Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, we return to the issue of indeterminate sentences for public protection, which the amendment seeks to abolish. The Government introduced these public protection sentences in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They apply to offences committed on or after 5 April 2005 and are designed to deal with dangerous offenders who have committed serious violent or sexual offences. Once such offenders have served their minimum term, they remain in prison unless and until the Parole Board determines that they can be released safely, under supervision, into the community. It must surely be right that we should limit the release of dangerous offenders in this way. Public protection must be paramount, and I am pleased that, at least on this basic issue, the Benches opposite agree with us. I believe, and we contend, that IPPs are right in principle, but the amendment provides for the automatic release of dangerous offenders with no account taken of the risk that they might still pose to the public. Turning to the issue of practice, the Government have acknowledged that there have been some difficulties in the management of IPP prisoners who have received short tariffs. We have responded by taking measures in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to focus these sentences on offenders from whom the public need most protection. We have also put in place much improved systems, backed up with additional resources, to ensure that offenders are enabled to demonstrate their reduced risk to the Parole Board and thus show that they are suitable for release. Those changes have improved the regime now, as they will for the future, and the number of IPPs passed has reduced significantly since the 2008 Act came into force. However, we also need to assist the position for those already sentenced. That is why the Prison Service has put in place better arrangements. Almost all post-tariff IPP prisoners now have sentence plans, and efforts are being made to increase the provision of courses to IPPs. We won the Court of Appeal challenge that detention post-tariff was unlawful and that prisoners in this position should be released. The House of Lords confirmed that judgment. It made it clear that there is no duty on the Secretary of State to provide particular courses to prisoners, although he needs to ensure that reports are provided to enable the Parole Board to make decisions on the basis of risk. At the moment, a little over 5,600 people are serving IPPs, 2,130 of them post-tariff, and approximately 60 per cent of IPP prisoners have at least one programme. Clauses 128 and 129 provide for public protection sentences to be made available for a wider range of terrorist-related offences. They insert certain terrorist offences into Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which lists specified violent or sexual offences that may attract a sentence of imprisonment for public protection or an extended sentence. All these terrorist-related offences are appropriate for inclusion in the schedule, as they demonstrate a sufficiently direct risk of harm in that they relate to the planning and/or commission of violent crimes and carry maximum custodial sentences of 10 years or more. As I have emphasised, public protection is paramount and it is important that we take the opportunity to update the schedule to keep pace with changes in public risk. I have sought to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, concerning numbers. If we can be in any way more accurate or illustrative on that, I shall write to him. However, we have not been able to address the issues of cost. We will look at whether something useful can be said on that and, if so, will write to noble Lords. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.