My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 81 in my name which is substantially the same as one I tabled and withdrew in Committee. I am grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. We are dealing with a shame and a scandal. I shall not dwell on the nature of it because that has been well spelled out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I shall come to the substance of the amendment because, of the three tabled on this topic, it is the one that is the most modest and helpful—indeed, it is intended to be most helpful to the Government.
Unlike Amendment 80, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, it does not concern those in prison serving an IPP, only those living in the community on licence—that is, those who have been released after the Parole Board has resolved that they do not represent a serious risk to public safety. At the moment, these persons are potentially subject to a lifelong licence. They can be recalled to prison for a breach of the licence conditions at any point. The only way the licence can be terminated is for the individual to apply to the Parole Board for a licence review after the expiry of the qualifying period, which is currently set at 10 years.
The Government have stated that they wish those reviews to be automatic in future, not requiring an application from the prisoner. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar said on 21 July in a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett,
“From September this year, officials will refer automatically to the Parole Board the case of every offender serving the IPP sentence who has become eligible to apply for termination of his/her IPP licence.”
I take that as a definitive statement of government policy: automatic referral. But yesterday, when I attended a meeting of the Justice Select Committee in the other place—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—and a question about this was put to Sonia Flynn, chief probation officer, she did not reply using those words. She said something rather different. She said that from September, the probation service had started proactively encouraging those who qualified to make an application. She had no explanation when asked by a member of the committee why, of the 500 persons currently entitled to apply for their licence to be terminated, only 20 had applied.
There is a good reason why the probation service is not carrying out the policy in the terms set out by my noble friend. Close examination of the current legislation makes it clear that the review can be undertaken only on the prisoner’s application. The Government cannot, therefore, make an automatic referral to the Parole Board without the prisoner’s active collaboration.
7 pm
This amendment addresses that deficiency by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to make an automatic referral to the Parole Board at the end of the qualifying period and, if the application is dismissed, annually thereafter. The referral does not depend on the acquiescence or collaboration of the prisoner, so it allows the Government to do what they have said they want to do and I hope it will command their support.
What it does not do is prejudge in any way the decision the Parole Board makes on that referral. That remains a matter for the board.
Noble Lords may wonder why an offender entitled to a review at the end of the qualifying period should not have made one on his or her own initiative. What is the need for automaticity? The simple truth, however, is that many IPP prisoners out on licence after that many years simply do not want to re-engage voluntarily with the criminal justice system they believe has treated them so unfairly, even when proactively encouraged—“It’s the Home Office, we have a form for you to fill in”. This is the answer to the question that put to the chief probation officer about why only 20 of the 500 had applied. Automaticity is a good and necessary thing. The Government agree and it would be very strange if they held out against the substance of this amendment given that it gives them the statutory power to carry out their own policy.
There is, however, another part to the amendment. I referred earlier to the qualifying period after which a review of the licence can be applied for or, if this amendment were passed, would take place automatically. That qualifying period is set by law at 10 years. The very last words of the amendment would have the effect of reducing the qualifying period to five years. To those IPP prisoners who received a short minimum term, the 10-year licence period is wholly disproportionate and can hardly be argued to be necessary for public protection because, as I said earlier, under this amendment the decision whether to terminate the licence remains with the Parole Board. Reducing the qualifying period to five years simply reduces the length of time after which an individual is entitled to a review. These people will be out on licence with the approval of the Parole Board and will have shown themselves safe in the community for five years. The number of IPP prisoners recalled after five years out on licence is very small and the latest data shows that no IPP prisoner committed a serious further offence five years or more post release. The risk to public safety in this essentially administrative change is zero.
I very much hope that my noble friend will accept the modest changes effected by this amendment. I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind not only the plight of the offenders affected by this sentence but also that of their families, who have stuck with them in many cases and struggled and fought for them and whose lives, as a family, have been disrupted, damaged and, in some cases, come close to destruction by the injustice done and the practical impossibility of recovering the life of a free citizen. I hope to hear encouragement and undertakings from my noble friend. If not, I give notice now that, reluctantly, I may wish to test the opinion of the House.