Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part. I misunderstood the clause.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 147:


After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--

Release Licences

(" .--(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling 4 years or longer and who are not released on--
(a) life licence;
(b) supervised release order; or
(c) compassionate grounds.
(2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.
(3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it shall--
(a) be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and
(b) comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Board.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment in that with it we return to the matter that was briefly mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, some time ago. There is a danger of being too brief at this time of night when we face important clauses. The amendment seeks to improve public safety by ensuring that anyone sentenced to imprisonment for four years or more is subject to a period of supervision on licence from the date of his release until his sentence expiry date.

10 Mar 1997 : Column 132

There are three reasons for the amendment. The 1993 Act, which has been referred to on many occasions during our debates on the Bill, introduced non-parole licences, which means that any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole is currently released on licence until his sentence expiry date. That is the current situation. At present, people sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and not receiving parole, when released are subject to supervision. These arrangements are important because they not only enhance public safety, which must be a primary concern, but they also add to the rehabilitation of the individual through supervision.

The current proposals in the Bill alter these arrangements as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court, will now be under any direct supervision. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but they will be liable to recall following a further offence. There is no requirement and nothing mandatory that prisoners released without parole on long sentences will be subject to a supervision order.

If the amendment is agreed to public safety will be increased because long-term prisoners will be supervised until their sentence expires. There is that important link of supervision until the sentence expires. We have to recognise that those falling into that category constitute a population from which those who commit future serious offences are likely to be drawn. The idea of mandatory supervision throughout this period is a very powerful one. In particular, this amendment will ensure that those sentenced for offences of dishonesty, theft by housebreaking, especially repeat, serious offenders and the professional criminal and thief, are brought into mandatory supervision on release. That is surely right not only in terms of trying to rehabilitate the prisoner who is making the transition from prison to the outside in a more structured and more supportive way, which is more likely to lead to successful rehabilitation, but more importantly--I say this quite plainly--these provisions are important for a public safety purpose to make sure that those who have been convicted of serious offences and who have served a significant time in prison, are supervised in that important period of time when they are first released into the community.

As I say, the argument for this amendment is two-fold. It concerns not only rehabilitation but, much more than that, public safety.

11 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord mentioned the question of public safety. I would like to believe that the Committee were satisfied that the protection of the public is at the very heart of Government policy and at the heart of this Bill. That is demonstrated by two sets of provisions, those relating to amending the procedures for early release and those dealing with post-release supervision.

The new clause in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, addresses the position of offenders who are sentenced to a period of

10 Mar 1997 : Column 133

imprisonment of five years or more and who are released, other than on compassionate grounds, without being subject to a supervised release order or a life licence. Yet the practical effect of the amendment for such offenders would be to retain the existing provisions of Sections 11 and l2 of the 1993 Act because the release of such prisoners would be on licence. That would endure for the unexpired period of the sentence. It would require the offender to comply with such conditions as the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Parole Board, may from time to time specify and would require the offender to be under the supervision of a local authority social worker.

On the face of it, that proposal might appear attractive, but I believe that in practice it could well weaken the arrangements for post-release supervision. It is important to bear in mind the provisions in the Bill dealing with supervision which are set out in Clause 3 on page 5. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, drew attention to the fact that there is a difference between the English and Scottish Bills on this matter, but it can be seen from subsection (2) of the new clause that in certain instances the supervision order will be mandatory while in others it will be discretionary.

It is important to understand that supervised release orders are potentially much stronger tools for post-release supervision than are parole licences. One reason is that they can last considerably longer, if necessary. If post-release supervision is required, it is, we believe, preferable that it should be done by way of a supervised release order rather than a period of licence between the five-sixths point and the end of the sentence to which it would apply. We believe that it is important to avoid obscuring the fact that the courts have a responsibility to consider, when imposing sentence in these serious cases, whether a supervised release order is appropriate if it is not a case in which it is mandatory.

We are concerned that the new clause would seek to deflect the courts from applying their minds to the very important issue of whether to impose a supervised release order in discretionary cases. If they did so, that could have the effect of reducing the number imposed which, far from enhancing public safety, would serve to diminish it. That is because the maximum length of the licence could be only to the end of the determinate sentence, whereas Clause 3(5) makes it clear that the periods for which a supervised release order could be imposed can be far in excess of the expiry of the determinate part--

Lord Sewel: Will the noble and learned Lord accept that the amendment refers specifically to the fact that the provisions would not apply to those released on a supervised release order?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept that, but it simply bears out the point that I am seeking to make. If at the point of sentence the court knows that some other body--namely, the Parole Board--some years down the line can address its mind to the issue of licence subject to conditions which in certain respects would be similar to supervision, that could distract the court from the importance of considering whether it--the court--should impose the supervised release order. If the court knew that

10 Mar 1997 : Column 134

if it did so these provisions for licence would not apply, I suggest that that might be a very cogent reason why some judges would be dissuaded from making use of the power, despite the fact that it has the benefit of extending long after the expiry of the determinate part, which is not something that can apply to licence conditions for reasons of complying with the European Convention on Human Rights.

We also believe that the new clause would have a further undesirable consequence because of its requirement for post-release supervision on a blanket basis irrespective of whether the risk required it. In every case where the prisoner was released, the licence would apply. It would inevitably mean that some effort on the part of those responsible for supervising prisoners would be expended on cases where there was no real need for it and no real benefit to either the prisoner or the community. We believe that the resources of social workers and others who are involved in supervision should instead be concentrated on cases where there is a real need for this to continue, in some instances many years beyond the expiry of the determinate part.

For these reasons, we do not believe that this new clause should be added to the Bill. While we sympathise with the motive that lies behind it, we believe that on closer examination it will create difficulty. I hope, therefore, that it will not be insisted upon.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page