| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to give the noble Baroness, who is sitting down, two references--
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage of this Bill. So far noble Lords have intervened as though it were the Committee stage.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I always understood that even on Report stage one can ask a question before the Minister sits down. I am not making a speech; I am asking a question in regard to the questions which I raised earlier. In view of her answer I was merely asking her to make sure that those advising her look at the Attorney-General's reference no. 34 of 1992 where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, then the Lord Chief Justice, substituted a life sentence at the suit of the Attorney-General, taking the view that the sentence was unduly lenient having regard to the danger which the offender posed.
The other case is that of the Attorney-General's reference no. 6 of 1993 where again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, said,
- "Where the court is considering whether the sentence was wrong in principle in that it should have been a life sentence for the protection of the public, in our judgment the paramount consideration must be the risk to the public".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to take issue with the noble and learned Lord because I respect enormously his experience in these matters. However, he is missing the point. This matter is not about lenient sentences and it is not about appealing against lenient sentences. There is a concern in the mind of the public, and in particular in the mind of those people who have been at the receiving end of violence in the community. This measure is a response to those who repeatedly commit violent or sexual offences. The mechanism that has been put in place is not to give someone a longer period in custody but to ensure that a prisoner will not be released at the end of the tariff period until there has been a proper assessment of the risk he poses and it is considered safe to send him back into the community. If noble Lords who have supported these amendments get their way we shall again impose determinate sentences whereby at the automatic release point prison officers and probation officers knowingly release people back into the community who are repeat violent offenders without having conducted any proper risk assessment at all. The situation is even worse than that--
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will allow me to finish this point. The situation is even
worse than that because if most noble Lords who have spoken had their way we would retain the provisions of the 1991 Act and there would be automatic release at the halfway or two-thirds point of a sentence. Repeat offenders would be sent back out into the community at that point. My noble friend shakes his head but that would be the consequence of all the amendments that my noble friend is supporting in this Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling us that she wishes to extend the process by which the--
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that this is the Report stage of the Bill. No one must intervene unless he asks leave of the House. He may intervene only with the leave of the House and usually only in the form of a question.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness had sat down to give way to me. May I ask a question before the noble Baroness sits down?
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling us that she is setting out a process by which the executive takes more and more control from the judiciary as regards the length of time people spend in prison, because if so not all of us find that reassuring?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I am certainly not. That is an absurd interpretation of what I have been saying and it is certainly an absurd interpretation of what is in the Bill. I have explained why in Clause 2 we are making a mandatory life sentence available to the courts with the caveat, of course, of exceptional circumstances. That is to ensure that those who repeat violent or sexual offences should be subject to proper release arrangements. The period to be spent in custody will be a matter for the courts. The courts determine guilt or innocence and the tariff period. The Parole Board will determine the release arrangements and set the conditions for recall following release arrangements. The Probation Service will manage the supervision period. There is no way in which one is removing the rights of the court. It is certainly not a case of the executive taking over. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord will welcome this, but I pray in aid the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on this point who said at the outset this afternoon that it is the right of Parliament, not the executive, to set the framework for the courts. The courts operate within the framework set down by Parliament.
I now discuss reviewable sentences and the Butler Report. As was made clear at Committee stage of this Bill, the Butler Report's proposals on reviewable sentences added nothing to discretionary life sentences which can currently be imposed for serious offences whether or not the offender has previous convictions. Its defect was that no part of the proposals provided for punishment and deterrence. Indeed, an amendment is tabled for later this evening which will bring us to that point; namely,
reviewable sentences and releasing people who are safe without considering punishment and deterrence. As for reviewable sentences being a more accurate label than life sentences, that is not the case, for reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. The noble and learned Lord said that under either sentence there is a lifelong liability to prison.The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers referred to statistics on prisons. I refer him to the Official Report col. WA14 of 10th March 1997 where I gave a Written Answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the impact of this Bill on prison places. Some 8,900 places will be in place by the year 2000. That takes account of the natural growth in the prison population irrespective of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred also to the use of police cells. Every effort is being made to avoid the use of police cells. We are hopeful that we shall be successful in that. However, as I have openly admitted before in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, there is a tension in that regard.
I return to the tariff point. The tariff is the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. That is what has to be decided by the court. It should be broadly the same as the determinate sentence which the court would previously have imposed. In setting the tariff the court should apply the provisions of Clause 23 of the Bill. Once the tariff has been served, the question of whether to release the offender will be determined by the Parole Board and the normal early release arrangements do not apply.
It is perhaps worth pausing for a moment to reflect on what Clause 2 would provide if all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were accepted. I put all three together. A court would then be required to impose the automatic life sentence unless, in the interests of justice, it was of the opinion that there were specific circumstances relating either to the offences or the offender which would make the imposition of a life sentence unjust in all the circumstances. I hope that on reflection even the noble Lord himself would agree that such a formula is neither elegant nor a satisfactory way of providing guidance to the courts on parliamentary intentions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we will have to wait until 1st May to discover what the man on the top of the bus really believes, but I have greater respect for him than has the Minister.
If the Motion before the House, but not your Lordships' House, was that courts should impose a life sentence unless, in the interests of justice, there are specific circumstances which justify them not doing so, I believe that the man on the top of the bus would be in favour of it in the interests of justice. Were circumstances to be different, I would be very happy to debate that elsewhere.
If any attempt had been made to explain this clause and indeed this Bill to the public, and if the alternatives which we have ventilated in your Lordships' House had been placed in juxtaposition, I believe that the man in the street
would have understood something other than the policies embodied in this Bill and in a great deal more of the legislation which we have had from Her Majesty's Government. I believe, and this has been the view of successive Home Secretaries except the present one, that it is important to present to the public an alternative view to that which the public may in the first instant feel to be the case. Leadership of the public on these issues is important. It is not the duty of governments to follow. However, I do not believe that we can pursue these matters a great deal further.The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said that this would be an obvious and very modest addition to the Bill. I am prepared to accept that it is obvious and, in that case, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am prepared to believe that it is very modest, too. However, it is far too important an issue to leave undecided in your Lordships' House. Earlier this day we said that we believed that legislation--in particular, this Bill--should be properly scrutinised and that your Lordships could not abdicate that responsibility. Equally, we believe that there should be no unreasonable delay. To debate the amendments further might result in that, but I ask leave to test the opinion of the House.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 138.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page