| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter which is of concern. As he correctly said, it was raised in another place and responded to in detail in a Written Answer to which he has referred.
We do not believe that it would be appropriate to treat repatriated prisoners in line with this amendment. That would effectively mean re-sentencing the prisoner or, in other words, moving to a system of converting sentences. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be well aware, and as many other noble Lords will know, under the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons there are two methods by which the administering state--that is, the state to which the prisoner is transferred--can deal with the unexpired portion of a sentence. It can continue the enforcement of the sentence through a court or an administrative order or it can convert the sentence into a new sentence, thereby substituting for the sanction imposed by the sentencing state its own sanction.
We have traditionally believed that the method of operating the Council of Europe convention, to which the United Kingdom and many other countries are parties, would be impracticable if we embarked upon the approach of converting the unexpired portion of sentences. Our experience suggests that the conversion of such sentences by the receiving state--the administering state--frequently leads to a reduction in the length of time which the repatriated prisoner has to serve. The Government's policy has been to preserve the integrity of our own sentencing system by insisting on the continued enforcement procedure both in relation to prisoners that we are repatriating from this country to another country and, equally, those who are British who are returning to this country, and doing so, of course, as a matter of choice.
It would be quite inconsistent for us to operate one system for incoming prisoners and another for outgoing prisoners. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that other countries take a similar approach and would not be happy to do business with us--if that is the correct term to use--were there to be these differing approaches.
Having considered the matter carefully we believe that we can administer the sentences of those repatriated here within the framework of the Bill as drafted in such a way as to alleviate the problems which the noble Lord has identified. A repatriated prisoner's sentence would be administered in the following way. At the point of repatriation, the remaining balance of the prisoner's sentence would, as at present, be calculated by deducting from the original sentence passed the length of time the prisoner had spent in a foreign prison, including, where appropriate, any time spent on remand, and also taking account of any remission to which he was eligible for the period he had spent in custody while abroad. However, rather than deeming this balance to be the prisoner's sentence in this country, what is proposed is that the period should be further reduced by taking into account the period of supervision which will be required under the provisions of this Bill.
As the Committee will recall, Clause 13 requires all prisoners sentenced to more than 12 months in prison to undergo a period of supervision equal to 25 per cent. of the term of imprisonment or a period of three months, whichever is the greater. A repatriated prisoner's balance in prison which he would require to serve would be reduced by the period of supervision required in his particular case. The result would be that the total time spent in prison here, when added to the supervision period required, would not exceed the balance of the sentence outstanding in the foreign jurisdiction as at the date of repatriation. In addition, the earned early release provisions in the Bill would apply to a repatriated prisoner. Members of the Committee will recall that these amount to the prisoner being able to earn up to a maximum of 12 days' early release provided he is of good behaviour and co-operates positively with the prison authorities.
The precise effect of calculating sentences in this way will vary from case to case depending on the rate of remission applicable in the sentencing jurisdiction and the stage in the particular sentence at which the prisoner is returned here.
It is important to stress that this new process of calculation would apply only to repatriated prisoners who had been convicted of offences after the coming into force of the provisions of Chapter I of Part II of the Bill. As I mentioned recently, that is a year or two off. Furthermore, they would be applicable only where the sentencing jurisdiction did not have sentencing provisions comparable with those provided for in the Bill. Where sentencing provisions in the foreign jurisdiction were on a par with our own, it would be inappropriate to adjust the balance here in the manner proposed. That is the practical issue which troubles the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Each case is looked at on a case by case basis. Once Chapter I of Part II of the Bill comes into force it would involve looking at the sentencing procedure in the sentencing jurisdiction to see whether it could properly be said to be comparable with that which will apply in this country. If it is, then the calculation I outlined would not be necessary; if it is not, it would.
It is important to stress that any prisoner seeking repatriation from overseas will be provided with full information about the manner in which the unexpired proportion of his sentence would be administered were he to return to this country. This will enable him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he wishes to proceed with his application for repatriation. It is not a question that the first time prisoners will learn how long they have to serve is after they have come back to this country and are locked up in prison in accordance with the appropriate warrant. The procedure makes it clear--it is subject to the provisions of the convention--that full information is available to the prisoner before he chooses to come back.
We believe that these arrangements do not amount to resentencing, to converting the sentence, which is an approach to the administration of the convention we have never favoured. We believe that they will provide fairness. As I indicated, I assure noble Lords that, if each instance is considered on a case by case basis, the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs--I understand why he wishes to raise it in Committee--is not one which in practice should have any unfair impact on prisoners who understandably wish to come back to this country to serve the outstanding balance of their sentence.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his clear explanation. There is so little between us that I wish he could have moved a little in my direction. I accept all his arguments. My amendment is purely a probing amendment. I have welcomed the scheme the government put forward. I believe that it will achieve substantially the aims set down for it.
The only issue--it is one which he did not explain in detail--is as regards the difficult decision that the Government will have to make when deciding that certain foreign jurisdictions have a system equivalent to our own. I believe that he used the word comparable. He said that the decision would be on a case by case basis. If the formula with which the Government have come forward for instances where the sentencing system in the country is different from ours is satisfactory, why not apply it in all instances? That would prevent the Government having to make the more difficult judgment as to whether the sentencing system is sufficiently close to ours for us to take that country's system as opposed to applying the Government's formula.
What the Government are doing is so good that they should do it in all cases. I am asking them to drop the exception. It will be very difficult to know whether any system is equivalent to ours. It will involve a lot of difficult judgments. We are having enough difficulty changing our own system from what it is now to what is envisaged in the Bill. To make detailed judgments about different systems, even in European countries, is unnecessarily complex. Why do the Government not simply drop the qualification and say that in all instances where the Council of Europe agreement applies, which includes certain countries outside Europe as well, we will apply the formula devised by the Government and simply drop the qualification which the
Minister has not been able to justify and which will be difficult in practice? I urge the Minister at least to agree to re-examine the matter.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to assure the Committee that I will do so. As I anticipate that we have two and a half years to do so, we shall do so thoroughly before October 1999, when Chapter I of Part II comes into effect.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. Did he say that "there were" two and a half years to do so, or "we have" two and a half years to do so? I shall not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 110H to 110P:
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 109A. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Page 49, line 39, at end insert--
("4A.--(1) This paragraph applies in relation to--
(a) prisoners repatriated to Scotland before 25th October 1996 (the "relevant date") who were still serving sentences, which were imposed before 1st October 1993 in the country or territory from which they were transferred, on the relevant date; and
(b) prisoners repatriated to Scotland in respect of such sentences on or after the relevant date.
(2) Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 1984 Act, as originally enacted, shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect since 16th February 1990, as if--
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there were substituted the words "section 22 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989"; and
(b) at the end there were added the following sub-paragraph--
"(3) In this paragraph "sentence" means the provision included in a warrant which is equivalent to a sentence.".").
Page 49, line 41, after ("1996") insert ("(the "relevant date")").
Page 49, line 42, leave out ("their sentences on that") and insert ("sentences, which were imposed on or after 1st October 1993 in the country or territory from which they were transferred, on the relevant").
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("on or after that") insert ("in respect of such sentences on or after the relevant").
Page 49, line 51, at end insert--
("( ) For the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 a prisoner's sentence shall be deemed to have been imposed on the day on which the relevant provisions take effect.").
Page 50, line 9, after ("imposed") insert ("on or after 1st October 1993").
Page 50, line 25, at end insert--
("( ) For the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 a prisoner's sentence shall be deemed to have been imposed on the day on which the relevant provisions take effect.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page