| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The noble and learned Lord may tell us that it is not necessary and that the point is covered. But we do not believe that it is adequately covered in the Bill as it stands. I know of the noble and learned Lord's concern for victims and I have personal knowledge of similar happenings, with violent people being released from prison without their release being made known to their victims. In Grand Committee we heard the story about the happening in Wales.
This would not be a difficult provision to include in the Bill. It is not political in any way. It would merely provide a good safeguard to ensure that the "awful happening" did not in fact happen—by that, I mean, for example, the mother, father, husband or wife of a victim of the Omagh bombing running into the person who is known to have committed that atrocity in the street without having been warned that it might happen. I strongly support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendment and with the sentiments behind it. As I have said previously, we on these Benches would not support a fudge. We believe that true democratic parliamentarians should abide by two cardinal rules: first, that elections are free and fair; and, secondly, that the rule of law is upheld. So we should not be party to any sort of fudge or amnesty declared before due process.
That said, I understand that such terms as "OTRs" are not appropriate in the Bill and that the amendment would need to be better drafted. I understand also that the amendment as drafted is slightly contradictory and is not quite what the noble Baroness intends.
We shall listen to what the Minister has to say. But unless there is satisfaction here, we should support such a proposal at Third Reading if the noble Baroness were to redraft her amendment and if we were not satisfied with the Government's response.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful in dealing with the noble Baroness's amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to return to the Bill itself, and to page 59. This part of the Bill deals with information about
discharge and the temporary release of prisoners. So one has the two possibly damaging circumstances: either a temporary release—which has historically been more liberally used in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales—or the discharge at the end of the sentence.
- "The Secretary of State must make a victim information scheme and may from time to time make a new scheme or alterations to a scheme".
- "a scheme requiring the Secretary of State to make available information about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland imposed in respect of the commission of offences . . . to victims of the offences who wish to receive it".
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. There is no definition of "OTRs"—"on the runs". I agree that we have all used the term as our own shorthand, but there is no legal definition known to me, and I do not believe that it would be possible to find one. After all, I know what the noble Baroness is referring to. I think she means those who have committed offences which might generally be described as "terrorist" or might be scheduled offences. But the departed burglar is "on the run" in the same way as the departed terrorist is.
I am saying that, first, the amendment is flawed. I appreciate that that does not go to the substance of the matter, but it would be quite improper—I hope I use that word without offence—to include a term as flawed as that in a Bill of any sort. But, in any event, if these prisoners are discharged or are temporarily released, they are covered in any event by Clause 67(2).
As a further assistance to your Lordships, one needs to look at Clause 67(9). I take the point that is implicit in the noble Baroness's approach and, I believe, that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: what about someone who has been convicted but perhaps not sentenced because he escaped, as some did, before being sentenced? That is dealt with in Clause 67(9) which states:
- "A scheme may make different provision in relation to . . . imprisoned offenders convicted or sentenced at different times".
I would make two points. The first may be thought by the noble Baroness to be an ignoble lawyer's point, but it is an important one when dealing with any statute, especially with a Bill of this importance. Secondly, if offenders have been imprisoned or discharged on temporary release, they are covered in any event.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, with gratitude and appreciation. It was extremely helpful.
Will the Minister clarify whether he is considering the possibility that I might come back at Third Reading with an amendment related to subsection (9)? I agree that that would be a more appropriate place, but the problem remains. Those OTRs are likely to be released by the time the Bill becomes law. Therefore, I am concerned that the legislation should provide for that. Will the noble and learned Lord consider the issue further and advise me with his admirable expertise how I might bring into the Bill—possibly at Clause 67(9)—an amendment that would have that effect? I believe that I would have the House with me on that, as well as the noble and learned Lord. Will he clarify the issue?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not encouraging the noble Baroness to come back at Third Reading. I am perfectly happy for the sense of the House to be taken this evening.
I return to the fundamental point, which is not about drafting, as the noble Baroness concedes. If OTRs, as they are known, though not in law, are sentenced to imprisonment, discharged or temporarily released, they are covered by the Act in any event. They are no different from any other criminal.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I be allowed to pursue the question further? I really do not understand.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We never pay attention to them when the noble Baroness is speaking.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall try not to take advantage of that.
I am seeking help in finding a way to ensure that the victims are notified when those people are about to be returned to the streets precisely because it seems quite possible that they will not be convicted and will not therefore be discharged. Nevertheless they will be known to have committed those crimes and would not have stayed away for 15 years had they not committed them.
We need a formula to cover that. I recognise that the Minister has quoted exclusions in the Bill that will exclude them, but how can we include them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Baroness intends to withdraw her amendment, as I suspect, I must not detain the House too much longer. I take her point that what she wants cannot be achieved in this way. I am more than willing to speak to her informally if she so wishes, but I cannot assist in the drafting at this stage. I should make it plain that no decision has been made in respect of those who are fugitive from the jurisdiction.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, since I understand from those remarks that there is no possibility of returning to the issue at Third Reading, I should like to test the opinion of the House, if only to make the point.
6.25 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
6.28 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".
The Deputy Speaker: The Not-Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 71 [Local community safety partnerships]:
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 87:
- Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for that disturbance. It was clearly demonstrated by the chairman when he started speaking that the loudspeaker was not on. By the time he finished it was. I wear hearing aids and link into the loop. If the loop is not on, I do not hear. I apologise for the failure to follow through the Division that was intended.
Amendment No. 87 would ensure that no local community safety partnership is established until practical guidance has been issued by the Secretary of State. I return to the point that practical guidance should accompany new introductions to the criminal justice system. I remain unsure as to how the new local community safety partnerships will sit alongside existing community safety structures and DPPs in Northern Ireland. My noble friends the Ulster Unionists have some points to make on that matter. Therefore, I shall not expound, except to say that it is not clear as it stands how those responsible for implementing the partnerships are supposed to proceed within the existing framework.
The amendment is similar to one that I moved on a different subject earlier today. I am not suggesting that we do not want to see community safety partnerships operating satisfactorily and well. However, the legislation needs to be tidied up so that the necessary codes of practice or guidance notes are in place before any particular partnership, or the partnership scheme as a whole, gets under way. I beg to move.
"( ) No local community safety partnership may be established until the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance about the way in which local community safety partnerships will operate."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page