| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am extremely grateful for the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the distinction between supervised release orders and the early release procedures. I now understand it better. It is confusing because it is so different from the position under the English Bill. One tries to fit the two together but they do not do so, and indeed should not do so, because the systems are different.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that noble Lords should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, I believe that his reply was the most unpersuasive I have heard during the course of the debates on either this Bill or the English Bill. What is his argument? As I understand it, the real danger of this amendment is that it will distract the court from determining whether or not there should be a supervised release order. I have rather more confidence in Her Majesty's judges in Scotland than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appears to have. It seems to me that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is overwhelming. The Committee has not heard a serious reply from the noble and learned Lord as to why this amendment should not be accepted.
Public safety is a matter which the Secretary of State for Scotland spends a great deal of time discussing with anyone who is prepared to listen to him, but public safety is guaranteed by this amendment. I am astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord say that one of the grave dangers inherent in the amendment is that we will return to the provisions of the 1993 Act. Who introduced the 1993 Act? The present Government. We are therefore asked to disbelieve everything said by his predecessor, now a distinguished judge in Scotland. All of that is to be swept aside. Under no circumstances must we pay any
attention to what his predecessor said when occupying his present office, but we must accept uncritically everything that he says this evening. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is overwhelmingly right and that my noble friends will vote for it.
Lord Sewel: I am equally disappointed by the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, primarily because I believe that much of it is basically irrelevant. The noble and learned Lord put up a straw man and proposed the supervised release order against what we propose in this amendment. The fact is that the amendment specifically excludes its application to those released through a supervised release order. There is no weakening of the supervised release order route. It is there. It is designed for those potentially dangerous releasees who, having served four years or more, come back into the community and are not subject to life licence or supervised release orders, or who are released on compassionate grounds.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot deny that as the Bill stands now there is every likelihood that a significant group of prisoners, having committed crimes worthy of a sentence of four years or longer, will be released back into the community without any supervision at all. Surely, that is wrong if one is to protect and look after the safety of the public. I beg to move.
11.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 31.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Falkender, B.
Fitt, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]
Lovell-Davis, L.
Macaulay of Bragar, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]
Monkswell, L.
Sewel, L.
Ailsa, M.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Blatch, B.
Byford, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Courtown, E.
Cross, V.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Henley, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Inglewood, L.
Lindsay, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Marlesford, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Northesk, E.
Rennell, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Trumpington, B.
Wynford, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147A:
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 147B to 147GA and Amendment No. 150C. These amendments to Clauses 42, 43 and 62 will ease the implementation of the provisions of the Bill dealing with police grant and common police services. They have no policy implications. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 147B to 147G:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Common police services]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147GA:
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 147A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Samples etc. from persons convicted of sexual and violent offences]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147GB:
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 147GC to 147GJ. This is an important group of amendments which are intended to give the police wider powers to obtain DNA samples for DNA purposes in order to assist them in their investigation of the most serious crimes of a sexual or violent nature and, thereby, give the public greater protection. The Bill already gives the police powers to take such samples and other physical data from sexual and violent offenders who are in custody. What we are now proposing is that they should be given additional powers to take samples from certain of the most serious offenders who have completed their prison sentences and have been released before the commencement date.
We recognise that it is unusual to make a provision which will affect offenders who have completed their sentences. We appreciate that there are issues relating to civil liberties here. But we believe that the crimes committed by such offenders are sufficiently heinous that all steps should be taken to ensure that the public is properly protected from them. It appears that there is a high propensity on the part of sexual and violent offenders to repeat their reprehensible behaviour, and we therefore consider that it would be very useful for the police to be able to take samples from recently released offenders to assist them in their investigations. Of course, the rights of past offenders have to be weighed against the right of the public to be protected from those criminals who have committed crimes of this serious nature. The amendments that we have brought forward attempt to strike a balance. We intend to allow the police to take samples from offenders who have been released from prison, but we intend that that right should be limited by certain safeguards to prevent any undue
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("each") and insert ("the financial year 1997-98 and for each subsequent").
Page 46, line 29, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 46, line 32, at end insert--
("and any determination under this subsection for any financial year may be varied or revoked by a subsequent such determination for that year.").
Page 47, line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 11, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 13, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 21, at end insert--
("(2) A determination made under section 32(3) (police grant) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (as inserted into that Act by subsection (1) above) for the financial year 1997-98 may, notwithstanding that this section comes into force after the beginning of that financial year, relate to the whole of that year; and the first such determination shall take effect in place of any determination made for that year under section 32(1) of that Act as it had effect prior to the coming into force of this section.").
Page 48, line 37, at end insert--
("(3) Section 36, and the definition of "central services" in section 38(5), of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as substituted respectively by subsections (1) and (2) above, shall come into force or, if this section comes into force after that date, be deemed to have come into force, on 1st April 1997.
(4) The first determination made by the Secretary of State under section 36(3) of that Act, as so substituted, for the recovery of any expenditure incurred by him under that section--
(a) may be applied by him in relation to any expenditure so incurred during the period beginning on 1st April 1997 and ending on the date on which the determination is made; and
(b) subject to subsection (5) below, shall take effect in place of any provision for such recovery made in an Order under the said section 36 as it had effect prior to the coming into force of this section.
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall entitle the Secretary of State to recover a higher proportion of his expenditure in relation to the period mentioned in that subsection than he would have been entitled to recover in relation to that period under any such Order.").
Page 50, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 51 and insert ("This section applies where a person--
(a) is convicted on or after the relevant date of a relevant offence and is sentenced to imprisonment;
(b) was convicted before the relevant date of a relevant offence, was sentenced to imprisonment and is serving that sentence on or after the relevant date;
(c) was convicted before the relevant date of a specified relevant offence, was sentenced to imprisonment, is not serving that sentence on that date or at any time after that date but was serving it at any time during the period of five years ending with the day before that date.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page