| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Belstead: I have given my noble friend the Minister notice that the reason for opposing this clause is to ask whether the Government recognise that resources will be needed to bring Clause 24 into effect; yet no costs concerning that clause are mentioned, as regards the Parole Board, in the Financial Memorandum. I must of course declare an interest as chairman of that board.
The effect of this clause is to transfer from the Home Secretary to the Parole Board the responsibility for deciding on the release of prisoners under the age of
18 years convicted of murder and detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. That follows a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and is being put into effect by Clause 24 by applying the existing arrangements for the release of discretionary life prisoners by the Parole Board to Her Majesty's Pleasure prisoners.However, discretionary life reviews on which this clause is based are the most costly of all the reviews that the Parole Board undertakes. In total I am sure that we are talking about a small sum--in fact, a very small sum--in public expenditure terms. Nonetheless, I am asking my noble friend Lady Blatch whether the Government have made an assessment of the additional costs which this work will entail, because the Financial Memorandum has not, and whether the Government will provide the necessary resources.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 24 also requires the Secretary of State to set a tariff for juvenile murderers, but does not restrict the exercise of his discretion in so doing. The clause is required to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Singh and Hussain, which we have undertaken to do.
The point that has been raised by my noble friend has nothing to do with the purpose of the clause, but with the extra burdens that we put on the Parole Board and the issue of resources related to it. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that we shall meet all of the bids for additional funding in the next financial year. Perhaps I may just remind my noble friend that they cover providing internal audit for the Parole Board; Her Majesty's Pleasure cases; an extra SEO to assume responsibility for finance and administration; a part-time AO to process board members' claims for fees, etc.; and meeting some reprographic costs. I can now confirm all of these will be met.
Lord Belstead: I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that detailed reply. I hope that meeting those costs will extend beyond the forthcoming year.
Clause 27 [Duration and conditions of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Recall of life prisoners while on licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 76 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 77:
The noble Earl said: I hope that the noble Baroness, in her Christian charity, will overlook the authorship of this amendment. I can assure her that it is in no way an attack on the present Government, but a straightforward appeal to common sense and decency. I realise that, looking at this amendment, no one will be able to make head or tail of its implications. I would not know what
The purpose of the amendment is extremely simple. It is to the effect that if those who receive mandatory life sentences--in other words, murderers--are recalled to prison, they should be subject to the same process as discretionary life prisoners. It is as simple as that. I shall give one example of a mandatory life prisoner without mentioning his name. However, the noble Baroness will be familiar with the case because it has been mentioned to the Home Office in the past and I have given her notice that I shall mention it today.
This particular prisoner killed his wife in a fit of rage and spent 13 years in prison where I visited him every now and then. He came out and, after 13 months, without being convicted of any crime, his conduct was judged to be unsuitable by a probation officer. On the say-so of that officer he was returned to prison. He has now been in prison for three years where I visit him from time to time at different places. He has recently been told that within the next month or so he will go to an open prison for at least a year, which will make four years in prison and--this is the point--without ever going before a tribunal.
If he were a discretionary life prisoner he would go before a tribunal at an early stage. The finding of that body would be binding on the Government. I am simply saying that in terms of natural justice, common sense and decency, it is right that the two kinds of convicted life prisoners should be put on the same footing. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if this amendment is agreed to, he will be unable to move Amendment No. 78 which, I imagine, he does not wish to move anyway.
Baroness Blatch: The noble--and dare I say--indefatigable Earl, Lord Longford, seeks to bring the procedure for dealing with the recall of a mandatory life sentence prisoner precisely into line with the procedure for a discretionary life sentence prisoner. On the first of his amendments I can offer the noble Earl the comfort that the current law, which the Bill, as drafted, would merely re-enact, already provides for the Parole Board's recommendation to be binding upon the Secretary of State. In the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners, the board has the power to direct immediate release following a recall. For those convicted of murder and serving a mandatory life sentence, the board may recommend immediate release following a recall, but Clause 28 clearly provides that the Secretary of State shall give effect to such a recommendation. I believe that is clear.
The second amendment raises a more difficult issue. First, for a discretionary lifer--and now in juvenile
But as domestic and European courts have recognised, the position for adult murderers has always been different. Their initial release is determined by the Secretary of State and depends on whether he considers that they are safe to be released. The power to recall such a prisoner after release is naturally exercised with great care. In all but emergency cases, it is the board itself which must recommend to the Home Secretary that this step be taken, and since the Parole Board was set up in 1967 Parliament has given it the power to recommend the immediate release of a recalled life licensee. Where the board takes the view, upon consideration of the recalled licensee's representations, that the recall should not have taken place, the Home Secretary is required to release him. But if the prisoner is not released at this point it is again the Home Secretary alone who can decide to release him thereafter.
The board does not operate with judicial procedures in these cases because there is no need for it to do so. It is performing the function of a check on the wide power to recall a life licensee, sometimes where he is not even charged with having committed a new criminal offence. It only adopts a judicial character in dealing with discretionary lifers and juvenile murderers, who are serving sentences of a quite different nature to the mandatory life sentence.
The noble Earl would doubtless prefer the Parole Board to adopt court-like procedures for all its decisions but that is to ignore the fundamental difference between a mandatory life sentence and a discretionary life sentence. Supported by domestic and European courts, the Government remain persuaded that oral hearings are not necessary in mandatory cases and that current procedures for consideration of immediate release following recall in mandatory cases are both appropriate and just. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given my noble friend some reassurance on the first of his amendments and I suppose we must accept that. However, without fully understanding the literal impact of my noble friend's amendment, I am still worried about the case that he raised and about whether it is being dealt with justly. My noble friend referred to the case of someone who had served 13 years, who was out of gaol and who, simply on the say-so of a probation officer, was recalled. Because he was a mandatory life prisoner he had no access to any appeal tribunal. I understand about the differences between mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. But can that be just?
Baroness Blatch: I was not going to use the details of the case which the noble Earl raised, but I think perhaps I should now do so in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Mr. Rundle was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 1980 for the murder of his wife whose body he burnt and later disposed of. He had a history of volatile relationships with vulnerable women. The circumstances leading to his arrest revealed a tendency to deceptive behaviour. Mr. Rundle was released in February 1993 on life licence and under the supervision of the Probation Service.
Within a few months of his release, Mr. Rundle formed a relationship with a woman. The Probation Service considered her to be unstable and advised Mr. Rundle that it was an unsuitable match which was likely to place him at risk. Threats of violence by Mr. Rundle towards the woman were investigated in December and in the light of other signs of worrying behaviour in relation to his attitude to supervision, a formal warning letter was issued by the Home Office in January 1994.
In March 1994 it was reported that Mr. Rundle had deceived his probation officer over his continuing relationship with the woman. It was also alleged that he had made threats to kill her and had abducted her. The police regarded Mr. Rundle as extremely dangerous. The Probation Service recommended immediate recall in view of the risk which Mr. Rundle was considered to pose.
The Secretary of State considered that Mr. Rundle no longer represented an acceptable risk to remain at liberty in the community and on 16th March the Home Secretary agreed to the revocation of this life licence under the emergency recall provisions set out in Section 39(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
All such cases are considered in great depth. There is no question of the Home Secretary simply taking the word of the Probation Service. However, the Probation Service takes extremely seriously its role of supervising people who are out on life licence. Probation officers are usually the first people to know when there are signs of problems and they are usually the first people to alert the authorities to any problems. I could give more details of the case, if the noble Lord wishes, but I think that there were very good reasons for recall. The matter was properly considered--and rightly so.
Page 19, line 44, leave out from ("directs") to end of line 1 on page 20.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page