Contribution
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.