Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Ramsbotham, have done us a great service by raising this issue. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Hylton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew have reinforced the concern that exists that we are dealing with a very serious situation. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave a pretty scathing assessment of the Government’s record on the administration of sentences for public protection, which everyone is now referring to as IPPs. The purpose of these sentences is to set a minimum tariff for dangerous or violent offenders—the punitive part of the sentence—and an indeterminate part, whereby the prisoner must satisfy the Parole Board that he no longer poses a risk to the public before he is released. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, the Government are well aware of the problems that are now present in the prison system. He may well be right that there should have been a much greater impact assessment. Perhaps the Minister will answer directly the questions posed by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with all his experience, posed the greatest question: how much will it cost to do the things that need to be done? There are too many people with IPPs for the inadequate efforts that have been made so far to deal with them. I understand that there are rehabilitation courses that are just too full for anyone to get on them, so that many prisoners have gone past their minimum tariff but have, because of administrative incompetence, been unable to show the Parole Board that they have made sufficient progress to justify their release. It is scandalous that this has been allowed to happen, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden has pointed out. I concede that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to decry the injustice of IPPs. That injustice can be laid largely at the door of the Government, who simply lack the will and imagination to cope with a burgeoning prison crisis. We estimate that by 2012 there could be at least 10,000 prisoners serving IPPs. Combined with those serving mandatory and discretionary life sentences, that could add up to 20 per cent of the prison population awaiting their turn before the Parole Board. The Government have many questions to answer, and should take the opportunity of this debate to make a start. Overcrowding in prisons is a menace. The prison estate is currently running at 112 per cent of its intended capacity. Some prisons—for example, Shrewsbury and Leicester—are running at 150 per cent of capacity. At these levels, prisons are just containing prisoners, nothing more. The problem, which runs much wider than IPPs, is an acute failure to rehabilitate prisoners. The average reading age of prisoners is appallingly low; and without improving that, prisoners have few prospects of employment after they leave prison, which in turn raises recidivism rates and feeds the growing prisoner population. The Government have an opportunity tonight to show that they are not running out of ideas. However, their failings are pushing prisons to bursting point. The dreadful administration of IPPs is just one aspect of that failing. However, it need not be the case. Our position is clear. We are in favour of maintaining IPPs, but they have to be fair and just for prisoners, for the staff of the prison estate and, above all, for the public. The Government are not managing to keep up on any of these fronts. They must rethink their approach to rehabilitation of prisoners. Without that, prisoners have no hope of changing, and convincing the Parole Board that it is safe to release them. That is the real problem with IPPs. I acknowledge the force of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, we on these Benches have reached a different conclusion. Merely abandoning IPPs would not be satisfactory, as it would mean more violent and sexual offenders being released automatically at the halfway point of their sentences, regardless of risk. We must not forget that, properly administered, the IPP is a tailored sentence. Each prisoner is assessed for the risk that he poses before he is granted release. It is not satisfactory just to get rid of IPPs and leave it at that. We need a fundamental reform of sentencing. If there is to be a Conservative Government—which I strongly believe there will be—I hope that that Government will deliver fundamental reform by introducing honest sentences that spell out minimum and maximum terms. I hope that I have explained why I do not support the amendment of the noble Lord. However, the Government should not take that as an indication that we think that all is well. It is not—and if they do not act, we will.