| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ackner: I take it that with the congratulations goes the concurrence that the transitional period could last for a decade or more.
Baroness Blatch: There will be people in prison whose sentences very much pre-date this Bill. Yes, of course, unless they are to be treated very differently, the date when the offence was committed will determine which scheme they come under. So it will take some time before the provisions of the old system disappear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The financial memorandum confirms that. My estimate of the costs in terms of the prison population and in money is only after 12 years.
Earl Russell: Are not the uncertainties of this schedule--not just as a consequence of the provision against retrospection; I follow the Minister's point in relation to that--a result of the extreme open-endedness of the commencement provisions in Clause 51? Is it not because different parts are coming into force at different times and none of those times is yet determined that there is so much uncertainty? Has not the noble and learned Lord just uncovered that we are bringing in this Bill long before we are ready to implement it?
Baroness Blatch: This is an extraordinary debate. We have made no secret of the fact that it will take some time for all the provisions of the Bill to come into effect. We have given an indication of those measures that will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent. We have given an indication that we expect the honesty in sentencing proposals to come into play. We have said that we will not disadvantage anybody who is in the system at the moment. Those whose offences pre-date the Bill will be subject to the present system and those whose sentences post-date the Bill and post-date particular provisions in the Bill will be subject to the new sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the point for me that all of that is taken into account in the financial memorandum. Yes, it will take some time before those who are subject to the present system are out of the system.
Lord Ackner: I follow the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Much as one would like to divide the House, having demonstrated the total folly of what is provided in this legislation, it would not be a responsible thing to do at this time of night. I merely leave for the record--
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with the honesty in
sentencing proposals, and that, in a sense, I want to set aside. Assuming that that honesty in sentencing proposals is accepted by Parliament at the end of the day, then I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that we need Schedule 5 in order to have proper transitional arrangements in place. I hope that he is not suggesting that we would move directly from one system to another and thereby genuinely apply the provisions of the Bill retrospectively to people whose offences pre-date the measures in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: I sought to emphasise the lack of honesty and clarity which is being provided by the Bill to the sentencing process. I sought to show that the proposition that I quoted; namely, that all those involved--offenders, judges and the public--will know exactly where they stand, is Cloud-cuckoo-land. As I was in the process of saying, it would be quite wrong at this stage of the proceedings to seek to divide the House. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my opposition to Schedule 5.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
Viscount Colville of Culross: I shall not enhance my popularity by making a speech on Schedule 6. However, I wish to ask the noble Baroness a question of which I gave her a little notice earlier this evening. I am sorry if it did not reach her. The question concerned Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The noble Baroness is probably not familiar with that section and I do not blame her. It lays down that, if someone is serving a prison sentence but has reached a stage when he or she is out on licence and commits another offence during the licence period, that person is sentenced to the remains of the original prison sentence as well as to a further prison sentence for the new offence which has been committed.
That provision is being repealed, but it is quite a useful method of bringing home to people that a prison sentence does not finish when they are let out on licence. Last week we discussed possibly another look at the whole question of risk assessment. In the Bill as it stands, there will be a supervision period, which means that a part of the sentence will be served in the community. I do not know what the Government will do by way of amplifying or extending that, if anything. Nevertheless, in the Bill as it stands, part of the sentence will be served while the offender is in the community.
Will the noble Baroness reconsider the proposition that Section 40 should be repealed altogether when the present Bill's provisions come into effect? It brings home to someone who has committed an offence, and then during the period of supervision or licence commits another one, that the court meant what it said. That is in line with what the Government are trying to say in the Bill. I should have thought that they would be inclined to keep the provision rather than repealing it. I have heard no reason why it is being repealed. It cannot stand exactly as it is in the 1991 Act. It would have to be adapted. But the whole principle seems to have been
thrown out. If the noble Baroness cannot answer me tonight, perhaps she would like to think about it and come back to me at another stage.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, I have not seen either this question or the previous one which the noble and learned Lord said he had passed to me. First, Section 40 has no place under the system introduced by this Bill. It is premised on the existence of remanding the remaining period of the sentence during which the offender can be sent to prison.
I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present at the stage when I responded to my noble friend Lord Belstead about the changes which we intend. Subject to collective agreement in the ministerial team, we wish to bring back a proposal at Report stage which would meet some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Belstead about the Parole Board having an involvement in the release arrangements for long-term prisoners. There was also a proposal for the Parole Board to have an involvement in setting conditions for someone who would be released at the behest of the board.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the system to which the noble and learned Lord referred just now and the one which will be proposed when I have made amendments at Report stage. It is that under the short-term or long-term sentences proposed in the Bill, when the person is released from prison--either under the earned release system for short-term prisoners or under the proposals that I hope to bring forward for long-term prisoners, who will be released on the basis of recommendation by the Parole Board, with conditions set by the Parole Board--he is then deemed to have served his sentence. At that point he moves into the supervision period, which is not part of the sentence.
We are already in discussion about arrangements for recall to prison. Any breach of conditions in that supervision period will constitute an arrestable offence and therefore there will be arrangements for getting people back into prison for the whole range of breaches--whether the breach is serious, in which case somebody is returned to custody and then dealt with very quickly by the courts, or is minor and may also be dealt with by the courts, whose available disposals will range from community service to conditional discharge or whatever is in the mind of the sentencer.
There is therefore a difference. But the sentence is deemed to have been served on release from prison under the new arrangements.
Lord Belstead: I should not like my silence to be taken as meaning that I applaud what my noble friend has just said in relation to the deeming of the sentence being finished when release occurs. I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend for offering a concession, and it is a valuable concession. But I have pointed out to the Minister, outside this Committee, that the Government have painted themselves into a corner by stating that the sentence is completed once release begins for anybody. That makes it extremely difficult to effect the continuation of the existing recall arrangements (which I noticed nobody in the Committee
criticised and yet they are to be swept away). That is not good. At the same time it drives a coach and horses through the concept of parole.I do not particularly mind what the concession is called. I would be the last to say that it must be called "parole". But if a risk assessment is being done by the Parole Board with a stipulation of conditions, it is important that a proportion of the time is spent while the sentence is continuing.
I give notice to the Government that it is my intention to table an amendment at Report stage which will make it clear that the end of the sentence as given in the court shall be the time that is deemed to consist of the full sentence in relation to recall. It will therefore be possible once again to write into the Bill a recall system of the kind we have now. As to whether or not there is the slightest hope of carrying such a Motion in the House I do not know. I repeat--I mean no discourtesy to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has fought long
and valiantly and very courteously on this Bill and has been helpful to me; I am speaking to the Government--I do not want the Government to think that, because I am silent on this point, that silence means assent.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |