| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: Clause 7 is an introduction to the measures that follow. It is the declared intention of those who propose that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill that the measures which follow shall be very different from those that are proposed by the Government in the Bill and those that they may want to modify in the light of the concerns of my noble friends Lord Carlisle and Lord Belstead. If the introduction goes, as sure as night follows day those who vote for the Motion, if successful, will vote for the next group of amendments which will completely wreck the Government's proposals in the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept what my noble friend has said on the substance of the amendments. However, does she agree that if one construes Clause 7 its removal from the Bill will not affect the substantive clauses?
Baroness Blatch: Part II of the Bill would not work without Clause 7. That was certainly the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. Clause 7 needs to be in the Bill in some form, whether or not it is the
intention of noble Lords to produce another declaratory statement which introduces other provisions that they plan to substitute for the Government's proposals.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: It has been said by several Members of the Committee that of course Clause 7 is largely a declaratory clause. I made it clear that my purpose was to try to seek an explanation as to the reason for the changes that were being made and to express my concerns that, on balance, they were steps in the wrong direction. I am bound to say to my noble friend the Minister that, with the greatest respect, I still do not believe that we have really been given an answer as to why it is necessary to change the present system at all. I remain of the view that "if it ain't broke, don't mend it" applies to this part of the Bill.
The Minister said that we had had a short meeting. I hope that by use of the word "short" as related to the meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Belstead she was not implying that it was in any way acrimonious. It was short because we only had about five minutes when the Minister was able to speak to me and she started to put to me during that time certain proposals which she is prepared to look at again on this part of the Bill. I hope that I have that right.
I repeat that I have three major concerns. I am not against the idea that there should be clarity in what is said by the court. Indeed, our report recommended that the court should spell out what is the effect of a sentence when it passes it. My concerns are whether what is proposed will lead to an undue increase in the prison population, which my noble friend says she does not intend; whether it will lead to people being released without risk assessment for whom risk assessment should be made; and whether the system of early release is workable.
As I understand what my noble friend said--I would be grateful to have confirmation, even by silence--she is prepared to look again at the question of the terms on which people are released and she is prepared to look, as we did, at the division between short-term and longer-term prisoners and say that those who are over a certain stage of imprisonment--and I suggest that in this case it will have to be less than the present four years--should be reviewed by the Parole Board as at present and released under supervision to society for the greatest protection of society. I understand that that is one of the matters the Minister has said she will consider.
I understood the Minister also to say that she accepted and would look at possible concern over the mechanism of early release.
Although I am unhappy at the way it is achieved, the Minister also reiterated her view that it is not the intention of the Government that greater periods in prison should be spent than are being spent at the moment. If I am right in those three understandings, then, since I do not wish to be seen to be wrecking this part of the Bill and since a declarative statement and declarations of views have been expressed and the clause or that which follows will, I understand, probably have to be re-written to meet some of the matters to which my noble friend the Minister referred, I am
willing to withdraw my objection at this stage and to consider what my noble friend proposes before Report. However, I would ask her to confirm that those are the sort of matters which at least in general terms can be discussed.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may touch on the three points my noble friend raised. First, I can tell him that we have made no secret that there will be a small increase in the prison population as a result of honesty in sentencing. We have accepted that some people will spend more time in prison; indeed, it is an answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for those shorter-term prisoners would be supervised for less time and would in fact be in custody for a longer time. There is a balance because they would spend slightly longer in prison. The extent of the increase has been fully taken into account in the assessment and is part of the financial memorandum for providing the additional prison places.
It is true that I want to address the other concern my noble friend invited me to consider--the involvement of the Parole Board in risk assessment for the release of long-term prisoners and the Parole Board's involvement in setting conditions. I give him an absolute assurance that I would wish to do that. I have to add the caveat that we do not intend to contemplate earlier release than that provided for in the Bill. In other words, it would be the 84 per cent. point, that point when the maximum amount of remission could be gained from good behaviour. For short-term prisoners it would be on the basis of good behaviour. For the longer-term prisoners it would be subject to assessment of risk to the public, which is the lacuna which has been identified by my noble friends. My noble friend asked whether people would spend longer in prison. I have just answered that question in relation to the prison places. We believe there will be some marginally longer periods of time spent in prison as a result of honesty in sentencing because we are doing away with the much earlier release at the 50 per cent. and the two-thirds points.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one matter. Do I understand from the second question she answered that she is prepared at least to listen to representations over the viability of the method of deciding on earlier release? I believe it requires investigation.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I can give my noble friend the assurance that I will discuss the matters with him and start to flesh out in more detail the proposals that we have in mind to address the concerns of my noble friends on this matter.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. In those circumstances, I do not believe there would be any advantage, on a declaratory clause of this nature, in testing the opinion of the Committee, because the opinion of the Committee is clearly a desire to see a method of release which achieves the punishment of the individual and the greatest protection to society. In those circumstances,
I beg leave to withdraw my Motion at this time, but I shall come back to it if necessary at Report stage when I have seen my noble friend's proposals.4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause--
(". Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term, it shall state in open court--
(a) the minimum and maximum periods which the offender will spend in custody, taking into account the duties and powers of the Secretary of State under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
(b) the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be under the supervision of a probation officer after release; and
(c) the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be liable after release to be returned to prison under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 33, I speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 48 and 50 in Clause 10, and to Amendment No. 51, which is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 10.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is entirely within his rights not to pursue his opposition on the Motion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. I rather think that he is reading more into the Minister's undertakings than is justified, but we need not pursue that matter because that will be resolved by the time we come to Report stage.
If the three undertakings which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle was seeking were indeed to be reflected in government amendments or government agreement to other amendments at Report stage, the result would be, at least for Chapter I of Part II, a very different Bill from that which is before the Committee, and an even more different Bill from that which was presaged by the Home Secretary in his Blackpool speech to the Conservative Party Conference in 1995. The essence of what he was saying to the party faithful was that a sentence of four years means a sentence of four years in custody, or a sentence of two years, or whatever the case may be. If the parole board is to be brought back into the equation and if there is going to be effective reflection of the risk to the community in release, then we are moving a long way back to the parole board system. It leads us to ask the question whether there is any sense whatever in pursuing Chapter I of Part II of the Bill at all, or whether, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, it has been a public relations exercise.
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we should move on to Amendment No. 33, which seeks to set out for the benefit of public understanding exactly what is meant and what should be meant by honesty in sentencing. The principle on which we are working, and with which the Government appear to agree, is not that
The Minister in her speech sought to make fun of the complication of the existing system. Her argument was quite amusing but it was not realistic. For example, in her mock-up--perhaps that is the way to describe it--of what the judge might say she included comments on what might happen if the prisoner were already serving the non-custodial part of an existing sentence. Of course, such complications will exist in whatever system we adopt. Perhaps in view of the Minister's undertaking she is not able to agree to my request, but I ask her to play the same game--it was only a game--in relation to what a judge would say not under the existing system but under that proposed in Part II of the Bill. We might find that what is proposed will result in at least as complicated a statement from the Bench as is required under the existing parole system. In any event, it is not all that complicated.
Amendment No. 33 provides that there should be a statement about:
in other words, Sections 33 to 51 of the 1991 Act, which are repealed under Schedule 6. The amendment also provides that a statement shall be made about:
Is that complicated? Is it so difficult to understand? I do not believe so. It also provides for a statement about:
All the Minister did was to embroider on that proposal. However, it is clear, it is definite, it preserves the conditions of the 1991 Act, which is what we seek to preserve, and it would be of benefit even if the Minister were to make significant concessions in negotiations with the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Carlisle. I hasten to say that if it seems appropriate I shall be willing to join in any discussions. That has always been my position; I do not hold myself apart from discussions which might lead to constructive results.
We still have the opportunity offered by the new clause to take the existing situation, with modifications which might be called for by any changes that the Minister might wish to make between now and Report, and say clearly what the provisions on honesty in sentencing should be and answer the only valid point which the Home Secretary addressed in his conference speech--that the public generally should be able to understand what is meant by reality in sentencing.
I hasten to say that honesty in sentencing is not the only issue. There is the whole question of progression in sentencing to which we must return later in Committee and, if necessary, on Report. The two are inextricably linked and I do not believe that in Part I of the Bill, even as amended, the Government have provided for proper progression in sentencing.
Amendment No. 33, and the consequential amendments to Clause 10 and afterwards, are a blow for transparency, a blow for clarity and a blow for greater public understanding of what is meant by sentencing practice. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
"the minimum and maximum periods which the offender will spend in custody, taking into account the duties and powers of the Secretary of State under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991"--
"the minimum and maximum periods during which the offender will be under the supervision of a probation officer after release".
"the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be liable after release to be returned to prison under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page