| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill. We now move away from the emotive issues relating to mandatory sentences which we debated under Part I of the Bill and turn to Part II dealing with the effectiveness and effect of sentences passed by the courts. It raises a question as to what proportion of the length of any sentence should be spent in prison, how much on supervision in the community, and how best to achieve the twin aims of punishment for the individual and the protection of the public. I oppose Clause 7 in order to raise the issue of whether we are wise to move in the way that the Bill proposes.
Our present sentencing system has been in existence only since October 1992. I ask the Committee to consider three questions. Why are we changing the system at this stage? What are we attempting to achieve? And how will the new scheme work in practice?
I believe that it is a mistake to change the system at this time and that what is proposed will prove to be far more complicated. It will have a serious effect on the prison population; it will increase tensions within prisons; it will be found to be largely unworkable; and it will reduce rather than increase the safety of society.
I believe that we would all agree in principle that real-time sentencing sounds very good sense. If one were starting from scratch to devise a penal system, clearly a system under which, when a sentence of three years is passed on a prisoner, that prisoner serves three years makes sense and is simple and understandable. The fact is that we do not start from scratch but have to consider the existing system.
We have had a system of early release from all forms of imprisonment since the middle of the last century. As long ago as 1837 the Select Committee on Transportation referred to the fact that those who were transported to Australia were given a ticket of leave which allowed them to be released from prison on licence approximately halfway through their sentences. When transportation ended, the penal servitude system in this country again provided that those sentenced to penal servitude should be released on licence at a period during their sentences.
As long ago as 1895 the Gladstone Committee, recognising the absurdity of a system whereby those who had committed the worst crimes were released from prison early while other prisoners served their sentences in full, recommended that all prisoners should gain a period of remission provided they behaved themselves while in prison.
Since 1948 and the abolition of penal servitude we have had a system under which, whatever the length of the sentence passed by the court, a prisoner obtains one-third remission of that sentence provided he behaves while he is in prison.
In 1967, a system of parole was introduced whereby not only were prisoners released automatically after serving two-thirds of their sentences, the rest of the sentence being completely ignored, but any prisoner serving a sentence of more than 12 months was free to be released on parole after serving merely one-third of the sentence. That system was accepted and agreed to by all parties and all sections of society until 1983 when the system was changed to make parole available to any prisoner who had served six months in prison. The decision on parole was removed from the Parole Board to the local review committee, and there was a presumption that prisoners would be released on parole. The effect was that almost all prisoners serving sentences of between nine and 18 months, irrespective of the difference in sentence, were released on the same day after having served six months in prison. That brought the parole system as it then existed into disrepute.
Against that background the then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd set up a committee, which I had the honour to chair, to consider the issue of parole and early release. I do not pretend that we necessarily got it right, but I would suggest that it was a wide-ranging committee including, among others, a High Court judge, a chief constable, a principal probation officer, a senior criminologist and others. We took a year to complete our report. We considered a great deal of evidence and evaluated a great deal of research carried out by the Home Office. We made unanimous recommendations which were accepted by the Government. The Government said of our proposals at paragraph 6.6 of their White Paper:
- "The recommendations ... propose a coherent new scheme for supervised early release from prison. The Government is grateful to the Committee for its work and believes that most of its recommendations should be implemented".
What were those recommendations? Their purpose was simple. For all sentences up to four years, the first half, 50 per cent., should be spent in prison, after which
people should be automatically released, subject to good behaviour, the next 25 per cent. of their sentences being spent under supervision in society. During the last 25 per cent., although no longer under supervision, they would be at risk of being recalled and serving the rest of their sentences should they commit any further offence. The recommendations for those serving sentences of over four years were that parole should continue but, rather than starting at a third, it should start at 50 per cent.; that it should go on until three-quarters of the sentence--a longer period--and that, again, people should stand the risk of being recalled if they reoffended during the time of the original sentence.The objects were to ensure that prisoners served at least 50 per cent. of their sentences as against the third that most were serving at that time; to restore proportionality to all forms of sentence; to provide supervision when prisoners receiving a sentence of longer than 12 months returned to society; and to give a meaning to the sentence as a whole. That system was introduced in October 1992.
Why is it now intended to change the system fundamentally? I have seen no evidence that it has failed. Indeed, it would be difficult to obtain such evidence in a period of three to four years. No suggestion has been made. We are told that prison works, and I accept that. We are told that crime has fallen during the time that the system has been in existence. The only reason given in the White Paper for changing it is that it is said to be a complicated statutory system. Out of the blue at the 1995 Conservative Party conference the Home Secretary announced that he intended to abolish the system of early release and that prisoners should serve the whole of their sentences.
What does that mean in effect? It is not intended that the sentences should be the same and that prisoners should serve the whole of them in prison. What is proposed in the Bill is that all sentences should now be reduced by one-third and that prisoners should serve 84 per cent. of the two-thirds' length of sentence passed.
The White Paper stated that the aim of turning to what I call real-time sentences and what the Home Secretary calls honesty in sentencing was not that the length of period served by prisoners should be increased. The Bill proposes that sentences should be reduced in length by one-third to two-thirds to equate more with the sentences served. It does not put an end to early release. Although we were told that the system of early release was to end, what is proposed in its place is a system whereby every two months a prisoner will be assessed and will have the chance of receiving 12 days' reduction of his sentence every two months, six days if his behaviour meets the prescribed minimum behaviour of a prisoner, whatever that may be, and six further days if he has exceeded that standard.
What does that mean in practice? Let me take three simple examples. Today, when an offender gets a sentence of four years, he serves two years in prison, one under supervision and one at risk of recall. In future, under this Bill, for the same offence he would receive a
sentence of two years eight months, serve two years two months and 24 days in prison and be on supervision for eight months (rather than 12), with no period at risk of recall should he reoffend. At present, for a sentence of three years, an offender serves 18 months in prison, nine months on supervision and nine months at risk of recall. That is to be replaced by a sentence of two years, with 20 months in prison, six months on supervision and, as I said, no further period at risk. Finally, at the top end of the scale, the armed robber who receives 18 years at the moment serves between nine years and 12 years, depending on the risk assessed by the Parole Board, is on supervision until the end of 13½ years and at risk of return for the whole of the 18 years if he commits a further offence. Under the new provisions, he would get a sentence of 12 years, serve 10 years and then be released--not on risk but depending on whether he had behaved himself in prison--and be on supervision for a period of three years.With great respect, it is said that that system is simpler, more honest and gives greater protection. I do not believe that it meets or achieves any one of those aims. Therefore, I ask what its effect will be on the prison population.
I apologise for speaking at length but I want to take up three points. The White Paper states in terms that the intentions are that sentences should in no way be increased--the length of time that people spend in prison should not be increased as a result of the changes in sentencing policy. Indeed, in the chapter summarising the resource implications of the White Paper, the key assumption is that when imposing a sentence other than a mandatory sentence, courts will take full account of the changes in early release arrangements. It is not, therefore, intended that there should be a general increase in sentences following the introduction of honesty in sentencing.
Therefore, I take it that when the White Paper says that the provisions overall will lead to an increase of over 10,000 in the prison population and the need for 12 new prisons, it is assumed that its proposals in that area will be neutral. In fact, they will not be neutral. If all sentences are reduced by 66 per cent. of the present sentence, it means that everybody, even if they receive full remission for early release, will serve 11 per cent. more time in prison than they do at the moment. What does that mean? If all those sentenced up to four years automatically serve at least 11 per cent. longer, the daily prison population goes up by 1,900. What does that involve? It means £40 million extra a year and three new prisons.
But will that figure be achieved? It is on the basis that all of them will get early release. Yet, as I understand from the White Paper and the speeches that have been made, the intention is that most prisoners should serve their sentence in full and only model prisoners would get a short period of early release. Therefore, one must assume that not every prisoner will get his 12 days every two months early release. So, to the extent that that fails, so the prison population will become greater, as people spend longer in prison. We all know of the tremendous pressures with 60,000 people in prison today.
Finally on that matter, will sentences in fact be reduced by one-third? I do not want to sound cynical about the judges, whose case I attempted to argue last week, but I am bound to say that when we wrote our report we wondered whether, even in the climate of nine years ago, it would be easy to have sentences passed in courts reduced by one-third. I suggest that in the climate of 1997 it may be considerably more difficult to have sentences reduced by one-third, even more difficult than it would have been in 1988. To the extent that they are not reduced, the increase in the prison population could rise by anything up to 20,000 people, which means some 30 new prisons, and could cost heaven knows how many billion pounds.
My other concern relates to how the system of early release will work. Is it practical to assess every individual prisoner on a two-month basis? Do we have the resources to do it? Is it the wisest use of those resources?
In conclusion, there is my question to the Minister about the effect on the protection of society. The vast majority of prisoners will receive a shorter period of supervision than they have at the moment. However, I agree with her entirely--I agree with the Government--that one of the faults of the present system can fairly be said to be that those who are the most serious prisoners at the moment receive the least supervision. If they are refused parole, they have supervision only from the 66 per cent. point to the 75 per cent. point, whereas the Government's proposal, which I wholly support, is that there should be a supervision period of at least a quarter of the length of the total sentence.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider carefully whether a system which, on the face of it, appears to remove risk as the criterion for release and replaces it by a criterion of being a model prisoner--many of the worst people in society are very well behaved in prison--would in fact improve rather than reduce the protection of society. Should we at least consider putting back the test of risk into the release of those prisoners. I ask her to look again at the effect that the proposals as a whole will have on the prison population. I ask her to say, in view of the numerous criticisms that have been made--totally well intentioned--about the effectiveness of what is proposed compared with the effectiveness of the present system, that she will examine its effect on the population, on protection and on tensions within prisons. I hope she will say that the Government will at least take time to reflect and that before moving in such a direction they have met the various concerns that I have expressed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made a thoroughly Conservative speech. Those who think of themselves as Conservative ought to support him. I rise to try to persuade my noble friends and others in the Committee who do not think of themselves as Conservative, that he is right and ought to be supported in this matter.
Clause 7 of the Bill is a declaratory clause. It declares in advance of Clauses 8 to 33, which constitute Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, that the principle behind the effect of custodial sentences should be that prisoners should serve the term to which they have been sentenced and that there should only be the exceptions which are set out in subsequent clauses of that chapter.
Looking at the principles on which imprisonment is justified--not just in the public mind but in penal theory for hundreds of years--it is true that retribution and the immediate protection of society by the removal of offenders from society is reflected and only reflected in the length of their sentences. But there are other issues to be considered when deciding on the length of sentences and the length of the part of sentences to be spent in custody. The other considerations which are generally agreed by all concerned include rehabilitation and therefore the risk of re-offending.
Clause 7 is included in the Bill specifically and openly to put retribution over and above all other considerations in sentencing theory and practice. It is based on the statement in paragraph 9.3 of last year's White Paper which said that the existing system provides for prisoners to be released automatically after a certain proportion of their sentence has been served. That statement contains two major errors of fact. First, prisoners are not released automatically after they have served a certain proportion of their sentence. Provision exists in the current system for additional days to be served in custody because of misconduct in prison. That will be continued in Chapter I of the Bill.
It is also wrong to say that prisoners are released automatically. When prisoners are released from custody their sentence is suspended rather than remitted. If they are serving a sentence of more than 12 months, their supervision by the Probation Service continues to three-quarters of the original sentence and even after that they are still considered to be at risk. When they are released under those circumstances, they are released subject to specific conditions which include not just supervision by the Probation Service, but also more precise conditions as to where they should live, what their behaviour should be, reporting conditions and so forth. If they breach those conditions, they can be returned to prison on the authority of a supervising probation officer far more readily than is provided for under the Bill. Under Clause 13 of the Bill it is necessary to go to a court to secure a return to prison. I ask the Committee to think about what that means in terms of the protection of the public.
A sentence now is a determinate sentence just like a life sentence; it is a combination of custody and supervision. It is, or should be, a pragmatic question as to what the balance should be between custody and subsequent supervision. The evidence has shown, even in the short time since these arrangements were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, that the combination of custody and supervision--the Parole Board carrying out the supervision--has provided greater protection for the public than it had before or than it would have under the provisions of this Bill.
Parole reduces re-offending rates. Despite what was said in Committee in another place by the Minister of State, it reduces them against a profile of prediction of the rate at which re-offending would otherwise have taken place. That is the official view of the Home Office Research Department and cannot be overturned simply by saying, as Mr. Maclean unfortunately did, that that is the view of a sociologist.I come back to the issue of recall. It is important that we concern ourselves with the protection of the public and the need for recall to be immediate if that is deemed to be necessary. This Bill does not provide for that. I come back to the question of supervision. It is true that in a small number of cases the amount of time spent under supervision will increase under the Bill; but in the vast majority of cases there will be a reduction in the amount of supervision and therefore in the protection of the public.
I emphasise the issue of the protection of the public because it is important that we understand it. It contains two elements. One is that it is, of course, dependent on good behaviour in prison. The Bill provides for a reflection of good behaviour in prison in the length of time spent in custody. But the other element which, as we have seen, actually works, is the element of supervision. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, and as Sir Peter Lloyd said in another place, the worst villains are often those who behave best in prison. They are therefore able to get out sooner and resume offending after their release.
If we have two workable measures which determine the release date--one being behaviour in prison and the other the possibility of supervision--why is the Bill throwing one of them away? Even the measure of good behaviour in prison is proposed in the Bill in a way that is, frankly, unworkable. It is proposed that every two months there should be two sorts of assessment; that is, one as to whether the prisoner has attained a minimum standard and the second as to whether he has exceeded a minimum standard. That means that around 80,000 assessments will need to be carried out every two months by the Prison Service. In practice, unless the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is carried, those assessments would be carried out by prison officers; not just centrally; not by prison governors; but by prison officers from the wings. One can imagine what that will mean in terms of discipline in prisons and the possibility of aggravation between prisoners and prison staff when they learn that they are not being given the same consideration as other prisoners on the wing. It is impossible for prison staff to implement the provisions proposed in the Bill.
I said when I began that this was a declaratory clause. Opposing the clause is a declaratory position for this Chamber to take. The Committee needs to declare this afternoon--I hope we will have an opportunity to do so, if necessary in the Division Lobbies--that we put the interests of society and the interests of a system, relatively recently introduced by this Government with widespread support, above the doctrinal statements of this particular Conservative Home Secretary at a conference. By refusing to accept that Clause 7 should
stand part of the Bill, we would be declaring--perhaps a Conservative position--that penal reform is still a live concern of Parliament and of this country.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |