Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships’ House who spoke in support of the amendment. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that IPPs should be retained but I absolutely agree with him that IPPs are only part of a wider problem of rehabilitation and that a thorough reform of the whole sentencing procedure is necessary. I was seriously disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. Being in the view of a Parole Board panel a potentially dangerous offender is not a sufficient reason for imposing what is, in fact, a life sentence when the offence is one that does not itself bear a life sentence. It is all very well to say that the protection of the public is paramount, but if that were the case anybody who had committed a serious crime would simply be locked up permanently with no hope of release. The protection of the public is an important factor, but it is necessary to maintain a balance between treating somebody who has committed perhaps a serious crime with a total lack of support and simply locking them up for life and considering the interests of the public. Being a potentially dangerous offender in the parole board’s view is not a sufficient reason for imposing a life sentence. That has to be borne in mind. Had this debate taken place a couple of hours earlier, it was my intention to call a Division as it is an important matter which needs to be brought to the attention of the Government. We need to show our concern about the way in which this has been mishandled. It is now almost a quarter to 10, so it is not an occasion when it would be remotely appropriate to call for a Division. I appreciate that I cannot bring the matter back at Third Reading, so in these circumstances, it is with regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 90 withdrawn. Schedule 15 : Extension of disqualification for driving Amendment 90A Schedule 15 : Extension of disqualification for driving Amendment 90A Moved by