To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans the Secretary of State for Justice has to meet families of prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection or Detention for Public Protection sentence.

My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the impact that IPP and DPP sentences have on the families of those serving those sentences. My noble friend Lord Timpson meets regularly with families as part of his ministerial responsibilities for these issues, and he values the insight that those discussions provide. The engagement he has ensures that the voices and experiences of families are heard. The Government remain committed to ongoing dialogue, recognising how this informs the action that we take to support progression and rehabilitation.

My Lords, there are nearly 1,000 IPP prisoners who have never been released, all of them now way beyond their tariff, and there are another 1,500 or so in the community subject to frequent and capricious recall. What can I say to the mother of the prisoner, whose name I supplied to the Minister in advance, who has been recalled again recently, despite being in employment and having a supportive employer? If the Deputy Prime Minister perhaps feels unwilling to meet the families of the prisoners, will he be willing at least to meet a delegation of noble Lords to come and talk to him about this continuing scandal?

My Lords, given his ministerial responsibilities, it is entirely appropriate that my noble friend Lord Timpson leads the engagement in this area. As the noble Lord knows, he holds quarterly IPP round tables with Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss progress and to hear directly from noble Lords about their concerns. Indeed, the next one is due to take place in a couple of weeks’ time, at which the Chief Inspector of Probation will answer noble Lords’ questions. The Justice Secretary also has met parliamentarians and campaign groups, and he remains fully sighted on this important issue. As regards the person whose name the noble Lord helpfully provided me with in advance, I am very much aware that my noble friend Lord Timpson and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are corresponding about this separately, and I do not think it is appropriate that I say something about the personal circumstances today.

My Lords, the Independent Sentencing Review chaired by David Gauke recognised the unique challenges posed by the remaining IPP population and recommended further reforms to support progression towards release. What progress have the Government made in implementing those recommendations, and will the Minister commit to publishing regular updates on outcomes for IPP prisoners so that Parliament can judge whether those reforms are actually making a meaningful difference?

My Lords, I want to reassure all your Lordships that the Government completely understand and share the concerns about this very troubling cohort of prisoners, but the first duty of every Government is to keep the public safe, and that must come first. So, in order to try and reduce this cohort safely, through the action plan the Government are working on licence reform, progression work, recall improvements and support for those prisoners in order to demonstrate risk reduction. We have now provided those serving the IPP sentence with an earlier opportunity for licence termination and an additional opportunity for those serving these sentences thereafter. The IPP annual report and action plan for 2026-27 will be published in July.

My Lords, Ministers are facing three Oral Questions about IPP prisoners within a fortnight, the third being mine. That is because we are determined, co-ordinated and—speaking for myself—an angry bunch. Why are the Government granting early release to a group of prisoners guilty of very serious crimes when, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, 900 prisoners subjected to the scandalous and ethically outrageous injustice of indeterminate IPP sentences have never been released and are being held in prison three, four or five times longer than their court-mandated sentences for much lesser, non-violent and often minor crimes?

There is a persistent myth that people got IPP sentences for rather trivial offences, which is in fact not true. It was always required at the time that it was both a serious offence and that they had demonstrated concerns about previous offending. There is this cohort that needs to be looked at, and the Government are anxiously trying to ensure that we make every move we possibly can to make sure that they are helped to demonstrate that they are no longer a risk. However, no Government—and that includes the Government who were led by the party opposite—will release people when the independent Parole Board has adjudged that they remain a risk to the public.

My Lords, the impact of IPP sentences on family members is absolutely devastating, especially with miscarriages of justice, which IPPs indeed are on an industrial scale. On Wednesday 15 July, many of these families will be at Westminster again to protest against this never-ending injustice, marching from the Ministry of Justice at 11 am to the Houses of Parliament to hold one of their regular meetings. Therefore, will the noble Baroness ask the Minister, Column 1119is located here

I will certainly pass that on to my noble friend—I suspect that he may already know. He regularly meets with the families, because we understand the pressures that are upon them and are anxious to hear what we can do to ensure that we can safely release this troubling cohort while protecting the public as well.

My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that IPP prisoners are located in prisons close to their families so as to facilitate visits by their families? This must be one of the surest ways of achieving rehabilitation.

The noble Lord raises an important point. I am happy to reassure him that we have now reallocated the IPP prisoners. The vast majority—around 95%—are in the appropriate custodial settings, in terms of both the visits and the care that they need, in order to help them to get to a point where we can start looking at release.

My Lords, I will be there on 15 July and urge everybody to go to the MoJ and join in—advert over. The point was made that we see these as trivial offences but some of them are serious, but what is trivialised is the recall. The mother of the prisoner to whom the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred recently handed her own son in on a recall after an anonymous malicious complaint. No charges have been made; nothing has happened. The mother says, “This is cruel. It’s torture”. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over families. Will the Minister and her department act with urgency? For IPP prisoners, when recalled for no criminal offences, it is on average 28 months before they can even see a probation officer. That is cruel, that is wrong and the ministry needs to do something about it.

Can I make two things clear? First, recall is not used as a punishment for a minor breach of licence. I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong about that. It is a means of protecting victims and the public when the Probation Service assesses that it can no longer manage that offender in the community. Recall is an important and swift public protection measure. Also, HMPPS has strengthened the scrutiny and quality assurance of recall decisions. There is a higher threshold for IPP prisoners in relation to recall. There must be not only a breach of their licence conditions such that there is a concern about the risk that they present but a causal link between that breach and the index offence for which they are serving the sentence in the first place.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from the Conservative Benches and then we may come to the Cross Benches.

What about the Greens?

Garnier!

My Lords, I refer to the figure that my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned—namely, the nearly 1,000 prisoners on IPP sentences who are still incarcerated and are well beyond their tariff. The Minister will know that not everything that is in her brief is necessarily worth reading out. The resort to the mantra of public safety is overused. There may perhaps be a handful of those 1,000 prisoners who are not safe to be released because they are genuinely dangerous or because they have become so institutionalised that they are incapable of living within the community. Can she please invite her noble friend Lord Timpson, whom we all admire, to work a lot harder than he does—and he works very hard—to ensure that at least 950 of those 1,000 prisoners are released on parole this year?

I join the noble and learned Lord in his admiration for my noble friend Lord Timpson, but the fact is that we have an independent Parole Board, which makes the decisions—not the Government—on whether someone can safely be managed within the community, as the noble and learned Lord knows. If they cannot be safely managed in the community and are released, they will be living next door to you—and no responsible Government are going to do that.