Coroners and Justice Bill

The build-up of the IPP population has been broadly in line with projections. Offenders who have received public protection sentences would, prior to the implementation of the 2003 Act, have received lengthy determinate sentences: they are not new prisoners. The problems have been caused by the number of sentences with short tariffs. This has caused serious problems for the prison system which, in many instances, has been unable to prepare prisoners for parole in time for their first parole hearing. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, just reminded us, we responded by legislating in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to confer judicial discretion in the imposition of IPPs and DPPs. The 2008 Act also removed the option of passing a public protection sentence for offences for which the appropriate tariff was less than two years in most circumstances. Those changes to the regime focus it on those offenders from whom the public needs most protection. We have also put in place much improved systems to ensure that offenders are enabled to demonstrate their reduced dangerousness to the Parole Board and thus show that they are suitable for release. However, the individual prisoner is responsible for his own future. The Judicial Committee of this House has confirmed that the Secretary of State has no common law duty to individual prisoners to provide specific courses for IPP prisoners and that detention post-tariff was lawful. The Government placed public protection at the centre of their sentencing reforms. The new sentences introduced in the 2003 Act for dangerous sexual and violent offenders are designed to ensure that they are not released until their risks are considered by the Parole Board to be manageable in the community. Those offenders whose risk decreases with time will be released subject to the recommendation of the Parole Board, but it is surely right that we do not release one-time dangerous offenders until it is safe to do so. However, the amendment would revert to the position where there was a lack of sufficient sentencing options for offenders who had committed offences which do not carry life but who nevertheless had a high risk of committing a further offence that would cause serious harm to the public. The amendment goes further by providing for the automatic release of prisoners currently serving public protection sentences once they have served the maximum sentence for the offence committed unless they have been released earlier. No consideration would be taken of the risk they might still pose to the public. Is that really acceptable? The Government legislated in the 2008 Act to restore judicial discretion. They also removed it as an option for offences for which the appropriate tariff was under two years. These changes apply to offenders sentenced on or after 14 July last year. In the first six months of 2008, 850 offenders were given an IPP sentence, an average of 141 per month. In the last six months of 2008, following the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 420 offenders were given an IPP sentence, which is an average of 70 per month. So the number of offenders given such a sentence was reduced by one-half as soon as the 2008 legislation came into force. We are seeing the impact of changes to the system for managing the indeterminate-sentence prisoners and of changes in categorisation, but this will take some time to have its full impact. By May 2008, the database showed 14 per cent of the IPP population in category C prisons, an increase on the 3 per cent in January of the same year. NOMS has increased provision of accredited programmes, and in excess of £21 million is invested in the delivery of drug treatment programmes in custody. Overall, 64 per cent of IPP prisoners in custody have attended at least one programme in July 2009, compared to a figure of 52 per cent in June 2008 and 65 per cent in March 2009. I do not intend at this stage to talk about Clauses 124 and 125. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to withdraw his amendment.