---

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she in a position to answer my question as to why the United Nations has singled out Northern Ireland as a place where race relations legislation needs to be introduced as a matter of urgency when it apparently feels no such urgency is needed in respect of a large number of other countries where race relations problems are very much greater?

Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I cannot speak with absolute confidence about the aims of the United Nations, but I suspect--and I shall be corrected if I am wrong--that it has a sense of the need for urgency everywhere where there is no protection. Despite the noble Lord's concerns about the timetable, if we have managed to move rather more quickly than others, I can only be very proud of that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.30 p.m.]

Crime (Sentences) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 10.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 6, line 43, leave out ("to prescribed persons").

The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns appeals against determinations as to early days of release. That has been gone over to some extent already so I shall be as brief as I can. When, under Clause 10(5), decisions are given to persons as to whether or not they have been awarded any early days of release, prisoners may appeal to prescribed persons, and the effect of this amendment is to leave out the reference to "prescribed persons" simply with a view to asking the Government to explain who the prescribed persons are to be.

Perhaps I may flesh that out a little. I ask that because obviously there will be some sensitivity if the award of early release days is to be decided by prison staff, a matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, on Second Reading, and referred to earlier in the Committee today. To have prison officers who are responsible for the custody and care of prisoners being responsible for decisions as to the award of early days could put prison staff in a difficult position in relation to allegations by disappointed persons. That is why, when the parole system was set up, the first chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made very clear the independence of the board as regards decision-making. That tradition has been handed on from one chairman to

18 Feb 1997 : Column 634

another. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used to take the Parole Board off to the different livery company halls in London. The meetings were held there in rather the same way as the Scottish board does today. That was to show the independence of the Parole Board.

It goes without saying that when, today, the board holds hearings--in other words, discretionary lifer panels--the independent position of that panel in hearing evidence from the prisoner, his legal representative and witnesses, and evidence from the Prison Service and sometimes other witnesses is made perfectly plain. I wonder whether the Government have taken on board that point in deciding who the prescribed persons are to be who will hear appeals from prisoners and how those appeals are to be made--either in writing or at an appeals hearing. Therefore, that is why I wish to move the amendment, although some of the ground was covered earlier. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am sorry to come back to this but the words "prescribed persons" cause me to reflect on the fact that I do not believe that we ever sorted out what a prescribed minimum standard of behaviour was. The word "prescribed" appears in both. I suggested that the prescribed minimum standard was in fact a negative. It was not appearing before the governor on report. I am very anxious to establish a baseline so that we can see how the first six days in a two-month period will be allocated. Once that is done, we can then see above which line we are trying to allocate the second six days in the two-month period. If it is difficult to sell this programme to the Committee, it will be even more difficult to sell it to the prisons.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, makes an important point. There will need to be some guidance for prison officers who are engaged in the assessment of behaviour. Therefore, we should expect that to be addressed as part of the prison rules to prison officers. I am not able to be absolutely specific. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave examples of proactive bad behaviour and I have given some examples of what would be good behaviour. However, important though the point is, this amendment is about who should be the members of the appellate body and whether it should be prescribed.

As my noble friend said, the amendment seeks to change the power in the Bill to make prison rules enabling prisoners who are dissatisfied with awards of earned days of release to appeal against such a decision. There is nothing between us on this point. The Bill makes provision for such appeals to be to "prescribed persons". The amendment leaves the appellate authority at large on the face of the Bill, although the rules would no doubt still make it clear to whom prisoners might appeal. Therefore, I cannot see a great deal of difference between the two approaches and there is certainly no advantage in my noble friend's proposal.

There will be full consultation with prison governors and others before proposing any appeals arrangements for inclusion in prison rules. At present, we envisage a system internal to the Prison Service. We have certainly taken on board the points made about the level of

18 Feb 1997 : Column 635

bureaucracy and the diversion of prison officers from other work. Those will be very important factors in any system. The noble Earl is probably experienced and knows of the systems which already operate in prisons concerning prisoners' behaviour for other reasons. It is impossible to divorce the training shops, the educational services, gang supervisors and so on from the good order of the prison. Therefore, there will be systems in place and we shall want to build on those, and not make them over-bureaucratic. The first point of appeal could be to the governor in charge of the prison, with a second appeal point in the headquarters of the Prison Service, which would be independent of the prison. Prisoners still dissatisfied could ask the Prisons Ombudsman to carry out an independent review of the case and he would make any recommendations that he thought proper to the Director General of the Prison Service.

Prisoners would also be free to seek the external remedies of judicial review and investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. But we would expect that to happen only when all the internal processes had been exhausted. There is nothing between us on this issue. This will be a matter for very full consultation and I hope that my noble friend is able to accept that explanation.

Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. I wish to make just one point before withdrawing the amendment. My noble friend referred to the process of judicial review. I do not know very much about that but I know that there are usually about half-a-dozen judicial reviews on the go in one way or another as regards the Prison Service and the Parole Board. That is an real factor in the daily life of an organisation which is liable to judicial review. It was with judicial review in mind that I asked some of the questions that I did. The procedures will be extremely important if the Prison Service is not going to be extremely vulnerable to judicial review. I am sure that the Prison Service will understand that and has time to take account of what the procedures will be. Nevertheless, I give that warning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to delete Clause 10(6). That is a Henry VIII clause giving the Minister power by order to alter primary legislation. It has not caused particular concern to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, whose report I have here. It should be a routine matter that this Chamber should probe the reasons why a Henry VIII clause appears in a particular Bill. Therefore, to save the time of the Committee and perhaps to avoid unnecessary debate, I shall ask my routine question: is your Henry VIII clause really necessary? I shall conduct such further debate as the answer seems to require. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: Having sat on the joint Committee for some time, I am well aware that if Henry VIII clauses are to be used, the Government should be challenged on

18 Feb 1997 : Column 636

the importance of using them. The noble Earl will be aware that the Scrutiny Committee has already looked at the Bill with a view to seeing whether there is any abuse of power or whether the House should be invited to consider the proper use of power and question it in debate. There is a temptation to accept the amendment of the noble Earl and leave out the subsection. However, I hope that when I have explained why it is there, the noble Earl will accept that there is very good reason for its inclusion.

The noble Earl seeks to remove the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to vary by order the number of early release days that prisoners may earn. The Bill allows for amendments to be made only in the prisoner's favour. It is not possible to use this power in any other way. For example, there is no power to reduce the number of days that may be earned. Therefore, I find it quite difficult to see any objection to its inclusion. It was thought that if when the system was up and running a future government or Home Secretary believed that it was worth recommending that the number of days available for early release should be increased, instead of altering primary legislation, the primary power would be there to be used. But the power cannot be used to reduce the number of days. The noble Earl is right to question the inclusion of a Henry VIII power in a Bill.

---