 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill |
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 20 November 2007(Afternoon)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Criminal Justice and Immigration BillClause 16Release
of prisoners after
recall
4
pm
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David
Hanson):
I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 16, page 10, line 31, leave
out subsection (2) and
insert—
‘(2) After section
255 of that Act (recall of prisoners released early under section 246)
insert—
“255A
Further release after recall:
introductory
(1) This section
applies for the purpose of identifying which of sections 255B to 255D
governs the further release of a person who has been recalled under
section 254 (“the
prisoner”).
(2) The
prisoner is eligible to be considered for automatic release
unless—
(a) he is an
extended sentence prisoner or a specified offence prisoner;
or
(b) he has, during the same
term of imprisonment, already been released under section 255B(1)(b) or
(2) or section 255C(2).
(3) If
the prisoner is eligible to be considered for automatic release the
Secretary of State must, on recalling him, consider whether he is
suitable for automatic
release.
(4) For this purpose
“automatic release” means release at the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the prisoner is
returned to prison.
(5) The
person is suitable for automatic release only if the Secretary of State
is satisfied that he will not present a risk of serious harm to members
of the public if he is released at the end of that
period.
(6) The prisoner must
be dealt with—
(a) in
accordance with section 255B if he is suitable for automatic
release;
(b) in accordance with
section 255C if he is eligible to be considered for automatic release
but was not considered to be suitable for
it;
(c) in accordance with
section 255C if he is a specified offence
prisoner;
(d) in accordance
with section 255D if he is an extended sentence
prisoner.
(7) The prisoner is
an “extended sentence prisoner” if he is serving an
extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228 of this Act, section
58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or section 85 of the Powers of
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
2000.
(8) The prisoner is a
“specified offence prisoner” if (not being an extended
sentence prisoner) he is serving a sentence imposed for a specified
offence within the meaning of section
224.
(9) The Secretary of State
may by order amend the number of days for the time being specified in
subsection (4).
(10) In
subsection (2) “term of imprisonment”
means—
(a) in relation
to a prisoner who is, or is to be treated as, serving a single term of
imprisonment, that term;
(b) in relation to a prisoner
serving two or more sentences of imprisonment (whether concurrently or
consecutively), the aggregate of the periods that the prisoner is
required—
(i) to serve
in prison, or
(ii) to be on
licence.
(11) In subsection (5)
“serious harm” means death or serious personal injury,
whether physical or
psychological.
255B Automatic
release
(1) A prisoner who is
suitable for automatic release
must—
(a) on his return
to prison, be informed that he will be released under this subsection,
and
(b) at the end of the 28
day period mentioned in section 255A(4) (or such other period as is
specified for the purposes of that subsection), be released by the
Secretary of State on licence under this Chapter (unless he has already
been released under subsection
(2)).
(2) The Secretary of
State may, at any time after a prisoner who is suitable for automatic
release is returned to prison, release him again on licence under this
Chapter.
(3) The Secretary of
State must not release a person under subsection (2) unless the
Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for the
protection of the public that he should remain in prison until the end
of the period mentioned in subsection
(1)(b).
(4) If a prisoner who
is suitable for automatic release makes representations under section
254(2) before the end of that period, the Secretary of State must refer
his case to the Board on the making of those
representations.
(5) Where on a
reference under subsection (4) relating to any person the Board
recommends his immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the
Secretary of State must give effect to the
recommendation.
(6) In the case
of an intermittent custody prisoner who has not yet served in prison
the number of custodial days specified in the intermittent custody
order, any recommendation by the Board as to immediate release on
licence is to be a recommendation as to his release on licence until
the end of one of the licence periods specified by virtue of section
183(1)(b) in the intermittent custody
order.
255C Specified offence
prisoners and those not suitable for automatic
release
(1) This section
applies to a prisoner who—
(a) is a specified offence prisoner,
or
(b) was eligible to be
considered for automatic release but was not considered to be suitable
for it.
(2) The Secretary of
State may, at any time after the person is returned to prison, release
him again on licence under this
Chapter.
(3) The Secretary of
State must not release a person under subsection (2) unless the
Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for the
protection of the public that he should remain in
prison.
(4) The Secretary of
State must refer to the Board the case of any person to whom this
section applies—
(a) if
the person makes representations under section 254(2) before the end of
the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he is returned
to prison, on the making of those representations,
or
(b) if, at the end of that
period, the person has not been released under subsection (2) and has
not made such representations, at that
time.
(5) Where on a reference
under subsection (4) relating to any person the Board recommends his
immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the Secretary of State
must give effect to the
recommendation.
(6) In the case of an intermittent custody prisoner
who has not yet served in prison the number of custodial days specified
in the intermittent custody order, any recommendation by the Board as
to immediate release on licence is to be a recommendation as to his
release on licence until the end of one of the licence periods
specified by virtue of section 183(1)(b) in the intermittent custody
order.
(7)
The Secretary of State may by order amend the number of days for the
time being specified in subsection
(4)(a).
255D Extended sentence
prisoners
(1) The Secretary of
State must refer to the Board the case of any extended sentence
prisoner.
(2) Where on a
reference under subsection (1) relating to any person the Board
recommends his immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the
Secretary of State must give effect to the
recommendation.”’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 16,
page 10, line 43, at end insert
‘, subject to the agreement of a Crown Court
judge’.
Amendment
No. 138, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, at end
insert—
‘(c) if the person
is under the age of 18, at the date of his or her return to
prison.’.
Amendment
No. 14, in clause 16, page 11, leave out
line 33 and
34.
Amendment No. 84,
in clause 16, page 12, line 2, leave out first
‘is’ and insert ‘and the Board
are’.
Amendment
No. 139, in clause 16, page 12, line 12, at end
insert—
‘(c) if the person
is under the age of 18, at the date of his or her return to
prison.’.
Amendment
No. 85, in clause 16, page 12, leave out
lines 22 and
23.
Government
amendments Nos. 75 and
76.
Clause stand
part.
Government
amendment No.
77.
Government amendment No. 74
replicates the re-release provisions in clause 16 as it stands. In the
light of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, we
tried to put them into a structure that would be easier for
practitioners to understand. That is not the result of this
morning’s discussion. None the less, I hope that the hon. and
learned Member will accept that we are trying—perhaps very
trying. We are doing our
best.
The provisions,
which essentially replicate those in the original clause, define three
groups of determinate sentence prisoners for whom different re-release
procedures following recall must apply. The first group is offenders
who are serving a determinate sentence for offences that are neither
violent nor of a sexual nature. We are attempting to ensure that if
such prisoners, having been assessed as not presenting a risk of harm
to the public, are recalled, that will be for a fixed period of up to
28 days, at which point they will automatically be re-released. That is
a significant change from the current arrangements, but in my view it
would ensure that recall would be not a punitive measure but a measure
of protection for the public; it would ensure that the purpose of fixed
term recalls is to remove offenders from often rapidly deteriorating
situations, and place them in secure environments.
The probation
service will have the opportunity to review the supervision
arrangements and, if need be, apply for additional restrictions. The
enforcement of the licence through recall also underlines, for the
offender, the importance of future compliance. I reassure the Committee
that if individuals who are recalled for up to 28 days go out into the
community again and commit further offences or cause further
difficulties while on licence, they will be returned to custody until,
potentially, the end of the sentence, and not for a second fixed term
period.
The second
group is of determinate sentence prisoners who are serving a sentence
for crimes of a sexual or violent nature, or who have been assessed as
unsuitable for automatic re-release because they present a risk of
serious harm, or, indeed, have already served one fixed term recall and
as a result are no longer eligible for automatic re-release. The
provisions allow for such prisoners to be re-released through two
possible routes. In the first, the Secretary of State has discretion to
examine the case and determine whether re-release should occur; that
involves determining that the offender is safe to release. The decision
will be taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of up-to-date risk
assessments provided by probation staff. If the Secretary of State is
not satisfied on the matter, there is the option, as there is now, of
the Parole Board. The case of any recall prisoner who remains in
custody for 28 days must be referred to the Parole Board. If neither
the Secretary of State nor the Parole Board is satisfied that it is
safe to re-release the prisoner, he must accordingly remain in
custody.
The
third and final category in the amendment, which also replicates the
original clause, is of those sexual or violent offenders who are
serving extended sentences. Such prisoners will be re-released only if
the Parole Board recommends it. If the board does not consider it safe
to re-release them following their recall they can potentially be held
until the end of their sentence.
We are trying to demonstrate
swift and effective enforcement of licence conditions. The figures on
enforcement of licence conditions following breaches of licence show 33
per cent. enforcement in 1997, rising to 91 per cent. in 2006. We need
to manage that in connection with the prison population. The proposals
strike a balance between public protection and ensuring that licence
conditions are met. Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77 are
consequential upon the main amendment.
That leads me to the Opposition
amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. In my
view, amendment No. 13 would produce a further step before recall takes
place in requiring prisoners recalled for a fixed term to be referred
to the Crown Court before they can be re-released. That measure is
potentially slow and cumbersome and would add very little to the
process. I will be grateful to hear the hon. and learned
Gentleman’s reasons for that amendment, but if it is designed to
enhance public protection, I reiterate that prisoners serving sentences
for sexual and violent offences are automatically precluded from being
given fixed term recall and that prisoners eligible for fixed term
recall will be subject to the risk assessment conducted by probation
staff that I mentioned earlier. I believe that the probation service is
well placed to assess the level of risk presented by an
offender and that it will do a sound job in that regard. The Secretary
of State will also have considerable powers to examine in detail any
assessment showing whether the offender presents a further risk to the
community. I believe that there are adequate safeguards in place to
ensure public protection. It is not in our interests to put public
safety at
risk.
Amendments
Nos. 138 and 139 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to
re-release a young offender following recall. I recognise that the
provision to re-release recalled prisoners using Executive powers as
opposed to going through the Parole Board is a departure from existing
practice. However, as I have already mentioned, we are keen to refocus
the board’s energies to considering the release and recall of
the most dangerous offenders in the system—those who serve long
terms for sexual and violent offences. In that way, it can provide a
most useful service in protecting the
public.
Amendment
No. 14 would deny the Committee, the House and the Government the
opportunity to amend the number of days that an offender serves on
recall, other than by amending the Act through further primary
legislation. Similarly, amendment No. 85 would remove the associated
order-making power in new section 254A(7) of the Criminal Justice Act
2003.
The introduction
of fixed term recall provisions is a new initiative. We trailed it in
our paper published on the first day of the Ministry of Justice, 9 May.
As with other provisions, it has the support of not only the previous
Lord Chancellor, but the present Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend
the Member for Blackburn (Mr.
Straw).
Mr.
David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): May I test the
Minister on one aspect of legislation within his Department? He refers
to the Lord Chancellor, who is the Secretary of State for Justice.
However, the legislation refers to “the Secretary of
State”, which, as we know is an interchangeable term between any
Secretary of State and could therefore put this very important power
within the compass of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
That would place the matter in the executive arm rather than in the
Department of Justice. I wonder why the term Lord Chancellor, which is
still a statutory position that separates its holder from the
run-of-the-mill Secretaries of State, has not been used in this
legislation.
Mr.
Hanson:
That is an interesting probing point. In terms of
Pepper v. Hart, I will make some policy on the hoof and say
that, for these purposes, the Secretary of State is the Secretary of
State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. In the event that I find that
that is incorrect, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. That seems to me
to be relatively clear in the circumstances.
I hope that with that
point and the hon. Gentleman’s ever helpful smiling
contributions—I think that today’s score is about
2-all—I commend the revised Government amendment to the
Committee. I urge the hon. and learned Member for Harborough not to
press his
amendments.
Thank you very much indeed,
Mr. Cook, for inviting me to contribute to the debate on
clause 16. I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome
to deal with amendments Nos. 138 and 139, which deal with the point
about which he spoke this morning—the age of the persons subject
to recall. I shall concentrate briefly on our amendments Nos. 13, 14,
84 and 85, which fit into two
sets.
One set deals
with the power of the Secretary of State to make orders amending the
number of days for the time specified in particular new subsections.
Amendment No. 14 deals with the number of days that come under what
was, until the Minister moved his amendment, the provisions on pages 11
and 12 of the Bill. About 40 pages of new amendments were tabled by the
Government at the end of last week, so, not for the first time, they
have come forward with a complete rewrite of the guts of clause 16. If
we read the clause alongside the amendment paper, we would see a
completely different
animal.
Although my
amendments do not now tag on in the same way to the latest set of
Government amendments to clause 16, they allow us to discuss the powers
of the Secretary of State. A moment ago, we heard the Minister claim
reasons of administrative efficiency—he said that if the
Conservative amendment were made, each time that we wanted to change
the number of days we would have to amend the primary legislation.
Well, there is nothing much to worry about if we have to get the
Government to come back to Parliament to ask for permission to do
things.
Mr.
Hanson:
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know of the
affirmative procedure. Any change made by the Secretary of State in the
number of days would have to come before both Houses of Parliament
anyway.
Mr.
Garnier:
I do know that, but it does not alter the fact
that I find the giving of powers to the Executive—the handing
away from Parliament of the ability to control in an effective way a
Secretary of State—something difficult to live with. Given the
great avalanche of legislation that is coming through, of course we
understand that if we did not give the Secretary of State, of whichever
Department, the power to amend primary legislation, we would be stuck
dealing with statutory instruments or special debates on matters as
detailed as adjusting the number of days that the Secretary of State,
or rather the statute as the Bill will be by then, would apply to a
recalled defendant.
As
a matter of principle, we should not always nod through such matters.
In too many cases, we have seen the Secretary of State taking unto
himself powers to alter primary legislation. The affirmative procedure
is better than nothing. I cannot remember whether the right hon.
Gentleman has ever been in the Whips
Office.
Mr.
Garnier:
They know their trade. If the Minister is trying
to persuade us that the affirmative procedure is an
effective way of holding the
Government to account, he is still wearing his Whip’s hat and he
ought to get out more. I assure him that there is no better way of
getting what he wants by bundling something upstairs with a short
Committee process, particularly towards Christmas as hon. Members are
busy concerning themselves over all sorts of other things but the
matter in hand.
I do
not need to expand on the argument; I have made my point and I think
that old subsection (7) and old subsection (10) are just another set of
examples of where we are losing control of the Executive and the
Executive must be kept in check.
4.15
pm
Through
amendment No. 13, I want to add to clause 16 as previously
drafted the requirement that a Crown court judge should agree before
someone is released, not before he is recalled. In a sense this is a
slightly fruitless conversation because what I am arguing about will no
longer be part of the Bill if the Government have their way and their
amendment No. 74 is made. However, let us struggle on and see how we
go.
Proposed new
section 254A(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
states:
“If the
Secretary of State is satisfied, on recalling a person to whom this
section applies, that the person will not present a risk of serious
harm to the public if he is released at the end of the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which he is returned to prison, then
subsection (4)
applies.”
Amendment No.
13 would insert at the end of that
subsection:
“subject to
the agreement of a Crown court
judge.”
I am after some
form of judicial input, so that it is not the Secretary of
State—not a politician or the Executive—who is deciding
when a recalled prisoner should be released. There should be something
outside Government dealing with matters of this sort. That is precisely
why in my amendment I include the board—the Parole
Board—in relation to proposed new section 254B(3) of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, such that the section would read:
“The Secretary of State must not release a person under
subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State and the Board are
satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public
that he should remain in
prison.”
I am
not trying to stop the release of people whom it is appropriate to
release or to prevent the Secretary of State and the judicial system
from recalling for periods limited to 28 days those who have committed
breaches, because I can see that there is good sense in setting a short
return period for those who committed breaches while on licence. What I
do think is important—this is a constitutional point as much as
a point of detail relating to the Bill—is that Secretaries of
State should not have a direct say on whether somebody should be
released or not, whether they are Secretaries of State in the ordinary
sense of that term or whether we are using the term interchangeably
just because the Lord Chancellor happens to be the Secretary of State
for Justice. It should be either the Parole Board or some
quasi-judicial or judicial input that makes the decision.
As
I said earlier, this is a slightly unreal discussion
because my amendments relate to a provision that the Government are not
satisfied with themselves. They
have taken it out and put in two and a half pages of their own revisions
under Government amendment No. 74.
I will finish by making one or
two general remarks about the 28-day automatic recall period. I think
that that is sensible, based on the experience of the state of New
York. The recall rules there have been changed in respect of people on
parole who have committed minor acts of misconduct—they might
have had a row with their neighbour in the next-door flat, or there has
been a minor altercation over a parking space but it did not lead to
anything of a serious criminal nature. Under the old rules in the state
of New York, if reported to the police, those people were automatically
recalled to continue to serve their life sentence in custody, and the
prisons were becoming full of people who were perfectly safe but had
had one minor loss of temper, which led to the recall. We do not need
that. My understanding is the position in New York is that the
behaviour of paroled prisoners on licence has improved markedly. The
prisons run more efficiently and humanely as a consequence of not
having a lot of people who are recalled for minor breaches.
If we accept the deal that
people should be recalled only when necessary and if there is a limited
28-day period subject to all the safeguards so that if the man—I
say man because it usually is a man—is a danger to the public,
he will have to serve out a far longer period on recall, I would ask
the Government to do me the deal of allowing the release from recall to
have a far greater judicial input, and not to be a decision made by the
Secretary of State.
We need clarification. This is
not a flippant point—it arises from the intervention by the hon.
Member for Somerton and Frome about the office of Secretary of State.
Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which attempted to do away
with the office of Lord Chancellor, and the guarantee that was
negotiated between the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, and the then
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, the holder of the office of Lord
Chancellor is statutorily required to maintain and safeguard the
independence of the judiciary.
Unfortunately, the Lord
Chancellor is also the Secretary of State for Justice. Wearing that
hat, he has a big spending budget and huge budgetary restraints are
rained down upon him. Every time that we have a discussion about prison
accommodation or capacity, that fact becomes increasingly apparent.
However, at the same time, that same individual office holder has to
protect the independence of the judiciary, and through various forms of
semaphore and direct speech, the judges are being told to be careful
about sending people to prison because the prisons are full.
I do not care what the right
hon. Member for Blackburn calls himself, either in front of his shaving
mirror or when addressing his Ministers. I know, because I have teased
him about it, that he rather enjoys being called not only Lord
Chancellor, but Lord High Chancellor. He loves wearing the official
state robes. I do not deny him the joy of wearing those
robes—perhaps one day not too far away they will be worn by a
Conservative. There is another debate to be had about the importance of
uniforms and the separation of the individual and the office holder.
However, whether the current Secretary of State for Justice and Lord
High Chancellor enjoys being called
this, that or the other does not matter. What is
essential, is that he separates in his mind his role as a spending
political Minister, and his role as the protector of the independence
of the judiciary. It is possible to do that, and it is essential that
he does it under the current regime. However, it is increasingly
difficult for the public to have confidence that he is doing it if, at
the same time as being the Secretary of State who deals with prisoners
on recall and releases them after 28 days to ease prison capacity
problems, he does something that I suggest should more properly be done
by the judiciary—controlling the sentencing and sentence plan of
those who have been sentenced by the courts.
That will do for now, I think.
I look forward to hearing from others who have something to contribute.
Mr.
Heath:
It was perhaps a mistake for me to have intervened,
as it enabled the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to say most of
what I was intending to say on the subject of the persona of the Lord
High Chancellor. It is an important distinction. When we allow the
Executive quasi-judicial powers, we must be careful and clear what we
are talking about. There are some responsibilities of the Secretary of
State for Justice in his capacity as Lord Chancellor which are
inalienable, and which should not be available to other Secretaries of
State. I say that simply because there is a statutory duty on the Lord
Chancellor, and on his position as set out in the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005.
This is a
good example of one of those matters that should rest not with a
common-or-garden Secretary of State, but with one who is charged with
maintaining the interests of justice, and that is the role of the Lord
Chancellor. It so happens that the Secretary of State and the Lord
Chancellor are the same person, and that is fine. I do not have a
problem with that. In legislation, however, it is helpful to make that
distinction. Although my interjection may have appeared to be a
debating point, it was slightly more serious. Where we intend the
Secretary of State for Justice to take on a quasi-judicial role, it is
helpful to specify the Lord Chancellor in statute for those purposes,
so that we have no confusion and to remind everyone of the
responsibilities
involved.
I would like
to say a few words about amendments Nos. 138 and 139, which stand in my
name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and which have
been subscribed to by the Conservatives. They brings us back to the
issue of how we treat children and people under the age of
18.
In his opening
remarks, the Minister said that he wanted the Parole Board to
concentrate on the most difficult cases, where there was concern for
public safety. I suggest is another area in which the Parole Board can
be usefully engaged—where the person under recall is a
vulnerable person himself. I suggest that young people fall into that
category. This morning, we had a consensual discussion on the needs of
young people within the penal system and our desire to keep as many as
possible out of our prisons. One would assume from that that it is
necessary to stop them returning to prison, as far as possible. If that
is the case, having the assessment by the Parole Board seems to be a
useful safeguard that would ensure that young
people were not incarcerated additionally any more than is absolutely
necessary for the purposes of the operation of the
clause.
I am pleading a special case
for the young person. The existing arrangements work reasonably well
with regard to young people. I see why the Government are proposing the
clause and do not argue against it as a whole, but I am saying that
young people are a special case and asking the Minister to at least
consider the possibility of pursuing the issue at a later
stage.
Mr.
Hanson:
I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough
and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for their support for the
principle of fixed term recall. I am grateful, because I expected some
political discussion around those issues, and I appreciate that they
have made a judgment on that. The experiences in New York that the hon.
and learned Gentleman described are apt.
With had that element of
consensus, we have discussed the amendments before the Committee. The
hon. and learned Gentleman raised the possibility of some form of
judicial oversight or involvement in the decision-making process,
rather than simply leaving it to the Secretary of State. The reason
that we have not taken that route is simply one of scale and scope with
regard to the determinations to date. I estimate the number of fixed
term recalls that can be expected to happen in any one year to be
approximately
4,500.
4.30
pm
If I were to
accept the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, those
4,500 cases might well have to go through the judicial process, which
would add a significant burden to the work of the courts. During the
discussions that we have had to date on this subject, I believe it has
been shown that, regarding the cases that we have
addressed—those of sexual or violent offenders—the
Secretary of State has the ability to exercise discretion
accordingly.
Mr.
Garnier:
If the Minister is going to have 4,500 people
recalled for up to 28 days during a given year, does he anticipate that
they will be recalled into category B, category C or category D
prisons, or a mixture of all three? How will he make that assessment?
Will the decision be made simply on the basis of the spaces available,
on the basis of the original crime, or on the basis of the conduct that
led to the 28-day recall?
Mr.
Hanson:
We have to make risk assessments on all those
matters, which are dependent on the reason for the recall, the
activities involved and the advice that we receive in the first place
about the level of risk in relation to the prisoner and the recall. So,
there would be a range of mechanisms whereby individuals could be
recalled to a range of prisons, based on the risk assessment that was
undertaken at the time.
The hon. and learned
Gentleman’s amendment seeks to have judicial involvement in that
process of risk assessment. I suggest that that would place a
significant burden on the courts, which the proposals before the
Committee would avoid while still giving protection to the public, as
there is a risk assessment of different categories of prisoner on
recall. That would apply even
within the first 28-day recall option for prisoners and on a second
recall. There are opportunities for consideration
accordingly.
The issue of parliamentary
oversight and the delegation of powers to the Secretary of State is
important. I value, as any Member of Parliament would, the rights of
Parliament. For goodness’ sake, I spent five years in
opposition—that is not as long as you spent in opposition in
another role, Mr. Cook. Therefore, I know how important it
is to have parliamentary oversight of the Executive, having spent a lot
of time trying to secure
that.
Proposals for a
change to the amount of time on a recall would be subject to the
affirmative procedure. I accept that I am a former Government
Whip—in fact, I am the Whip who lost the former Member for
Caerphilly during his sojourn, so my whipping credentials might not be
that strong. Nevertheless, as a former Whip, I appreciate that there
will still be debates in this House and in another place under the
affirmative procedure. In those debates, I could not take for granted
the votes of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I certainly could not
take for granted the votes of Members of another place. In another
place, my party—and, indeed, the party of the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough, were it to form a Government—would not
have an overall majority. There are parliamentary and legislative
safeguards with regard to this matter, and I hope that the hon. and
learned Gentleman will be reassured by
them.
Amendments Nos.
138 and 139 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to
re-release following recall a young offender who had either been deemed
unsuitable for a fixed term recall, or who was ineligible for such a
recall because he was serving a sentence for a specified offence. Once
again, I will reflect on what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome
has said, but I will also reflect on what I have said to the Committee
to date, which is that the purpose of these provisions is to help to
refocus the Parole Board on what I believe it should be doing: looking
at the parole needs of serious, dangerous, violent and sexual
offenders, and considering the recall of the most dangerous offenders
in the system. It is important that the Parole Board focuses on those
issues, because, in my view—the Under-Secretary of State for
Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston, who deals
with many of these matters, would agree—the Parole Board is
heavily burdened at the moment by a lot of work that could be done
elsewhere just as effectively, efficiently and appropriately.
I hope that the Opposition
amendments will not be pressed and that, given the consensus on the
broad thrust of the new clause, which is essentially the old clause
made simpler, there will be common acceptance by the Committee of the
need for the changes on recall.
Amendment agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 75, in clause 16, page 12,
line 38, leave out ‘254A(7), 254B(4) or
254C(2)’ and insert ‘255B(4), 255C(4) or
255D(1)’.
No.
76, in clause 16, page 12, leave out lines
43 and 44 and
insert—
‘“ section
255A(9),
section
255C(7),”.’.—[Mr.
Hanson.]
Clause
16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 21 November 2007 |