers on this commitment.

The position is that Section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 sets out how IPP offenders are currently able to apply for licence termination. Once the qualifying period of 10 years has elapsed—that is, 10 years from the offender’s first release by the Parole Board—this section provides that offenders can apply to the Parole Board to be considered for licence termination. In practice, the Secretary of State has made it policy to do this on the offender’s behalf, but first had to obtain consent from the offender.

The principal change in the first of the amendments in my name is in new subsection (2), which amends the wording of Section 31A so that the Secretary of State will be legally required to automatically refer the offender where the 10-year qualifying period has expired. Where the offender has previously been referred to the Parole Board for licence termination, they will automatically be referred if 12 months have elapsed since the previous reference. That removes the need for the offender to give permission for the Secretary of State to make applications on their behalf, and will enable the IPP licence to be brought to a definitive end for more offenders.

The clause also adds a new subsection to Section 31A which deals with offenders who are in custody following recall under the IPP licence. When an offender is recalled to prison, their licence is automatically revoked, so they cannot have their licence terminated while they are in prison following recall because they are no longer on licence. But, in these cases, the Secretary of State will still be required to refer the offenders to the Parole Board on the point of eligibility and every 12 months thereafter. The Parole Board will then determine whether the licence should remain in force following any subsequent release decision. It will be up to the Parole Board whether to terminate the licence of an IPP offender in custody—but these provisions are specifically intended to ensure that all eligible IPP offenders, who are either on licence or have been recalled and had their licence revoked, have the opportunity to have their licence terminated.

The remaining subsections are technical, transitional and clarificatory to ensure that the clause works correctly. But I make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that time spent in custody on recall does not affect the running of the 10-year qualifying period. There are two further amendments in my name, both of which are consequential. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for joining me in them. The second amendment ensures that this clause operates correctly with other subsections that might prevent a referral, and the third sets the commencement date at two months following Royal Assent.

Taken as a package, these amendments appropriately balance the need to protect the public with ensuring that IPP offenders who are assessed by the Parole Board as no longer posing a risk to the public are given every opportunity to have their IPP licence, and the IPP sentence as a whole, terminated. So, with renewed thanks to those noble and learned Lords who joined me, particularly in supporting the first amendment, for their sustained engagement, I beg to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has asked that I go next. I have indeed added my name to the first substantive government amendment, but I indicated that I would—and I do—make it plain that I do so without any great enthusiasm. Rather, it is on the basis that one must be grateful for small mercies—here, alas, I put the emphasis on the “small”.

I am grateful to the Minister for doing what he could for us, and, so far as it goes, I welcome the small change brought about by the amendment. But, in my respectful view, it does not go remotely far enough. It is difficult to overemphasise how small a concession this is in relation to the overall problem of the remaining IPP prisoners. Even in respect of the recall prisoners, we had hoped that the maximum term for which a licence should remain in force would be reduced from 10 years to five.

Beyond that, I fervently hoped to do something for the 1,700-odd cohort of IPP prisoners who have never been released and who remain incarcerated 10 years after this whole sentencing regime was abolished by LASPO in 2012. Many of the 1,700 are substantially more than 10 years beyond their tariff term—but there it is. We now have to—and we do—put our faith in the House of Commons Justice Committee, which has taken evidence and listened to many, including me, and is shortly to report on the whole question of this remaining regime. One hopes that it will do something to meet this grave, continuing and, indeed, growing injustice. In the meantime, I make it plain that I support this most modest of amendments.