My Lords, I have Amendment 179ZA in this group. The Minister can surely take pride in the abolition of IPP sentences and in the fact that he and this Government are leading public opinion in this area. The Minister suggested earlier that the Government were not given enough credit for leading public opinion, but here they most certainly are.
There were many weaknesses to the IPP regime. It was imposed in far more cases than was ever expected when the regime was introduced, but a major weakness was that a defendant, a convicted person or a prisoner had to prove a negative: that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he should be confined. That was the great weakness. When he tried to prove that he could safely be released, all he could he do was produce certificates that he had completed courses from programmes that were offered to him in prison, but the second great weakness was that those programmes might not be available or a prisoner would be transferred in the middle of completing a course from one prison to another and would have to start again. That is the basic reason why people have been kept after the expiry of their tariff.
The new provision for extended sentences unhappily retains the necessity for a prisoner to prove that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he be confined, so that great weakness in the existing system is being continued in the system of extended sentences.
I propose in this amendment that the whole system should be tightened up in relation to those who are beyond their tariff date and are serving at the present time. It should be tightened up to the point of becoming, for the first time, a fair system. In subsection (1) of my amendment, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to ““immediately refer”” the case of a prisoner who has served the entirety of his tariff to the Parole Board. That should not be a discretion; he must do it immediately. Then it is the duty of the Secretary of State—not a discretion—to release the prisoner, "““on license as soon as the Board has directed his release under this section””."
Subsection (3) attacks most directly the weakness that I described to your Lordships: "““The Board must direct P’s release unless the Board is satisfied, on the basis of clear and compelling evidence which post-dates P’s conviction, that there is a strong and immediate probability that P will commit a serious violent or sexual offence on release””."
If the tariff is 10 years, the Parole Board should look not at what happened 10 years earlier but the current situation and what sort of risk the prisoner now threatens the public with. What is the evidence that he will commit a serious, violent or sexual offence if he were released? At the moment, we ask the Parole Board to make that judgement without evidence, relying merely on certificates of programmes completed and so on. A judgment without evidence is otherwise called a guess. A person’s liberty should not be decided by how the Parole Board guesses the future.
Subsection (4) suggests that, "““where the Board has declined to direct release,””"
the Secretary of State must—it is his duty to— demonstrate, "““that provision has been made for P to undergo relevant programmes””."
He must also, "““refer P’s case … at 6 monthly intervals until such time as the Board directs P’s release””."
In other words, P will not be left languishing with no programmes presented to him for an indefinite period of time. I happen to know that someone I represented has done all his programmes and got all the certificates but he is still being kept in. On what evidence has that been decided? It is just the way that the Parole Board guesses he will behave if he is released.
Most importantly, subsection (5) contains a limit—or final stop, or buffer—which means that if a person has been in prison for five years after his tariff expired he must be released in the case of specified violent offences, or after, "““8 years post-tariff custody in the case of a specified sexual offence””."
That limit for existing prisoners serving IPP sentences is based on the limit contained in the new provisions for an extended sentence. That limit—or final stop, or buffer—is put into Clauses 115 and 116.
Grouped with this are my Amendments 179BZA and 179BZB, which attempt to amend Clause 116 to introduce, again, the need for, "““clear and compelling evidence … that there is a strong and immediate probability that P will commit a serious violent or sexual offence on release””,"
for the Parole Board to refuse to allow him to be released when his tariff has been fulfilled. Similarly, Amendment 179BZD indicates exactly the same provision.
This is an extremely important matter. More than 3,000 prisoners are still held after the expiry of their tariff. We cannot abolish IPP sentences and allow them to remain in prison indefinitely.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 9 February 2012.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c433-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:01:43 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_809154
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_809154
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_809154