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

Committee

Clause 1: Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection

Amendment 1

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.

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?

To his credit, the Minister tried his best to offer a reason at Second Reading when he said:

“These offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the Victims and Prisoners Act”.—[Official Report, 15/11/24; col. 2046.]

Of course, there is some truth in that. The last Government, and specifically the last Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, deserve genuine credit for sweating blood—as I heard it described recently—behind the scenes to secure the modest gains we saw through this Act. But however clear, and potentially shorter, the pathway is now for those on licence, they are still serving the discredited and long-abolished sentence. The only way to end this torture is with resentencing, turning their indeterminate, never-ending sentence into a standard, determinate sentence.

How can the Government use public protection as justification for holding this axe of immediate recall over the head of someone on an IPP now living in the community? Give them supervision and support, of course, but let it be normal probation supervision and support, in the form of an extended licence, if need be, for a determinate sentence, as specified in Amendment 7 in my name in the other group. Resentencing, turning an indeterminate sentence with no end date into a normal, determinate fixed-term sentence is what the Justice Committee in the other place said in 2022 and the logic is still unassailable.

The only question is: how this can be done in a way that minimises any risk to the public? The Justice Committee is clear: this is exactly what the expert panel is for, to advise the Government on the best way to balance the principles of justice with the need for public protection. The amendments in the other group make explicit suggestions for how this can be achieved.

At Second Reading, the Minister rejected the idea of setting up an expert advisory panel on the grounds that it would give “false hope” to those serving an IPP sentence. But false hope could easily be minimised by making very clear to everyone, especially those still serving IPPs and their families, that no decision had been made about resentencing that would happen in the future, only that the Government were exploring with experts the different ways in which it may be done, but without committing in advance of doing so.

The experts could recommend that certain courts could be prioritised or excluded. They could suggest giving the resentencing court the power to impose extended licences or move prisoners to secure hospitals. All these options will be explored in the amendments we are debating today.

Turning to the rest of this group, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, who has asked me to convey her regrets for not being able to attend today’s debate, prioritises resentencing for those who have served—wait for it—10 years or longer past their minimum tariff. When we debated this matter in Oral Questions in March, the Minister revealed that, as of the end of last year, there were 695 prisoners serving IPPs who had never been released and who were 10 years or longer over tariff. There will be still more inside who have been recalled since that statement. This amendment echoes the call by Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, for the Government to consider partial resentencing by prioritising those most over tariff.

How can the Government deny resentencing to those people still inside more than 10 years past their minimum sentence? I remind noble Lords that we are talking about people who have been locked up for more than a decade longer than somebody else convicted of exactly the same crime but before 2005 or 2012. A lot of nonsense is spoken about two-tier justice, but this is one situation where the label seems to apply. It is not right, and it is certainly not fair.

Moving through this group, how can the Government deny resentencing to anyone still serving DPP sentences—detention for public protection—who was under 18 when convicted? That is the question posed by Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who was the architect of IPP and DPP sentences but now campaigns against the injustice like the rest of us, but maybe more fiercely and diligently than most. The very thought of IPP for kids breaks your heart. Why can we not prioritise them? Unfortunately, my noble friend sends his regrets for not being able to attend this debate, but he knows as well as anyone the harm that these sentences have caused, especially to those convicted as children.

Can the Minister explain why we cannot prioritise people who were convicted before major changes to the sentences were made in 2008? Surely the extra injustice suffered by this cohort demands immediate action. The 2008 changes, which introduced a new seriousness threshold and some degree of judicial discretion, were made in response to recognised human rights concerns at the time. But as with the abolition four years later, shamefully, these changes were not retrospective and left thousands in limbo, many of whom are still in prison despite the manifestly unfair process that led them to be there in the first place. Why can we not deal with these cases immediately as a matter of urgency, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will no doubt ask shortly when he speaks to his Amendments 11 and 12? Why can we not do all the things proposed by the amendments in this group? The truth is that we can, if the political will is there. If the Government refuse to do so, we have every right to demand that they tell us why.

A resentencing exercise for everyone serving these torture sentences is the only way to wipe this stain off our justice system for good. The Government’s arguments against it just do not stack up. Hiding behind public protection will not work any more, not with the viable safeguards that the expert committee can recommend—some of which are specified explicitly in the second group of amendments—and certainly not with my Amendment 2, which restricts resentencing to those already deemed not to pose a risk to the public. I look forward to what the Minister and my other esteemed colleagues and comrades in this place will say. In a spirit of collaboration and in search of solutions, I beg to move.