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

Lord Woodley Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Woodley]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the establishment of an expert advisory committee without the requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out a resentencing exercise.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

With noble Lords’ indulgence, I wish to open this debate by saying that IPP—imprisonment for public protection—is as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal, as bad as they are. Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives, and hundreds more are being driven to insanity by this no hope, never-ending sentence. The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it, and that has to change.

Now, speaking directly to everyone serving an IPP sentence, my message, quite simply, is: do not give up hope. You have more supporters here than you realise, and there are many Members in this House and the other place who will not rest until we have justice for everyone suffering these appalling torture sentences, but please understand that it is the Government who ultimately have the power to end this injustice. Sadly, my Bill by itself will not bring you justice, but it can help to build pressure on the Government to do the right thing and to build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice. Please, do not have false hope about this Bill. Have hope, but not false hope. That is my aim here today.

By debating these amendments today, especially this first group of amendments, which probe the Government’s position, we can hold Ministers to account and expose the lack of logic behind their refusal to consider resentencing seriously and creatively. Each of these amendments restricts resentencing to a particular cohort or, in the case of one in my name, restricts resentencing entirely by committing the Government to establishing an expert committee to advise on resentencing. To be clear, this is not because I do not want to see resentencing happen at all. Of course I do. That is what the whole Bill is about but, with the Government resisting resentencing, these amendments allow us to focus on the specific objections. Why are they against forming an expert committee? Why are they against resentencing those who have suffered the greatest injustice?

I put my name to all the amendments in this group because I genuinely believe that each asks legitimate and reasonable questions of the Government. Amendment 2 is also in my name. It would restrict resentencing to those already released by the Parole Board and living on licence in the community. Did I table this amendment because I believe they are the only ones who should be resentenced? Of course not. I did so, as I said, to probe the Government’s position and to test the faulty logic. If fears around public protection are all that stands in the way of full resentencing, what could be the objection to starting with those already released? This group, who have, by definition, been deemed safe for release by the Parole Board and the Government are still living the nightmare of unexpected and immediate recall, often for a minor breach of licence, or sometimes merely on allegation of an offence, and the Minister knows this.

I have received so many examples from prisoners who have been recalled after a malicious allegation with no further action taken by the police, yet back inside they go to serve another indeterminate prison term along with those established sentences that they had. Even when no further action has been taken, people still face a year or more in jail, waiting for their next Parole Board hearing—if they are lucky. This is clearly not justice. There is no credible reason not to resentence these people already cleared by the Parole Board.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley and to every Peer who has brought such sustained focus to the imprisonment for public protection sentence. Their passion and the compassion of the families, campaigners and practitioners have quite rightly kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Member’s Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy it proposes.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who takes over the responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hear the mood of the Committee in wanting to move forward, and quickly. I share this sentiment, but we do not think that resentencing is the right way to move this forward.

Today I want to be absolutely clear. My priority is to address the IPP legacy safely, fairly and in a way that endures. Since taking office, I have met many IPP prisoners and their families. I have listened to victims and front-line staff, chaired round tables and campaign groups and walked the landings with governors and probation leaders. Every conversation has strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every available operational lever. Even yesterday I met an IPP prisoner at HMP Eastwood Park who has her parole hearing today.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on communication. It is absolutely vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made. Yesterday I was pleased to see multiple copies of Inside Time around the prison, but I will take that back to the department and consider how we can do more.

We are already seeing what determined practical action we can achieve. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 automatically ended the licence for 1,742 people, with hundreds more cases now moving through the Parole Board on an accelerated timetable. That is real progress: people rebuilding their lives, victims protected and the public kept safe.

Let us stand back and look at the wider trajectory. The total IPP prison population has fallen from 5,040 in 2015 to 2,544 today, with the unreleased cohort down to 1,012. Meanwhile, rigorous supervision keeps risks low. Fewer than 0.5% of all offenders under statutory supervision were convicted of a serious further offence last year. Those figures show we can shrink the cohort while maintaining the confidence and safety of victims.

We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second annual report on the IPP sentence, alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets: 90% of IPP prisoners in the right prison for their needs by December, for example, and sharper deadlines for parole and termination reports. It hard-wires accountability at every level. I know that Peers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and that the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform have serious reservations about the Bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved without pursuing what is proposed in the Bill.

We have a plan, and it is working. Early results from that plan are encouraging. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were safely re-released—the highest figure ever recorded. While recalls fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly there is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population, the Parole Board continues to release around 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm on risk and ambitious on progression, is exactly what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan shoulder to shoulder with colleagues across both Houses, with campaign groups and, crucially, with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever until each individual who can be safely released is safely released and then supported to stay out.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Howard League report. We are exploring in particular the ways to improve recall decisions and speed up post-recall review processes.

While I cannot back a resentencing exercise that would short-circuit the Parole Board’s vital public protection role, I will champion relentless evidence-based progress. Let us channel the energy of the Bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will, with the House’s continued challenge and support, allow many more IPP offenders to complete their sentence and move on with their lives.

I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for Amendment 1 on the creation of an expert advisory committee, which would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may, rather than must, carry out. I understand the desire to provide the Lord Chancellor with advice on this matter.

However, as raised at Second Reading, my concern remains that the creation of an expert advisory committee risks giving false hope to those serving the IPP sentence, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement its recommendations. This is only confirmed in my regular meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and a wide range of respected organisations have considered the issue of resentencing, yet there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise in a way that would not involve releasing offenders the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public.

I recognise the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to address this issue by limiting a resentencing exercise to those currently in the community in Amendment 2. This would avoid the issue of prisoners being released without the Parole Board’s direction that the release test is met.

I respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which means they will have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release, or two for those sentenced when under 18, rather than 10. They also know that even if their licence is not terminated at this point, it will be terminated automatically if they are not recalled in the subsequent two-year period. Those in the community have, of course, met the Parole Board’s release test, but only on the basis that they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place in the form of licence conditions.

This amendment would remove those licence conditions much earlier—potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been in prison for a significant period of time should have the resettlement support from the Probation Service, and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Garnier, that licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board.

Amendment 3 would restrict the resentencing exercise to IPP offenders who are 10 years over their tariff, both in custody and in the community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for this amendment. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their tariff has expired.

Resentencing IPP prisoners who have served 10 years over their tariff would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. For this cohort in particular, the independent Parole Board will have repeatedly determined—at least every two years since the offender reached the end of their tariff—that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not met the statutory release test. For that reason, all those serving the IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community, they would have been recently released either for the first time or after being recalled. They need continued oversight to manage their risk and support from the Probation Service to progress them towards licence termination.

Amendment 10 would restrict a resentencing exercise to those serving a detention for public protection—DPP—sentence. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant force for change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges faced by those serving a DPP sentence. That is why those in the community now have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board two years after their initial release and will therefore also have their licence terminated automatically a year earlier than those on the IPP sentence, if the Parole Board does not terminate it at the end of the qualifying period. There are now fewer than 30 individuals serving DPP sentences in the community and currently fewer than 100 in custody.

The IPP action plan includes a specific focus on DPP offenders, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be comforted that there are more frequent reviews by psychology services and that the Parole Board prioritises listing these cases for consideration. However, our position remains that, as with those serving an IPP, those serving a DPP sentence should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. This is the only way we can ensure that the public and victims are best protected.

Finally in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom I thank for these amendments and for his thoughtful contributions to our IPP round tables, relate to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July 2008. The sentence was amended to give judges greater discretion over its use and to limit it to offenders who received at least a two-year tariff. Again, I recognise the purpose behind the amendments, but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2008 cohort irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of their risk. Our view remains that IPP prisoners should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments, or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders, for the reasons I have set out.

These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individuals serving the IPP sentence. Unfortunately, they do not address the Government’s public protection concerns and would put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and, with the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, there is already a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way.

The changes implemented are expected to reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds. I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and, as I have set out, I believe the IPP action is the best way to achieve this.

To conclude, I should like to give two final examples of the progress made to support the IPP population. First, the approved premises pilot, which has recently concluded, extended the time for which IPP offenders could remain in an AP from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in four APs. At one, 23 out of 26 men moved on successfully after their placement ended. We also saw a 7% decrease in recalls at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that pre-release work, combined with training for staff and extra support, has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community. If we can successfully replicate this across the approved premises estate, the impact could be significant.

Secondly, we are taking action to enable swift re-release following recall where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This summer, we will see the publication of the progression panel policy framework, which will ensure that a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender who is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the Risk Assessed Recall Review process, which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early re-release. These panels also help prisoners prepare for release, which aids their resettlement into the community. Measures such as these will help individuals progress through their sentence towards having it terminated.

I hope noble Lords are reassured by some of the updates that I have provided today. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can, as hard as I can, to support IPP prisoners so that they can get out of prison and stay out.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I was very pleased to forewarn him of my speech, to give him more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very serious matter, especially bearing in mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of this debate.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s answer, because it is very much more of the same that he has given us on two other occasions: he does not wish resentencing to be part of the move forward. I still really struggle to turn around and understand how the Minister cannot convince himself that it is the right thing to do for those groups of individuals that I have pointed out today—colleagues have supported me—who really do not create any sort of risk to the public. Those people who are already out on probation and have been released by the Parole Board are a perfect example, never mind the kids and others.

Nevertheless, all we can do is our best to encourage a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. This Minister is genuine, he is honest and he is doing as much as he feels he can to give hope and support to this victimised group of more than 3,000 individuals. I sincerely hope his words will lead to even more actions than have been done today as he moves away from the Chamber.

But it is a bit of a struggle when, only a week ago, we saw an individual who was finally released out into the community but was arrested within 24 hours and sent back into prison again—and released again and sent back into prison again. Or we might end up with a guy who is now mentally unstable, created by the system, and who has been trying to get out of prison. With your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution, only to find that not long thereafter he is sent straight back into the same prison, which creates the same mental instability. It does not work and, no matter what the Minister says, it certainly has not given us the answers to the hundreds of problems associated with IPP sentences.

I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I am proud of each and every one of them. Their contributions were fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well informed, and I thank them on behalf of all those prisoners for what they have said and what they are trying to do. There is no doubt that we have got our message across but, in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Woodley]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
“(5) A Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor must re-sentence the person serving the IPP sentence in relation to the original offence or offences, and any associated offences.(6) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon the basis of which the tariff was specified as needing to be served before an application for early release might be made.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure those serving IPP cannot be resentenced more severely than the notional determinate sentence upon which the minimum term was based. Confirmation of IPP is preserved for those falling into the category specified in subsection (6A), added by another amendment in the name of Lord Woodley, to ensure public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is quite challenging because this group of amendments was designed as a voting group, but I have been informed that there are not enough people in the House, so we will not be taking a vote on them. That is what I was informed of a few minutes ago, which somewhat cuts the legs from under me, to be quite honest. I do not want to waffle on about all the things that we have been talking about with the hope, belief and view that we were going to vote on them, so, with that in mind, and with the greatest reluctance—and I really mean that—I will be withdrawing this amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be with your Lordships at Second Reading, but I read the excellent contributions in Hansard. That, as well as listening today, confirmed that, like everyone else, I want to commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for this Private Member’s Bill. It has done a huge amount, yet once more, to raise the issue. The noble Lord is one of those thorn-in-the-side type of people—you know, the awkward squad—and that is the greatest compliment I can give him, because I think that is how things change.

Important issues have already been raised. I did not speak on the first group for time purposes, so I will bring some of it forward. The noble Lord’s approach to this resentencing exercise is refreshing, because he has offered to do whatever he can to ensure that it is not turned into, as it is too often caricatured, some chaotic mess with inadequate oversight. Instead, through all these amendments, we are looking to use whatever mechanisms we can to convert these never-ending IPP sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end in sight. That means we are prepared to make compromises and look at all options—nothing is off the table. In that spirit, rather than treating all IPP prisoners as an undifferentiated blob, I am glad to see that today’s amendments try to tackle the different cohorts within the IPP population and work out how best to deal with each group reasonably, and maybe differently, to edge towards justice.

The focus of my Amendment 7 is IPP prisoners suffering mental illness, giving the resentencing court the power to continue incarceration if someone still presents a risk to the public, as, due to mental disorder, they may be dangerous. This would, in effect, replace an IPP sentence with a secure hospital order, and would be a backstop safeguard for the Government to use in dealing with one difficult group of IPP-ers.

One key aspect of the context here—we have heard this again and again from the Front Benches on both sides of the House—is that, in explaining his resistance to resentencing, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, stressed that

“the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public”—[Official Report, 15/11/24; col. 2044.]

and that, therefore, the focus will always continue to be on public safety. I am not convinced that that is not too crude a measure of the Government’s main priority—always to protect the public—but, regardless, it seems that the MoJ is fixated on and perhaps even paralysed by the notion of dangerousness and IPPs. I have never been convinced by the argument that IPPs are en masse a distinct group of offenders who are especially dangerous—much more so than other prisoners on determinate sentences for far more heinous crimes, who are often released into the community at their sentence end or are let out on early release to solve the state’s prison crisis.

I want to take this chance to cite a letter that I received from one IPP prisoner, in which he talked of his frustration at seeing early-release prisoners walking out every day, laughing and joking having told prison officers to shove their sentence plan, boasting about how they are going to earn 100 times more than prison officers by selling class-A drugs, and having had adjudications for offences relating to alcohol, phones, drugs, violence and cell destruction all wiped clean—yet they still get an early release. My correspondent pointed out that IPPs are almost choirboys in comparison, but they are left to rot.

However, I concede that one risk factor makes hundreds of IPP prisoners not choirboys: the very nature of the IPP sentence is so psychologically toxic that it has itself damaged prisoners’ mental health and cause problematic behaviour. This theme has been well rehearsed in all our debates in this Chamber and is evidenced in all the literature. As we know, the despair and sense of hopelessness associated with this sentence contributes to making some IPP prisoners ill; we know about the appalling self-harm and suicide numbers. What is more, ill IPP prisoners have a double whammy: they are often wary of disclosing a decline in their mental health to prison staff in case it could knock back a parole hearing. So the IPP regime contributes to untreated illness, with no intervention to stop deterioration, and that creates even more risky behaviour.

The irony is that the prisoners are arguably becoming less safe to release precisely because they are being held indefinitely, which creates so much pent up anger and frustration, and loss of agency, with no hope. That potent mix is leading to instability, people lashing out and disengagement, all of which are barriers to progressing release. It also means that, in the context of this Bill, a percentage of IPP prisoners could be too ill to be considered for resentencing.

This is partly because prisons are not the right location to deal with mental illness. As the Minister knows, the Government have agreed that prison is not the right setting for prisoners who are ill; he knows this because it was an important element of the Mental Health Bill that passed through the Lords, declaring that prisons should not be treated as places of safety. I moved amendments on that issue, with a focus on IPP prisoners, in Committee and on Report.

My amendment today follows up on that discussion. It acknowledges that, given that the punishment part of the sentence of an IPP-er has long since been discharged, where there are still concerns about risk and dangerousness because of mental health challenges, a mental health setting is more appropriate than prison. This would allow the Sentencing Council to use hospital orders to ensure that the public protection aspect of such concerns is dealt with appropriately, while also making sure that the prisoner is in the right setting. Where someone has apparently become not safe enough to release because of an illness that the state has helped to induce, this seems to me to be a reasonable and elegant solution.

In this way, IPP-sentenced individuals can access targeted help for their distress and have their deterioration and behaviour clinically managed. This can allow progression via specially designed therapeutic and pharmacological in-patient care, in a psychiatric setting that can, we hope, build up and help the recovery of ill individuals with dignity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

HMIP did a report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionately. I believe that the Parole Board has the right skills and experience to make these often very difficult and complex decisions. On the make-up of the cohort of IPP prisoners, I will write with the exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, this Committee has not materialised in the way that I would have preferred. Not least, it has not led towards what I hoped was going to be a vote or, maybe more importantly, the Minister finally agreeing to move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohort that we have highlighted so carefully and fairly.

While I have that disappointment, I think it is fair to say that we have done one thing that IPP prisoners will be grateful for. We have yet again raised awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and among the wider public. There is therefore no way to say, “We will do something”, and then do nothing. There is no escape for us in this House to ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day.

Once again, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Davies. The expertise that they have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and their support is, as always, very much appreciated.

I shall finish where my noble friend Lord Davies finished, and the Minister has just said it: it is in your hands now, sir. It is no good being a nice man with a good heart whose will is there to try to make these changes if we then find that we are back in 12 months or two years and nothing has moved and the number of people who have committed suicide has gone from 100 to 110. It is now on the Minister’s shoulders, and I look forward to working with him and others to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades now.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.