| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Draft Rule 3 will prevent the court making a direction in relation to days spent on tagged bail where the offender was also subject to an electronically monitored curfew as a consequence of early release from prison, or as part of a non-custodial sentence such as a community order with an electronically monitored curfew requirement. Similar provision can be found in rules made under Section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, where time spent remanded to custody at the same time as time spent serving a custodial sentence is prevented from being directed to count against any subsequent sentence. The draft rule will ensure that offenders who have been released early under the home detention curfew scheme and those who have been released on general licence subject to an electronically monitored curfew do not receive credit.
15 Oct 2008 : Column 811
Draft Rule 4 deals with the unlikely event that a prisoner released from prison under temporary licence appears before a court on further charges during that period without first being returned to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. Prisoners who are charged with an offence during a period of temporary release will ordinarily have their licences revoked and be returned to prison quickly. The rule is simply a precautionary measure to make it clear that prisoners released from prison under temporary licence must not receive credit.
It would of course be open to the court to use its discretion not to grant credit in the specific circumstances set out in the draft rules. However, the rules will remove any doubt by providing the courts and defendants with absolute clarity about the circumstances in which a sentencer must not give credit. I commend this draft statutory instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 7 July be approved. 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can brief. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for explaining the order, because, as I normally do with orders, I found it incomprehensible. I had problems even with the Explanatory Memorandum, but we have been assisted by the Minister. During the past 24 hours, we have seen two versions of the Minister in responding to things. Yesterday, we saw him dealing with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008, where he was apologetic on behalf of his department, admitted that it had got things wrong and said it should possibly have consulted more. Today, at Question Time, we had a slightly more robust noble Lord, Lord Bach, who was firm in his belief that there was no need for him to provide information for my noble friend Lord Onslow, who sadly is not here, despite being a member of the Government who introduced the Freedom of Information Act. We hope today that, of those two versions of the noble Lord, the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, it will be the Dr Jekyll who triumphs, that we will get the apologetic, friendlier version of him and that he will assist us.
I must ask just one or two questions to guide me in our tour through the regulation. The minute I saw that it was related to the credit period, I suspected that it was another excuse for the Government, particularly in relation to the Times article that I mentioned today at Question Time, to keep the prison population down and thereby save money, even if its long-term consequence would be to increase the spend. I then discovered that, because the rules are related to disapplication of credit period, there must be some other motive in introducing them. I then looked carefully at the Explanatory Memorandum and listened to the Minister’s explanation, for which I am grateful. He explained that draft Rule 2 is related to double counting, draft Rule 3 to double counting in connection with early release, and draft Rule 4 to release on temporary licence. In other words, it is designed to put right the inadequacies of a Bill that we passed as recently as last summer and was going to come into effect on 3 November, and the Government have had to come back with the draft
15 Oct 2008 : Column 812
If I can go back to the Dr Jekyll side of the Minister, I think that a brief apology on his behalf and that of the department for not getting it right with the 2008 Act is due. We made it clear that we did not particularly like the idea of the credit period, but if the department was going to have one, it might have got it right in the Bill, without the need to bring forward the rules. We suspect that, as it passed through this House, the Ministers involved did not spot this and did not deal with it as they should, and that is why we are dealing with the rules today. For that reason only, I hope again that the noble Lord, because he is very good at apologies late at night, would feel that he could apologise on behalf of his department for getting it wrong and wasting just a few minutes of the House’s time on these rules.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I was interested to hear a moment ago that my colleagues in another place were opposed to sheep tagging. I did not know that this was Liberal Democrat policy, so I made inquiries and discovered that, in so far as hefted sheep in Welsh upland areas are concerned, it was thought to be an unnecessary ramification, and my colleague, Mr Steve Webb, was demanding that the Government make yet another U-turn.
However, we have always supported the tagging on bail of offenders as an alternative to remanding an individual in custody. The benefits are obvious: the person is enabled to stay within the family, to retain his accommodation and to attend work and education. Since he is not to be held to be guilty until he is convicted, that is all very beneficial. Accordingly, although we join the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in criticising the Government for getting it wrong in the iniquitous criminal justice Bills that they so frequently pass, we support the rules being put forward today.
Since we are in favour of tagging during bail, I should be interested to know what the compliance rate is—if the Minister has that information—and whether technical problems have been overcome. I am aware of technical problems in relation to tagging in the early days, so I would be interested to know whether the Government are now satisfied that the tagging provisions work properly. Subject to that, we have no objection to the rules as proposed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the approach that they have taken to this. In my best Dr Jekyll mood—he was the nice one—I shall say in the nicest possible way that there is no inadequacy in the Act at all. The order-making power was made clear in the primary legislation. The rules are entirely consistent with the remand rules created in 2005. We have always said that it would be at the discretion of the sentencer whether credit would be given and we have pointed out three situations in which credit cannot be given. That is all that we have done in these short but necessary rules.
The purpose of the draft rules is to set out the specific circumstances in which the court must not grant credit against a custodial sentence for time spent
15 Oct 2008 : Column 813
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked how many of those tagged breach their bail. No data are held centrally on defendants’ return to court as a result of breach of bail conditions, including tagged curfews. Of course, individual courts take account of whether there has been a breach in deciding whether and how much credit should be given against custodial sentences. Data provided by the electronic monitoring contractors say that the number reported to the police as having breached is as high as 64 per cent—16,000 cases out of about 25,000. However, there are caveats to that: tight rules are applied and, if you are not at
15 Oct 2008 : Column 814
As for whether this is a robust system, it was given a clean bill of health in 2006, when it was audited. It is a useful tool in the armoury to deal with those on bail. Again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 7.52 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |