Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for introducing the Bill and enabling the House again to focus again on this important topic. We have heard many insightful and well-researched speeches. This is a tragically long-standing issue—I dealt with it when I was a Minister, and I remain grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular, and others, for the time they spent with me on the matter then.

You could make two speeches this morning from the Opposition Front Bench. One would be overtly political: it would say that IPP sentences were introduced by Labour and were and remain a disaster. It would say that this problem was created by a Labour Government, and it is up to this Labour Government to sort it out. It would say that we do not need more criminals on our streets. All of that would be true, but it is not the speech I propose to give. I will instead focus on what we can actually do, practically, to resolve this problem, and on what I regard as the real issues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, reminded us, the previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who did so much good work in this area, called the present state of the IPP issue a

“stain on our criminal justice system”.

The same phrase, cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, was used by the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and they were both right. So I propose to look at the problem, look at how we can improve the position, and set out the response of the Opposition Front Bench to this Private Member’s Bill.

There are two important facts to begin with. First, IPP sentences were abolished by the then Conservative Government in 2012—the Lord Chancellor was the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Hazelmere, pointed out, the problem was that no transitional provisions were put in place. That happened 12 years ago, which is relevant—I will come back to that. Secondly, just under 1,100 IPP prisoners have never been released on licence and a further 1,600 or so were released on licence but have since been recalled to prison. Those two facts, taken together, remind us of the following points, which must be kept in mind as part of the debate.

First, those still in prison and who have never been released on licence were sentenced over 12 years ago. During that time, they will have been prepared for and attended several Parole Board hearings, and the Parole Board, which is independent and expert, will have concluded, on all the material before it, that it was not safe to release them. Secondly, for those prisoners and those released on licence and then recalled—again, because they were originally sentenced at least 12 years ago—unless their underlying crime was one of considerable seriousness, a resentencing exercise, even if it were possible, would likely result in their immediate release. Putting those two points together, that means that a resentencing exercise would likely result in the immediate release into the community of people whom the Parole Board had recently decided were still dangerous and should not be released. I suggest that we cannot easily contemplate that.

I will add a third point: a resentencing exercise would be logistically and practically difficult, not only because of the impact on judicial time but, more importantly, because of the fact that, in some—or perhaps many—cases, the underlying paperwork is unlikely to be available in full. Therefore, I suggest that a resentencing exercise, which is at the heart of the Bill, is not the answer—my noble friend Lord Moylan therefore correctly anticipated the position of the Opposition Front Bench. But that means that we need to identify what the answer is, because doing nothing is simply not an option.

Let me sketch out some principles. First, the focus must be on two separate groups. For the first group—those who have never been released—the focus must be to get them successfully through a Parole Board hearing. For the second group—those who have been released on licence—the focus must be to make sure that they are not recalled to prison or, if they are, to enable them to do better next time they are released: to get out and to stay out.

Secondly, we need to be clear-eyed about who we are dealing with. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that people did little more than steal a Mars bar and were just unlucky to receive an IPP sentence rather than a traditional determinate sentence. In fact, to have been sentenced to a IPP sentence in the first place, the trial judge must have concluded, under Section 229(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that there was

“a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm”

were the defendant to commit further offences—and not just any further offences. There was a list of specified offences in a schedule to the Act, including rape, murder, GBH with intent and so forth. In other words, the trial judge will have found as a fact that there was a significant risk of the offender killing, raping or seriously maiming someone else. That was the statutory test of dangerousness, which was a legal threshold to being given an IPP sentence in the first place.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I interrupt with trepidation, because my noble friend is such an excellent lawyer, and I am not a lawyer at all. However, am I not right in saying that, while that test did exist, it existed only in the second period when IPP sentences were imposed? It was very much a point of the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood that in the early years of the IPP sentence judicial discretion was almost nil, and the finding of fact was simply a matter of asking, “Have you committed this offence and previously committed another?”, both taken from two separate lists. I am not sure that all the prisoners who are still in jail and who have never been released would be covered by the point that my noble friend makes.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I cannot get into all the detail because of time, but for those sentenced even earlier, in the first period, unless the underlying crime was really serious, you end up with effectively immediate release, in respect of people who have been determined by the Probation Service to still be dangerous. That is a real underlying problem.

That leads me to the third point, perhaps the most tragic in the entire debate. We have to confront the possibility, or probability—this is a terrible stain on our state—that for some people now in prison under an IPP sentence the reason they cannot effectively be released, and the reason they are failing Parole Board hearings, is because they have been in prison so long. They have become institutionalised. I am very sorry to say it, but it is a Kafkaesque situation—if Kafkaesque is the right word—and a stain on our justice system, but we have to be clear-eyed about the position that we are dealing with.

As we know, this matter was looked at by the Justice Select Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill. I am pleased to say that he is now, and deservedly so, Sir Bob Neill KC. The committee made two main recommendations. The first was on resentencing, which I have dealt with—and, with respect, we disagree with the committee on that point. Secondly, it suggested that the licence period be reduced—and here we are in full agreement. The old position was that you could not even apply to terminate the licence until a decade had passed. The committee recommended a reduction of the licence period to five years, while Lord Chancellor Chalk reduced it to three years, and added a presumption that it would lapse at the end of three years, unless there was a good reason to extend it. For those recalled to prison, he introduced a two-year licence period for those released after that initial recall, with an automatic lapse after two years, not a presumption. That structure is the best way in which to deal with this issue.

Lord Chancellor Chalk went further. He set in place programmes to encourage prisoners to be prepared well for the Parole Board hearings, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the work ongoing in relation to that—because that is the key to getting someone out on licence in the first place. He also introduced automatic referral to the Parole Board so that prisoners do not need to apply for release, but rather the case automatically comes before the Parole Board.

This is about balance between protecting the public, which any Government need to have at the forefront of their mind, while making sure that those subject to an IPP sentence are fairly dealt with. That means that we need to ensure that we do not release dangerous people into the community, but it also means that those who have been released and are no longer dangerous should not live with a sword of Damocles above their heads.

It is sometimes pointed out that those released on an IPP licence can reoffend. The truth is that lots of our released prisoners reoffend, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, either now or perhaps in a letter, with a comparison of the rate of reoffending of IPP prisoners with those released under other provisions. I would be especially keen to see the data comparing the reoffending rate of IPP prisoners released on licence to the reoffending rate of those released under the early release scheme introduced by the Government early this year, of which we have had not very much data. In due course, I would be interested to see that comparison, because I would not want IPP-released prisoners to be unfairly stigmatised when, in fact, we have a significant reoffending rate for prisoners generally.

I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We will support him in steps to ensure that those still subject to IPP sentences, those in prison, on licence, and on recall receive all the assistance they need.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, looking around the Committee at the legal expertise present, I feel rather underqualified. However, I worked as a trustee for the Koestler Arts trust for some years, and that leads me to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Hastings that what people in prison need to achieve rehabilitation—which I know that the Government want—is hope. What has happened as a result of IPP is that hope has been replaced by uncertainty and inequality. We clearly have to put that right.

The other reason that I wanted to speak today was that the late and learned Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Simon, was a close friend of mine. He made such an impassioned speech from these Benches that it made me feel that I too had to take up this cause because IPP, as we have heard, has resulted in enormous injustice. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that that figure—that 80% are non-violent—is terrifying. I say to noble Lords on the Front Bench, who are distinguished in the law themselves, that if they could—and I really imagine that they will want to—shed some light on this, to seek by some way light at the end of the tunnel, that would be welcomed across the House.

I will not go on, because it has all been said and this is not the time to do so, but I say to noble Lords: please try to find a way forward here.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his determination on and commitment to this matter, both today and on several previous occasions.

The injustice of the IPP sentence, and its effects, which continue, are not in dispute. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is a miscarriage of justice, and we are dealing here with an injustice. I will just take a moment to recognise the work that he did to try to rectify another injustice: that of the refuseniks in the former Soviet Union. A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, showed guts in the work he did. The changes that he put in place, to an extent, ameliorated the situation.

Perhaps unlike some Members of the Committee, I note that this is not Second Reading, so perhaps I will be forgiven for not repeating all the points I made then. The Committee should be under no illusion about my position on IPP, which I hope I have made clear on a number of occasions. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said, it is up to us on the Front Benches, so to speak, to try to sort it out, although the Minister has a singular advantage over me, in that he is in government and I am not. But he can take it from me that we will work constructively with him on this issue and we will continue to discuss it, as we have on previous occasions. To paraphrase a famous rabbinic phrase, even if we cannot finish the work, we none the less have an obligation to do what we can to progress it and make things better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I wanted to participate in this debate principally to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introduction. Throughout the stages of the Bill, he has been clear and concise about the need for this legislation, and his contribution today was magnificent.

All the speeches have been clear about the total injustice of the situation in which we find ourselves. I have little doubt that the views are shared by the Members on the Front Bench. The two issues that I wanted to raise—first, the mental health aspects of the problem and, secondly, the fact that we can no longer rely on people to manoeuvre through this system under their own power—have been powerfully addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so I will not repeat them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address them in his reply.

I emphasise to my noble friend the Minister that he has, in effect, said—he will perhaps tell me if I am wrong—that we do not need resentencing, as set out in this Bill, because the action plan will deal with the problem. Because of his particular position, he was brought into this House and into the Government to address this issue with the prison system alongside the other issues that we have. I stress—not in a very friendly way, although he is my noble friend—that it is really on his shoulders to get this sorted out. By rejecting the resentencing approach, the approach pursued by the Government has to work. It is on my noble friend the Minister’s shoulders to get this sorted out and to address the problems of mental health and the fact that large proportions of those remaining in prison are incapable of manoeuvring through the system by themselves. The Government have to provide them with support, either through the department or by funding some external agency that will give those suffering from this injustice a way out of the maze.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, given the way the debate on these amendments has gone—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—I propose to say only a few words about Amendment 7, which is, as I understand it, the only live amendment, so to speak. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who, as is always the case, has given us a lot of food for thought.

There is no doubt that the mental health aspect of the IPP issue is very real, not least because, as I said at Second Reading, my concern is that there will be prisoners who have developed mental health problems while in prison and indeed because of the sentence itself. I think I said that that was a stain on the British state and, if so, I was right to do so.

My noble friend Lord Moylan is therefore right to highlight the issue of mental health. That said, it is not immediately clear to me, looking at the words of the amendment, that the conditions in (6B) and (6C) are necessarily the right conditions to be imposed in this context. Of course, I appreciate that this amendment was tabled to raise the issue rather than to focus on the particular words. I therefore look forward to what the Minister has to say about Amendment 7.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, the second group of amendments clarify the Bill’s clauses and make important changes to the wording. However, the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. I will respond to all the amendments in turn as I want to set out the Government’s position.

My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 4 sets out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle, but it is already established by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is required.

My noble friend’s Amendment 5 would allow a resentencing court to retain the IPP sentence where the offender might properly have received a life sentence and where, at the time of resentencing, they constitute a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. Crucially, this would not prevent the resentencing of those who do not fall within these parameters and whom the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released. This is because the test being applied by a resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board’s statutory test.

My noble friend’s Amendment 6 would provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended licence on release, if it deemed it necessary. Noble Lords are aware of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act that allow for licence termination. This amendment would still involve the release of IPP prisoners who have previously been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test. It would therefore not address our fundamental public protection concerns about undertaking a resentencing exercise.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendment 7, and acknowledge her empathetic consideration for the individuals serving IPP sentences who require additional support for their mental health, especially the 233 individuals in secure hospitals. The amendment would allow a resentencing exercise to substitute an IPP sentence with a hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed, whereas this amendment would lead to a hospital order being substituted when an offender currently has a mental disorder. As with earlier amendments, this amendment would remove the IPP sentence irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of an individual’s risk. Instead, the individual could be released by a mental health review tribunal. This process may not fully consider the risk posed to victims and the public.

IPP prisoners, like any prisoner, can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be transferred to secure mental health hospitals if this care is required, and I am currently working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported towards release when that care is no longer required. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about disengaged IPP-ers, as I refer to them, and hospital returnees. It concerns me that, for example, they may be returned to a category B local prison, which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I am very keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for Amendment 8. Although the Government do not support the Bill, I understand the intention behind her amendment to assess the impact on services if the Bill were to become law. There is, however, already a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act for the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders. The annual report is expected to be published by Summer Recess and will show the progress that has been made.

Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan on 26 April 2023, there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. Additionally, when I became a Minister, 70% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prison for their needs. This has now increased to around 80% and HMPPS continues to make improvements in this area. This will help more of these individuals progress towards a release because they will be better able to access the support they need.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 9, would reduce the licence period of one year for those who were subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment does not define what would constitute an invalid recall, and my noble friend is perhaps referring to an unlawful recall, which would likely be the legal interpretation. If, however, he is suggesting scenarios where further information comes to light and the reasons for recall should be reconsidered, there is the risk-assessed recall review—RARR—process.