|
Hilary Benn: A prisoner who is liable for removal from the United Kingdom—that is what we are talking about: people who can be deported—and who is serving an extended sentence can be deported after serving half the sentence. Under the clause, release followed by deportation would occur automatically halfway through the sentence. Clearly, offenders who are not being deported are, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, subject to the Parole Board's decision about their release. The amendment would make the release of offenders due for deportation also a matter for the Parole Board.
It might be helpful to mention that the clause is a re-enactment of section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Only a few offenders would be covered by the provision, which has been in force for getting on for 12 years. The difficulty with the amendment is that the
Column Number: 969
Parole Board would consider matters such as licence conditions and supervision following release, which are irrelevant to someone who is to be deported. There would be no means of enforcing those licence conditions or ensuring supervision. It is simpler and more practical to deport such offenders at the earliest opportunity.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it would be for the jurisdictions that were to receive individuals who had been convicted in the way set out in the Bill—or, indeed, people convicted of very serious offences under the current provisions, who reached the end of a fixed sentence and were then deported and returned to their country of origin—to determine how to safeguard themselves and their people. However, given that the clause is a re-enactment, I undertake to find out more about the extent to which the existing statute has been used, and about what is done, in the few relevant cases, to inform the other jurisdiction that the person in question is coming its way.
4.15 pm
Mr. Heath: With respect, that does not answer the point. Informing the other jurisdiction is of no benefit because, unless its legal system is oddly framed, it would be unable to take into account the offence committed by the individual while he was in the United Kingdom, where the offence is, effectively, a spent offence, because the term of imprisonment has ended. I cannot envisage circumstances in which that person could then be taken into custody for that offence. So we have a situation in which, if the person had remained in this country, he might have been assessed by the Parole Board as continuing to pose a risk to the community, but the moment he goes outside British jurisdiction, he is entirely at liberty, irrespective of whether that advice is given to another jurisdiction.
I said that I was not entirely satisfied with the purport of the amendment because it still allows the Secretary of State to make a decision, irrespective of the Parole Board's decision to deport in those circumstances. I add that proviso about the strict interpretation of the amendment. What would happen if the polarity of the situation were to be reversed? The situation does not apply in European Union jurisdictions, but let us suppose that it does. Can one imagine what the tabloid newspapers would make of it if the French Government were to send us people who had been convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who, in the view of the competent authorities, remained a danger to the public at large, who had served only half of the sentence imposed by the court in that jurisdiction, and who were then deported to our shores and were at liberty to commit offences in our jurisdiction? My suspicion is that the editor of The Sun would have something to say about that, and I believe that any responsible person would.
Whether it is a re-enactment or not, it opens up some serious questions about the policy objectives of allowing people to be deported in such circumstances, other than to go directly into custody in another
Column Number: 970
jurisdiction, which is entirely different. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said, but he has not really dealt with the case that I put to him. I should be interested to receive any information that he can give me on the number of occasions on which the provision has been used in the past and in what circumstances. The matter is a cause for grave concern and undermines co-operation between jurisdictions and police authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 568, in
clause 236, page 130, line 14, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Clause 236, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 237 and 238 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 239
Release on licence etc:
drug testing requirements
Amendments made: No. 569, in
clause 239, page 132, line 22, leave out '16' and insert '17'.
No. 570, in
clause 239, page 132, line 27, leave out '16' and insert '17'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Clause 239, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 240
Alteration by order of relevant
proportion of sentence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Hughes: I seek clarification from the Minister about the implications of this wide-ranging clause. It gives the Secretary of State power to amend by order the proportion of a custodial sentence of 12 months or more that must be served in prison before release. It also enables the Secretary of State to amend by order an extended sentence given for serious sexual or violent offences under clauses 207 and 208. Such sentences must be served before a prisoner is eligible for release on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
The clause does not qualify the power of the Secretary of State; he could, in theory, tell Parliament that rather than 50 per cent. of the original sentence being spent inside, 60 per cent., 75 per cent. or 99 per cent. will be spent inside. He could also say that the entirety of the extended sentence could be spent inside. I am uncomfortable with the clause, as it undermines the principle of legislation that the Government introduced on the basis of the Halliday report and other consultation.
It introduces custody plus and custody minus, and it introduces a regime under which people can be given a twin-part sentence. Usually, it is 12 months or under or 51 weeks or under. Some of us would like three months of the sentence to be spent inside and the rest outside. If a sentence is longer than 12 months it
Column Number: 971
should be split, and if it is an extended sentence there is an add-on for risk. We ought not to include a clause that could allow these provisions to be ripped up and rewritten by order—even one that required parliamentary approval. If we accept the principle that it is important to get sentencing guidelines and the balance between custody and licence right, we need primary and not secondary legislation. I would need a great deal of persuading that the clause should stay in the Bill.
Hilary Benn: This is simply a re-enactment of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, subject to affirmative resolution. That may help the hon. Gentleman. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the proportion of an extended sentence for certain sexual and violent offences, and that relates to clauses 207 and 208, which must be served before a prisoner is eligible for release on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the procedure that clause 240 provides for, but I can only reaffirm that it carries forward what is already in the 1991 Act.
Simon Hughes: I am aware of existing legislation. Is there absolutely no limitation on the Secretary of State's power? The clause will allow him to introduce draft orders removing all the licence provisions and also orders for non-custodial elements for general or extended sentences. There is no limitation on his powers; he could remove the provisions of custody plus and custody minus completely if he wished. Perhaps the clause remains in the Bill because the word-processor reprinted it without people having thought through its implications in the light of custody plus and custody minus.
Custody plus and custody minus are based on the principle that a sentence will be in halves. The clause is a legacy of the old regime; I wonder whether it is not a leftover. Perhaps there was a mini discussion among civil servants or Ministers, who said, ''Oh, look; it is not really consistent, but shall we leave it in?'' I guess that they said that it would be good to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to have lots of power, so they left it in. That is not a good enough reason for keeping it. Will the Minister confirm that it is unqualified, and explain how it is consistent with the new regime?
Hilary Benn: It does not relate to custody plus or to intermittent custody. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the Government are understandably wedded to these new structures, as they form an important part of the Bill's sentencing provisions. However, I am happy to confirm that this power—as I say, it is a re-enactment—could alter the relevant proportion of sentences of 12-months plus, or of extended sentences, if that were the wish of the Secretary of State; and it would be subject to the affirmative resolution, so a case would have to made to the House of Commons and voted upon.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
Column Number: 972
The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 2.
Division No. 37]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Kidney, Mr. David
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Taylor, Ms Dari
Turner, Dr. Desmond
NOES
Heath, Mr. David
Hughes, Simon
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 241 and 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
