HC Deb 26 April 1967 vol 745 cc1637-72
(1)For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this part of this Act there shall be a body to be known as the prison Licensing Board consisting of a chairman and not less than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Board to advise the Secretary of State with respect to—
5 (a) the release on licence under section 41(1) or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.), and the recall under section 42, of this Act of persons whose cases have been referred to the Board by the Secretary of State;
10 (b) the conditions of such licences and the variation or cancellation of such conditions; and

Gentleman for what he has said. We are all fascinated to hear about the circular. May we be allowed to see its terms? Apparently it has gone about throughout the country. Is it not appropriate that its terms should be tabled? That would seem appropriate. Although it is not customary to make public circulars of this character, in this instance there would seem to be no objection. Is the point of privilege met by what is proposed in the circular?

Sir D. Renton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that his Amendment to the Clause had not been selected for a Division. I wonder whether we could have your guidance on this issue, because the Amendment has been selected. I have always understood that that means that, if the hon. Member concerned should wish to press it to a Division when the time comes, he would be at liberty to do so and would not be prevented by the Chair from dividing the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) was not selected, but Mr. Speaker permitted it to be discussed with new Clause No. 5. Therefore, it is not open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment and still less to ask for a Division on it.

Mr. Taverne

We will certainly place the terms of the circular in the Library, if that is desired. The circular covers the point of privilege. It would have gone out already, but for these Amendments coming forward. They delayed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

(c) any other matter so referred which is connected with the release on licence or recall of persons to whom the said section 41 or the said section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) applies.
15 (3) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the proceedings of the Board on any case referred to it, that is to say—
(a) the Board shall deal with the case on consideration of any documents given to it by the Secretary of State; and
20 (b) if in any particular case the Board thinks it necessary to interview the person to whom the case relates before reaching a decision, the Board may request one of its members to interview him and shall take into account the report of that interview by that member;
and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Secretary of State may by rules make provision with respect to the proceedings of the Board on cases referred to it, including provision authorising such cases to be dealt with by a prescribed number of members of the Board.
25 (4) The documents to be given by the Secretary of State to the Board under the last foregoing subsection shall include—
30 (a) where the case referred to the Board is one of release under section 41 or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act, any written representations made by the person to whom the case relates in connection with or since his last interview in accordance with rules under the next following subsection;
(b) where the case so referred relates to a person recalled under section 42 of this Act, any written representations made under that section.
(5) The Secretary of State may by rules make provision—
35 (a) for the establishment and constitution of local review committees having the duty of reviewing at such times or in such circumstances as may be prescribed by or determined under the rules the cases of persons who are or will become eligible for release under section 41 or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act and reporting to the Secretary of State on their suitability for release on licence; and
40
(b) for the interview of such persons by a member of any such committee (not being a prison officer);
and rules under this subsection may make different provision for different cases.
45 (6) The supplementary provisions contained in Schedule (Provisions as to the Prison Licensing Board and local review committees) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Prison Licensing Board and local review committees.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Speaker has indicated that with new Clause 6 there can be discussed the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), in line 19, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 21 and insert 'shall do so'.

New Clause No. 7—"Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc."—together with the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in line 7, at end insert: Such consultation shall take place before the case is referred to the Board by the Secretary of State under section (Constitution and functions of Prison Licensing Board and local review committees), and the Board shall before considering their recommendation have available the result of such consultation. Government Amendment No. 72; Government Amendments Nos. 46 and 78; Government Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, together with the Amendment to Government Amendment No. 48 in the name of the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone, in line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. Government Amendments Nos. 49–52 plus Amendment No. 53; Government Amendment No. 60, together with the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marvlebone, in line 4. after 'held' insert 'high'.

Mr. Speaker has indicated that separate Divisions can be asked for, if so desired.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 53, which you have just stated can be discussed with this group was tabled by me before my right hon. Friend tabled the new Clause and at a time when I had not realised that my right hon. Friend had given a definite promise to produce a new Clause. The new Clause is eminently satisfactory to me. I have no desire to move or to refer to Amendment No. 53 again in the course of this discussion.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).

I hope that, in view of the number of new Clauses and Amendments, Amendments to new Clauses, and Amendments to Amendments, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have indicated that we might discuss together, I shall be able to remember what I am endeavouring to present to the House.

The Bill as it stands confers on the Home Secretary an absolute discretion to release on licence a prisoner who has completed the specified minimum period. On Second Reading on 12th December I said that I would be glad to listen to the views of hon. Members on both sides as to whether there should be an independent parole board. We discussed this matter exhaustively in Committee.

I hope that it will be agreed, as it appears to be from the remarks which have been made so far today, that, although we no doubt are not able to please everybody on all points, we benefited during the Committee stage very greatly from the advice given from different parts of the House and that the attitude of the Government on the Bill has not been "take it or leave it", but that we have been anxious to listen to different points of view and have improved The Bill substantially as a result of the advice we have received.

To come more specifically to this issue, in Committee on 7th March, in a debate on Opposition Amendments to put the whole licensing scheme in the hands of a completely independent and, I thought, rather excessively judicial parole board, I outlined the alternative scheme which is now substantially embodied in these Clauses and Amendments.

4.45 p.m.

The essential features of the licensing scheme fall into five main parts. First, the cases of eligible prisoners will be periodically reviewed by local review committees. These will be part of the Home Office machinery, rather than part of the Board machinery. The committees will report to the Secretary of State on prisoners' suitability for release on licence.

I envisage that these local review committees should be composed probably of a prison governor, of a senior probation officer in the area, and of a member of the board of visitors or visiting committee, as the case may be. It would certainly be appropriate that at this stage the prisoner should be seen by one member of this committee and not by a member of the prison staff. Probably the senior probation officer would, not necessarily in all, but in most, cases, be the most appropriate person to do this.

Secondly, with the help of these reports the Secretary of State will select for reference to the Prison Licensing Board those cases which appear suitable for consideration for release on licence. It is intended that this filter, as I think it can best be described, should ensure that the Board would consider those cases in which the Prison Department of the Home Office thinks that there is a good prima facie case for release, together with some marginal cases in which release would be reasonable but which might not necessarily be recommended by the Prison Department or by the Secretary of State of the day.

As I endeavoured to explain in Committee, I attach great importance to not creating a complete divorce between the Prison Department and the Prison Licensing Board. That would be a most unfortunate situation to get into. It would be extremely bad for the morale of the Prison Department, because it would, as I said in Committee, turn its officers into gaolers and nothing else. Secondly, I think that it would allow our processes to get out of step with each other, because the Prison Department, under the Secretary of State, has constantly to take a whole series of important, and, I hope, in many cases constructive, decisions about what happens to a prisoner, whether he should be moved from a maximum security prison to a closed but lesser security prison, whether he should be sent from a closed prison to an open prison, or whether he should be selected for the hostel scheme.

It would clearly not be sensible from the point of view of constructive penal policy if these processes were to operate entirely independently of the process of selection for parole. This could do nothing but harm and would merely mean that the development of the prisoner could not follow a logical pattern leading up to what I hope in some cases may be the successful culmination of parole.

Thirdly, the Board will give to the Home Secretary its advice on the cases referred to it and the Home Secretary will be empowered to release on licence only if the Board has recommended release.

I gave the closest attention and a great deal of thought to the question whether I should make the Board to this extent mandatory, or whether I should retain in the Secretary of State of the day the power to release, even if the Board recommended against release. I came to the conclusion on balance, and after great consideration and discussion, that it would be better to proceed as I am proposing to do on this third point. I believe that the value to a Secretary of State of being able to override the Board would, in practice, be of very small value indeed. The number of cases in which he would do so would be absolutely minimal, but if the right to do so was there, I think—here I took great notice of the point which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made to me in Committee—that these individual cases would be more within the arena of politics, and I think that there are disadvantages in that regard. I decided, therefore, that the procedure should be that the Secretary of State of the day should be empowered to release only where the Board's recommendation was in favour of it.

It is not necessary to have the right of veto the other way because, under the filter system, only cases which the Secretary of State considers to be within the broad band of those eligible or nearly eligible for release will be put to the board. There is no need, therefore, to preserve a right for the Secretary of State to say, "No. The board recommends release, but I think that there are certain overriding public considerations why he should not be released". That point is dealt with at an earlier stage.

Before coming to the fourth consideration, I shall deal with a question which touches on one of the Amendments. While the Secretary of State may release a prisoner whom the board has recommended for release on parole, it is not mandatory upon him to do so immedi- ately. It is "may" release, not "must" release. I put this in largely for what one can almost call technical reasons. I do not for a moment envisage that one would overturn the recommendation of the board in this way and continue to hold in custody for a substantial period a prisoner whose release had been recommended. I have put this provision in to deal with the situation where, on treatment grounds, a prisoner's release should not take place until he has had a certain period of notice or where the board's recommendation may be contingent on suitable arrangements being made for his accommodation or employment outside, arrangements which may not be easy to make overnight.

Mr. Grieve

I am most reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's thread of argument, but will he assist the House by saying what will happen in a case which is referred to the board and, after it has been so referred, it appears that there are what he has called overriding public considerations why there should not be a release? Is the Secretary of State then obliged to release, or is there a provision whereby he may withdraw the case from the board?

Mr. Jenkins

The Secretary of State of the day would not be statutorily obliged to release because the provision in the new Clause is that he may release where the board has so recommended. I was saying that I had not put this in in order that, in practice, the Secretary of State should override the board. But, should a circumstance such as that envisaged by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) arise in which some new dramatic—no, I do not say "dramatic"—some genuinely new circumstance came to light, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to hold up the release and put the case back to the board.

Unless the board, being aware of the new circumstance, took the view that it wished to reverse its decision, I do not think that, in practice, the Secretary of State could or should go against the decision of the board. But he would have this time for manoeuvre in which he could put the base back to the board.

The main reason why I had made this a permissive rather than mandatory provision is not to deal with such rather exceptional cases, though it has value from that point of view, but to deal with what I think are likely to be the more frequent circumstances where a prisoner, clearly, should be released but the chances of his successful rehabilitation depend upon a little time—I envisage no great period—to prepare him for release so that he is not thrown immediately on the world without it being possible to make arrangements for his supervision, his employment or his living conditions.

Were it not provided that the Secretary of State "may" release but he had to release immediately the board's decision was given, this would be the equivalent of a judicial decision to acquit, and I think that it would be competent for those acting on behalf of the prisoner to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and, clearly, one would not wish that to happen.

I come now to the fourth point on the scheme which I wish to make. I have considered whether the existing power to release life-sentence prisoners on licence should be subject to the above provision. I have decided that, if the board is set up, it is logical that it should deal with life-sentence prisoners as well as those sentenced to a fixed term. However, in the case of life-sentence prisoners, there will be no minimum period of one year. Obviously, one cannot have a minimum period of one-third of sentence, but neither will there be a minimum period of one year. I have made this provision for two reasons, both of which are good, though different.

First, to put in the period of one year could raise false expectations that most life-sentence prisoners could be considered for release after a period of anything like one year. Second, in the case of murder charges, if the verdict is guilty, the court has no alternative but to pronounce a life sentence, though in certain very exceptional cases the court might, if it could give a determinate sentence, award a very short sentence indeed. I think it better that in these cases, therefore, there should be no limitation of one year.

Mr. Weitzman

I am troubled about the provisions for release on licence. In the ordinary way, the Home Secretary has the right to release on licence. Does this mean that he will no longer have the right to release on licence, the word being "may", if release on licence is recommended?

Mr. Jenkins

My hon. and learned Friend's question gives me an opportunity to explain a point to the House. It means that life-sentence prisoners will in future be subject to the review of the parole board, and the Home Secretary will not have the right to go against the parole board. It does not mean that the Home Secretary will lose his right to advise the use of the Royal Prerogative in exceptional cases or when new evidence arises. This will apply equally to life-sentence prisoners and to fixed-term prisoners. I hope that that deals with the point.

The fifth point I make is that in all cases any written representations made by the prisoner will be considered by the local review committee, by the prison department of the Home Office and by the Home Secretary, and, if the case goes to the Prison Licensing Board, by the board itself. I have already explained that I envisage that, at the first stage, the prisoner will be seen by one member of the local review committee. I think that the board should have the right to see a prisoner where it feels that this would help it to make up its mind, and there is an Amendment down to deal with that point.

It is more sensible that the board should be able to delegate to one of its members the task of seeing a prisoner rather than that it should have to do it as a whole. In the first place, I envisage that, when such an interview takes place, a member of the board would go to the prison and see the prisoner there. I do not envisage having prisoners eligible for parole brought up in large numbers to London and brought before the board. I say that for two reasons. First—this is, perhaps, the lesser reason—there is the obvious security problem. If refused parole, people might be in a very escape-conscious state. Second, and more important, it would be extremely unsettling for prisoners if they were brought up and given, as it were, this second trial in London and then returned to their prisons because they had been unsuccessful.

It is important that the work of considering their cases should be done in as informal a way as possible, breaking their prison routine as little as possible. For that reason, I hope that the Amendment suggesting that the board as a whole must see the prisoners, which would necessarily involve their being brought to London, will not be pressed.

5.0 p.m.

Those are the five main aspects of the new scheme to which I draw the attention of the House. I come now to the work of the Prison Licensing Board as I envisage it. We estimate that the Board's work would take up roughly five working days a month and that the number of cases it would review—there must clearly be a degree of approximation about all these estimates—would be about 750, perhaps rising to 1,000 in a year.

The appointments would be made by the Home Secretary of the day on a part-time basis, with remuneration on the same basis. The Schedule requires at least one of the members to hold or to have held judicial office. There is an Amendment to put in the words "high judicial office", which I think would necessarily mean that he should be a judge of the High Court. I should be a little reluctant to accept that, although I certainly envisage that the judicial member of the Board should be somebody who has had experience at least as a recorder, or having sat at quarter sessions, and I think that that would be covered by the Schedule as drafted.

I am not anxious to specify that he should be a judge, first, because I do not wish the Board to have too judicial a character. I do not think that it is essentially a judicial process. Many other considerations must be taken into account, and, although there can clearly be different views about this, I think that if the chairman is not to be a judge it might be easier that a judge should not be asked to sit under the chairman. I do not totally rule out having a judge, but there is already a great strain on judicial manpower and it is by no means easy to get judges to undertake these further tasks.

The other members of the Board must include a psychiatrist, a child-care expert, and a criminologist or penologist. Further details of how the Board and the committees will function in practice are outlined in the Schedule and, if necessary, further details can be given.

One remaining point which I think is important is the question of continued consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he be alive, in murder cases and cases where a life sentence has been imposed. That provision was inserted in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. It has worked reasonably satisfactorily since then, and I believe that it will continue to work reasonably satisfactorily.

We took such consultation before releasing people who were convicted long before that Act came into force. There is an Amendment specifying the stage at which this should be done. It is my intention that in all normal cases we would consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he be alive, before putting the papers to the Prison Licensing Board and it would have them available to it. But I would rather not put that in the Statute. A little flexibility here might be desirable, but it is certainly my intention so to proceed.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

I rise on a small point but one that is possibly not without importance. My right hon. Friend has twice spoken about the trial judge being alive. The language of New Clause 7 is the trial judge if available". I wondered whether my right hon. Friend regards the terms as interchangeable. They probably are.

Mr. Jenkins

I suppose that one could envisage circumstances in which the trial judge might still be alive but, regrettably, might not be in a condition in which his advice would be of much value and I think that "available" covers those circumstances.

It is also the practice in capital cases now for the trial judge to write afterwards to the Secretary of State giving his view, and that letter remains on the file. Therefore, the trial judge's view at the time, which is perhaps of considerably more value than his recollection eight or nine years later, is available to the Home Secretary in such cases whenever he must consider what should be done.

We have been making good progress, and I do not wish to speak at length. If other points of detail are raised I shall try to reply to them. I commend to the House this scheme, which I believe goes a very long way to meet most of the points which have been put forward from different sides, gives us a workable scheme, one which will give the parole system a chance to get off to a very good start and at the same time allay some of the fears about it which were previously expressed.

Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)

Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with his own very important Amendment, Amendment No. 48, and the Amendment to it.

Mr. Jenkins

If the hon. Gentleman raises points on them I shall reply when I speak again.

Mr. Hogg

I do not want to speak at length. This is the major improvement which has been made in the Bill as a result of debate. I said on the Second Reading that we would propose to treat the creation of a parole board as the only question that we thought was worth a party division and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) asked "Why party?" Fortunately, his question has now developed into fact, because after a long debate in the Committee it became clear that the right hon. Gentleman had come down in favour of a parole board. I thank him, therefore, for having taken account of the very strong practical and constitutional arguments which we had been putting form ward in favour of such a board.

It is true that the composition of the board which he now proposes is different from that which we set down in detail in Committee. We must, naturally, work with much greater disadvantages than the Government, with the resources available to them, and our Amendments in Committee were based in substance upon the experience of countries in which parole hoards have been in operation for some time, both in the Commonwealth and in individual States in the United States.

I still think that the set of proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) collated and put down in. Committee was very good. But it would be unjust and wrong for us to cavil at the alternative proposals put forward by the Home Secretary, and my object in speaking now is largely to welcome what he said, with two or three reservations which I shall make later. But, in general, I endorse the four or five points he put to the House, and I shall not repeat them.

In particular, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in the compromise he has reached on the question whether the parole board should have mandatory or advisory functions. On reflection, I think that he is right to submit the flow of material to the board to a pre-filtering process which will give him control of it through the Department, and will go some way to alleviate what I know was the Department's internal opposition to the creation of a board. To have thus avoided conflict between himself and the board at this stage in one direction is an ingenious and proper thing to have done.

Having gone as far as that, he is right to use the word "may" in the new Clause to give himself the right but not the immediate duty, if the parole board so recommends, to effect the release. I think that the arguments he has presented—

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have spoken about the fact that this gives him what is not an immediate duty. Does it give him any duty at all?

Mr. Hogg

I think that it probably does, but not one enforceable by the courts by habeus corpus. As I understand, he has a legal discretion with the courts. Supposing that a parole board had recommended the release of a particular prisoner, and he had, for one reason or another, delayed the release, he would be under an obligation to explain himself to this House, and to the public. He has a political duty to follow the parole board in the ordinary course of events.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

A Home Secretary would, in addition, be in the position that the parole board had recommended the release of the prisoner whom he had submitted to the board as being, prima facie, in a category suitable for release. Therefore, I cannot perceive that any Home Secretary, except for a short period, would wish to overrule the board.

Mr. Silverman

Would it then, not be much better if his limitation, or protective reservation, on the Home Secretary's duties was expressly stated, so that it was not purely discretionary, even though the combination of the pressures to which my right hon. Friend has referred might produce a situation where such a requirement was not necessary.

Mr. Hogg

If I might intervene in this discussion for a moment, I would not have complained had there been a mandatory provision in the Clause as drafted. It would have given rise to some of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has considered, and as in the long run, it will be the Home Secretary of the day who will have to "carry the can", politically, for the premature release of prisoners, I feel that he ought to have at any rate, so far as the courts are concerned, some degree of discrimination. My own feeling is that although there are weighty considerations in both directions, the right hon. Gentleman has probably arrived at an agreeable solution. At least, I do not feel disposed to criticise him on that point.

On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman could improve his scheme by imposing upon himself a duty to recall if the parole board recommends recall. The reverse case is not subject to the consideration to which the primary case is subject. Having given himself the right to consider a recommendation by the parole board to release, there are not the same considerations available of a purely advisory rôle for the board when it comes to the revoking of the licence. This is one of the two points—a minor but important point—upon which I would seek to criticise what he has done.

The other point for which I criticise the right hon. Gentleman is his stubborn —I can only describe it as stubborn—refusal to agree to the word "high" being inserted before the words "judicial office" in the new Schedule. I do not agree with him that a high judicial officer is necessarily a sitting High Court judge. My hon. Friends, when engaged in some discussions with me before we put our Amendment down, may remember that I pointed this out to them at the time. Perhaps I might give two examples, of two people, one of whom cannot be appointed, and the other, whom I am not suggesting should be appointed.

My father held high judicial office; he was Lord Chancellor. But he was not a High Court judge at any time in his life. Lord Devlin has held high judicial office, but he is not a sitting High Court judge. I could give numerous examples of persons, who, for one reason or another, have accepted the qualifications which I have put into my Amendment, but who would still qualify without being a sitting High Court judge. I am not sure that a Lord Justice of Appeal would be a bad choice for this kind of judicial function.

My hon. Friends and I attach extreme importance to the maintaining of close and friendly relations between the higher ranks of the judiciary, who impose the sentences and the Home Office, who, under this system through the Licensing Board, will, in effect, vary or reduce sentences. This relationship would be best secured by including in the membership in the Licensing Board someone with judicial experience of the higher type of one sort or another, who was familiar with the judiciary. The right hon. Gentleman says that the functions of the parole board are not judicial. I accept that; it is common ground between us.

5.15 p.m.

There are many considerations which are not purely judicial which ought to enter into the mind of the Licensing Board before it either agrees to the recommendation to release a prisoner serving a long sentence, or before it turns down an application from the Home Office. The progress of the prisoner under treatment in prison, the chances of his finding a suitable niche in life while on parole, these and many other considerations are suitable for a parole board and are not primarily judicial.

I would not have asked for a primarily judicial body, or necessarily that the judicial member should be in the chair, although probably, if I found myself in the right hon. Gentleman's position, and formed a parole board, I would think that the judicial member might be a very suitable occupant of the chair. Where I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman is in his assumption that the holding of a recordership is necessarily a good qualification for this.

There are recorders and recorders. Almost all of those who have spoken in Committee seem to be recorders except myself. Therefore, I speak with very great trepidation about recorders, but I read quite a lot about them in the columns of The Times, especially in the reports of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, and I am not sure that I was altogether reassured by the right hon. Gentleman saying that he had that sort of person in mind to be a member of the parole board.

I have great respect for recorders as a race, even though I have never aspired to become one, but on the whole what the right hon. Gentleman has done in his refusal to contemplate my Amendment is simply to put in his prospectus that he will not ensure that he has a good judge, but he will have a judge of some sort, perhaps not of the best. In that way we can get the worst of both worlds. I am a great admirer of the members of my profession, and always stand by it when I can, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that a good lawyer is a very good article indeed, and very often a very good social scientist, too.

A bad lawyer is a very bad article indeed to exercise prerogatives connected with compassion and mercy. He is apt to be out of touch with reality, and both on the constitutional grounds that I have mentioned and on the grounds that the House is under an obligation to those with whom the parole board will have to deal, I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give way on this point.

I want to say one more thing by way of explanation to the House. Oppositions are in a horrible dilemma in dealing with Governments. If they do not win they are accused of not giving way, of not being interested, because hon. Members on both sides tend not to come. If they do win, then they are immediately accused of turning into party issues matters which should be above politics. We have tried to effect a reasonable compromise which would lead us out of this dilemma.

We intend to have a Division on one or two Amendments, with our Whips on, not because we want to turn the issue into a party political issue, which manifestly it is not, but because we think that the dignity of the House on matters to which we attach importance requires the attendance of Members on both sides and that their attendance should be recorded in order to placate the criticism to which the House is sometimes subjected.

I therefore hope that what we do will be a model for future occasions. It delights the Whips, because it gets Members here. I hope that no offence will be taken if, from time to time, we record our opinion in the formal way without necessarily demanding the resignation of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I do not feel under any obligation to comment on the last part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and I do not propose to do so, because I think that the question whether the compromise which he recommends, and which he has recommended successfully to his colleagues, is good or bad, will he better judged when we see it in operation.

However, I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, namely, that the new Clause is the major improvement for which we asked in Committee. It is one of the two improvements which I most wanted to see made. The second has not come about, and I await with great interest to see how the compromise about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke will apply to it when we reach Clause 10.

The suggestion which has been made is wholly admirable, except in one particular. I should have preferred there to be a mandatory side to the release procedure. There are plenty of protections. The Home Office has a preliminary veto. Under the procedure no man will have any right even to be considered for parole if the Home Secretary thinks that he should not be so considered. That is a serious discretionary reserve which no doubt the Home Secretary will exercise justly and wisely.

Then a second hurdle has to be got over. If the Home Secretary decides that the parole board should consider the case in question, he still has to persuade the board that it is a case in which it should act. Suppose that the Home Secretary has decided that the case is a proper case for consideration, and suppose that the parole board has decided that it is a proper case for release on licence. Why should not the man then have the right to say to the Home Secretary, "Release me on licence. You could have stopped my case being considered and you thought it better not to do so. The board could have decided that I was not a fit person to release. But since you decided that mine was a proper case to be considered, and since the board, on consideration, decided that it was a proper case in which there should be release on licence, why is not that an end of the matter?"

The Home Secretary then says, "It is not an end of the matter, because there is a certain number of preconditions which cannot always be resolved overnight." Therefore, there may be a need for some delay. The man should not have the right to be released the next morning. There should be a reasonable pause for the Home Office to decide that the proper conditions which the parole board had in mind existed.

If that is all that he wanted, it would have been very easy to say so. It would have been very easy not to leave in the hands of the Home Secretary a discretion as to whether the matter should be decided by the parole board. It would have been perfectly easy to say that the man should be released unless the Home Secretary is not satisfied that one of a number of conditions which the parole board had in mind could not be immediately fulfilled and that he should not be released until it is fulfilled. I do not like the idea that, once the two decisions have been made and a quasi-judicial decision that the man should be released has been determined, the man should have no right in the matter. That is not the best way to deal with it, and there should have been a limited mandatory result.

I wish to pay some attention to the statement of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that if the Home Secretary misbehaved in such a case he would still be responsible to the House of Commons. I never think it wise, in an individual case under the criminal law, to make it a matter which could be debated on party lines in the House of Commons. The only result of saying that there is sufficient protection for the individual concerned, namely, that if the Home Secretary is wrong he is answerable to the House of Commons, is to make it immediately an arguable point between the Government and the Opposition as to whether the man should be released. I do not think that that is a good protection or a good thing in itself.

Mr. Hogg

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, although he will probably concede that the situation can arise under the Clause as drafted only if the Home Secretary fails to adopt a recommendation of the parole board. It cannot arise the other way round because he cannot release unless the parole board so recommends. I do not see why this should not be a matter of political controversy, although not necessarily on party lines.

Mr. Grieve

I cannot follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in deprecating the residual discretion which the Home Secretary reserves to himself under the new Clause even when the board has recommended the postponement or delaying of release or even, if necessary, refusing release for the short and simple reason which I attempted to give in the intervention which, somewhat reluctantly, I made in the speech of the Home Secretary.

Even after a case has passed through the local board and has been referred to the Prison Licensing Board, so that in all ordinary circumstances one would expect the Board's recommendation to be acceded to should it recommend release, circumstances may arise which make it necessary for the Home Secretary to say, "No" or to delay release for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave. Such circumstances must be extremely rare. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, they will be such that the Home Secretary will doubtless have to answer to the House of Commons for them. But it is abundantly plain and right that the Home Secretary should have such a reserve discretion.

I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have dealt with the considerations which were put forward by both sides of the Committee. The proposed new scheme, which meets all, or nearly all, the considerations which were put to the Government—no system can be devised which is perfect—will, I hope, provide a first-class parole system and first-class machinery for putting parole into operation.

5.30 p.m.

I ask the Home Secretary to consider the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and others of my hon. Friends in suggesting that the Board should be presided over by someone who has held high judicial office. I agree with the Home Secretary that this would limit the field for selection. I agree that there are considerable calls upon judicial time. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, however, there are many persons who have held high judicial office who are not now active as judges, and appointment would be clearly open to them. I am sure that there would be many who, in the conscientious desire to serve the public which they retain, would be willing to serve in this capacity.

The reason why I consider it important to have a high judicial officer in that sense on the Board is that this would give the Board prestige and authority in the eyes of the public. The judiciary enjoys the highest public regard and esteem. We know that the members of the judiciary are chosen with the greatest care. That is not to say that there are not sometimes bad judges, but, perhaps, a bad judge would not be selected to preside over the Board. The judiciary is deserving of the prestige in which it is held. I believe that it would be right from the public point of view and in ensuring the good working of the system that the Board should be presided over by somebody who has held high judicial office.

I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude towards the Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

I welcome the new Clause and the treatment of the matter of the proposed Prison Licensing Board. Indeed, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his treatment of the whole subject. It is evident to anyone who reads the Clause that a great deal of careful thought and analysis has gone into it. If the disposition of my right hon. Friend is exemplified in any one provision of new Clause 6, it is, perhaps, in the welcome provision, which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and a number of hon. Members opposite desire to amend, that in any case in which the Board thinks it necessary to interview the person…the Board may request one of its members to interview him and shall take into account the report of that interview by that member". In, perhaps, a comparatively small way, that seems to me to introduce an element of wholly welcome humanity into this procedure. It is always a welcome matter if the consequence of so treating an issue is entirely without detriment to the public interest, as is the case in this instance.

I await the argument in favour of the Amendment to that part of the Clause and I shall listen to it with great care. That kind of interview, however, would be much better conducted from every point of view in circumstances which would reduce as far as practicable the element of strain and awkwardness affecting the prisoner. That is what is provided for, and rightly so, in the new Clause. It is rather revealing as to the type of mind and disposition that have gone into the working out of the Clause. For my part, it is wholly welcome.

I am also pleased by the decisions arrived at concerning the composition of the Board. I listened to the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in favour of inserting "high" before "judicial office" in the new Schedule, but that would seem to me possibly to introduce an ambiguity without any great advantage. It might be for some of us an agreeable occasion if we were arguing before a judge of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, or some other court the proper interpretation of the term "high judicial office". It is a matter which, if the Amendment were passed, might come fairly quickly before the courts for interpretation.

Mr. Hogg

Perhaps the hon. and learned Member is not aware that that phrase already occurs in more than one statute.

Mr. Irvine

I am well aware of that, but that is no reason why there cannot be further argument upon it. Doubt has been expressed in the House about the effect of the Amendment. One must be very satisfied with the advantages at[...]aching to a form of words about which those who propose them have doubt as to their meaning. That is what we are confronted with in this instance. It is a matter on which different views can be taken, but I am doubtful whether any practical value would result from acceptance of the Amendment.

I might have had doubt about paragraph 1(b) of the new Schedule, which provides that one of the members of the Prison Licensing Board must be a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist". I do not know that "psychiatrist" is any more difficult or easy to define than "high judicial office". Presumably, it means somebody who is qualified in the science, if it is a science, of psychiatry or in that department of medicine. The view could be taken that this definition narrowed, possibly undesirably, the field of selection among doctors and registered men for eligibility for membership of the Board.

That is admittedly a rather small matter, however, and I emphasise that I welcome the treatment of this extremely important matter in the Bill and in the new Clause.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

I hope that the Home Secretary will say a word about recall because the machinery for this will be important. In places where a parole board has been established, this has been found to be among the most difficult and delicate parts of its functions and I imagine that the Home Secretary has in mind changes in Clause 42. Otherwise, I join the welcome which has been given to this proposal. The Home Secretary certainly has been good to his word on Second Reading.

I do not, however, overrate what the right hon. Gentleman has done. My rapture is a little modified by some of the limitations which he has imposed upon the proposed body. It is a very cautious start and I am inclined to think that the Home Secretary intends, no doubt for his own good reasons, to make this body a little less prestigious—I will not say powerful—than some of us originally hoped that it might become.

I should like to recall why some of us felt from the start that a body such as this was important. Under the terms of the Bill great powers of release will repose in the Home Department. Notwithstanding these arrangements, these great powers still remain with the Department. To the extent that the Home Secretary has stopped short of giving this Board mandatory powers, its powers are to that extent limited. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a pity if there was a conflict between the prison department and the Board, and one can well see the danger of this. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other pdaces where these bodies are working satisfactorily the parole board and the prison department work almost as co-equals and they do not conflict.

As I see it this will remain very much an advisory body. There is a point at which the Home Secretary cannot reject the advice that is given, but it will remain an advisory body, and I foresee anxiety by the Department lest this body becomes any stronger or more prestigious as time goes on. I think that this is almost inevitable. I hope that we may consider this not to be the last word and that if it proves a success, as I hope it will, we shall have the courage to take it a little further and add a mandatory power which some of us would have liked to have seen from the start.

Mr. Carlisle

Like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), I believe that these new Clauses are a major improvement to the Bill. As a Member of the Committee, I welcome them, and I thank the Home Secretary for what is generally accepted as a massive concession.

The reason why I think the parole board is most important is because I want to see the idea of releasing prisoners on licence work, and if it is going to work it is essential that it should have the support and confidence of the public. I believe that the existence of an impartial parole board will give the public the feeling that their interests are being safeguarded, that their interests are being considered, when the question of release arises, rather than feeling that the Home Office has an opportunity of using it merely for administrative convenience.

It is for that reason, too, that I attach a good deal of importance to the Amendment to bring in the word "high" before "judicial office". I believe that if this Board is to be respected it is important that those who are on it are people who are respected by the public. I think that this Board will have an important job to do, and I hope that the standing of the judicial member of the Board will always be the equivalent of a person who either is, or has been, a high court judge.

The Home Secretary said that he had in mind someone in the position of a recorder or chairman of quarter sessions. I would remind him that there are some counties in which the chairman of quarter sessions is not even a qualified person, or was not until recently, and the phrase "judicial office", although the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind a recorder or chairman of quarter sessions, would cover many people who during their time had had no experience in trying criminal work. I believe that this term is too wide, and should be limited by the intrusion of the word "high" to ensure that the importance of the Board is recognised from the outset.

5.45 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not said anything about recall. I would remind him that he said that one of his criticisms of the original proposals from this side of the House about the parole board was that they were too judicial, and that the release of prisoners was no a judicial matter. One accepts the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I suggest that the recall of prisoners is very much a judicial matter, and for the person who is being recalled it will be the equivalent of being sentenced to imprisonment again.

If that is so, it is important to see what the powers are with regard to recall. Whereas the Home Secretary has given the Board mandatory powers of release, he has not given it mandatory powers of recall. I should have thought that it was the recall side which was more important, and if the Board recommends that a person should be recalled, the Home Secretary should not have a discretion on that recommendation, but should recall him.

The Home Secretary might consider that the Parliamentary pressure argument is likely to be far stronger in the case of recall than in regard to release, because if it is known that despite the recommendation of the Board that a person should be recalled the Home Secretary has a discretion to ignore that recommendation, I would have thought that much more Parliamentary pressure might be brought to bear on him to persuade him to use his discretion. I hope, therefore, that on consideration of the recall powers of the Board he will accept that once the matter has been referred to the Board—and the matter has to be referred to the Board before it can recall—if it recommends recall the Home Secretary should carry out that recommendation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

The hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, that if the new procedure in our criminal law is to get off to a proper start it should have as wide a measure of public approval as we can get for it. I ask him to consider whether we are likely to get a wide measure of public approval for the proposal that if the Board recommends recall that is mandatory, but if it recommends release that is not? Does he really think that the public would accept that?

Mr. Carlisle

I am saying that if the Board recommends recall that should be mandatory, and that this is more important than the mandatory power which exists in the release whereby the Home Secretary cannot release unless the Board recommends it. It is because I want public opinion to support the Board and these proposals that I think this is important. If the public feel that although the Board has been set up, and although it may recommend recall, the Home Secretary may overrule it, their faith and confidence in the Board may be affected.

Is the Home Secretary entirely happy about the accused having only a right of written representation on recall? Presumably he hopes that the powers to recall will not often be used, but I think that he ought to consider widening this to give power to a person to be heard either in person or by being represented when the recall is proposed in view of the fact that to that person it is like being sentenced to prison again.

I propose, finally, to consider the Amendment to insert the words "shall do so". With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), there is no ulterior motive behind the Amendment. If the Board decides that a person should be interviewed, it should not then decide whether, having considered it is necessary, it will or will not do it. Having considered it is necessary, the Board should do it, and this is what the Amendment says.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect of the Amendment would be that the whole board could interview the prisoner?

Mr. Carlisle

That could be so. That is not unreasonable, because most of these people will have been seen originally by a member of the review committee. That member will have made a recommendation. If the board then still feels that it should see the person it is not unreasonable for the whole Board to do so. If that state of quandary exists it is better that the whole Board should see a person rather than that one member should be delegated to do so.

The Home Secretary has pointed out that it is not to be thought that release will be automatic. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will repeat that warning today, because it would be unfortunate if the idea got about that people serving long terms of imprisonment could automatically expect to be released. Although we hope that the powers will be used with compassion they are likely to be the exception rather than the general rule.

Sir D. Renton

Ever since the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) introduced the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill hon. Members on this side of the House have been unanimously in favour of some kind of parole board. That is why we appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary has handled the matter. If we were not to have a judicial board, it was right that we should have an advisory board, without mandatory powers.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne about the Home Secretary's not being answerable to the House in the last resort. He is responsible for the prison system and he must be responsible in detail, up to a point, as well as in general. The right hon. Gentleman has shown commendable open-mindedness about the broad principles of the question, and I hope that in the light of the discussion that we have had he will continue to show the same open-mindedness in respect of some of the detail which is covered largely by Amendments, although there are one or two other points which are not covered by Amendments.

We find that we shall have to wait to see the rules before we know the exact functions of local review committees. I do not ask for a preview of the rules, but it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some idea whether all the eligible cases—as I must call them—will be considered as a matter of routine by local review committees, or whether it is proposed that only selected cases should be put before them.

In respect of my Amendment to new Clause 6, I wish to add only that it is important to bear in mind the feelings of the men whose cases are being considered by the Prison Licensing Board. In a doubtful case—and the Board will have interviews only in doubtful cases —prisoners may think that they should have the right to be heard. It will give them far more satisfaction to be heard by the whole Board than by a deputed member. Members of the Board are bound to vary in their reactions when interviewing prisoners, and I would have thought it better, in this relatively small number of cases—it is not likely that there will be very many—for the man concerned to go before the whole Board.

The Home Secretary referred to a point covered by the Amendment to new Clause 7, concerning the stage at which the Home Secretary should ask the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available, for an opinion. The Home Secretary has anticipated the argument underlying the Amendment by saying that if he felt like it he would obtain the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge before referring the matter to the parole board. I would have thought it much better to make this the practice in all cases. Not only will it make for greater consistency—which might not be a bad thing; it will be of great value to the parole board to have the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, because the board's recommendation might very well be different from what it would have been if it had not had that opinion, and the Home Secretary would value the advice of the board much more if it had had the opinion of those judges first.

I implore the Home Secretary to bear in mind the fact that great public anxiety has been aroused—sometimes justified and sometimes not—about the possibility of prisoners being released before they should be. That anxiety can be allayed by ensuring that in all cases the parole board has the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. It can also be allayed by meeting the point made by all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have so far spoken on the Amendment to the new Schedule.

It would be regarded by the public as unsatisfactory if the judicial member of the board were merely—as he could be—an ex-deputy chairman of quarter sessions.

Mr. Weitzman

Supposing he were a Chancery judge? He would have had no experience of criminal cases.

Sir D. Renton

It is true that some Chancery judges have had no experience of criminal cases, but others function as chairmen of quarter sessions. I know of one who sat in that capacity. We could surely take it that all judges of the High Court, because of the standing they have in the judiciary and the breadth of their experience, are likely to give greater public satisfaction than some of the ex-deputy chairmen of quarter sessions who would be eligible and might conceivably be thought by the Home Secretary to be suitable.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I hope that the right hon. and learned Member is aware of the fact that before the present Lord Chief Justice was appointed he had had no experience of criminal law.

Sir D. Renton

That has not prevented his being a very fine Lord Chief Justice. The present Master of the Rolls, head of the Chancery Division, had great experience of the criminal law before becoming Master of the Rolls. We should aim high in this matter. It would give much greater satisfaction to the public.

The object of the parole board is twofold. It is to ensure that our prison system is justly administered and is seen to be justly administered, but it also has the purpose of assuring the public that men are not let out of prison when they might continue to be a risk to the public.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the general welcome which they have given to these provisions. As we have been able to arrive at an agreed scheme, which means that the Government have moved sub- stantially, although rightly, I think, I hope the House will acquit me of being unduly stubborn—I am not sure whether that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's word—if I do not feel able to accede to some of the Amendments which have been so persuasively urged in the course of this discussion.

I want first to deal with some of the maters mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and then come to what appear to me to be the three main points which have emerged from the discussion. The, first of these concerns recall—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for not having dealt with this in my opening speech and I will therefore endeavour to do so in my closing speech. There is, secondly, the point about the absence of the mandatory provision for release, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) drew attention and, thirdly, there is that about high judicial office, first raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and then taken up by others.

The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) invited me to repeat a view which I expressed in Committee and which was that it would be a mistake if prisoners were to assume that these provisions meant that all, or anything like all, long-term prisoners would get out after a short period of their sentence. This is to be a substantial scheme, but it would be wrong if people began to think that a long sentence meant one-third of that sentence and no more than that. That is exemplified by the fact that, as I indicated to the House, in my view the board will be considering about 750 to 1,000 cases a year and not recommending release in all, whereas the total number of cases eligible in any year would be in excess of 4,000. That gives some indication of the position.

I turn to the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Runcorn and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire which would make it obligatory for all members of the Board to see a prisoner. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that this would not be right. There is nothing in the argument about "shall" rather than "may", because if the Board wishes to do something, presumably it will. There are not two parties to this matter. What the Bill suggests would also be a more satisfactory procedure for interviewing.

Of course it would be satisfactory to the prisoner if he were brought before the Board and received the result which he wanted, but if he did not, there would be a great build up and then a great let down and a great sense of unsettlement. Nor do I think that it would be practicable to do what is suggested other than by bringing very large numbers of prisoners to London for special interviews, or by having the Board go round the prisons, rather like a touring Assize. There would he great disadvantages about that and I am assured by the experience of other countries that where this happens, where there is this build up of expectation in prison and where many are then disappointed, the atmosphere which is left afterwards is an extremely difficult atmosphere with which to deal. I believe that what we are proposing is more desirable.

Sir D. Renton

The right hon. Gentleman says that very large numbers of people would have to be brought to London, but by the time the sifting process had been carried out by the review committees and bearing in mind that it would he in the doubtful or marginal cases only that the Board would think it necessary to have an interview, would it really be such a large number?

Mr. Jenkins

If there were to be that kind of process, prisoners might take the view that they were entitled to an interview and a general pressure for general interviews would build up, and if 750 or 1,000 prisoners a year had to be brought to London, I would regard that as being a large number of prisoners to be transported about the country.

I turn to the first of the three main points with which I wish to deal. This concerns recall. Perhaps I can deal with this by way of explanation as well as by way of reply, as I did not deal with it in my opening speech. Amendment No. 48 leaves the present recall powers of the existing legislation on life licences. The new subsections provide a recall code for both fixed term prisoners and life prisoners. The Secretary of State may recall a licensee if the Licensing Board recommends him to do so. The hon. Member for Runcorn took issue about this and thought that this provision should be mandatory and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne did not like this provision. I can give an example to explain why we do not think that it should be made mandatory, although in practice, to all intents and purposes, it will be.

Supposing circumstances arise in which the Board has evidence put before it that the prisoner who has been released on licence has not been observing the terms of his licence, and it decides therefore to recall him; supposing we then proceed to start to do that, but, in the course of doing so, discover that there has been a mistake, that the licensee has been in perfectly honest employment and has been trying to get in touch with his probation officer, but for some reason has failed to do so; clearly, in those circumstances one would not wish him to be brought back to gaol and there would have to be a discretion to put the matter to the Board. If it were absolutely mandatory, once the process had been started, it could not be stopped without the prisoner having a few days or a few weeks back in gaol, which might be extremely undesirable and unsettling if things had been going well for him.

Mr. Sharples

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of evidence being put before the Board. What I am not clear about is how the evidence first comes to be brought before the Board. What is the machinery by which the prisoner's name is put forward for the Board to consider recall?

Mr. Jenkins

I will endeavour to explain that. It falls under two headings, urgent and non-urgent cases. The urgent cases are those where it is expedient in the public interest to recall that person before such consultation"— with the Board— is practicable". The Secretary of State may recall a licensee without consulting the Board, although when the licensee is back in prison, the Home Secretary must refer the case to the Board.

I am sure that the House will take the view that it is necessary to have this special, urgent, provision connected with the right of recall without waiting for a hearing by the Board. If a prisoner who had committed, perhaps a long time before, some serious offence was seen in similar circumstances with grave suspicions that he might commit a similar offence, it would be no good waiting for the Board—which might sit five days a month—to make a decision before bringing him back and preventing him from committing a crime which might do grave damage to individuals, to the public confidence and to his whole prospects for the future. It would be quite wrong not to have this over-riding right where there was a suspicion that something sudden and rather desperate might happen.

In the majority of cases, where the decision was not urgent, the matter would be put to the Board which would recommend recall. That would arise when reports had been received, as they generally are, about someone on licence from those supervising him, or from the police, when, if the reports were unsatisfactory, it would be the duty of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Board. But a person might be picked up and brought before a court on some other offence. That would then be made known to the Board and it would be for the Board to consider whether in those circumstances he should be recalled from licence on parole.

Mr. Carlisle

Am I not right in saying that the powers still exist in the Bill for the court to revoke the licence of a person convicted before quarter sessions or Assizes, or would the court now automatically have to send the case to the parole board?

Mr. Jenkins

The court would have the power to act in that way without sending the case to the parole board. In non-urgent and urgent circumstances alike —[Interruption]. I am glad that the House is impressed by the unanimity and decisiveness of my advice on that important point—if the Board recommends immediate re-release on considering an urgent case for the first time or a non-urgent one for the second time, on account of the representations, the Secretary of State must give effect to that recommendation.

In such a case, the further release of a life-sentence man would not be subject to consultation with the Lord Chief Jus- Lice or the trial judge, since the Board's recommendation would be binding. This would apply if we had decided to bring him in and the Board took the view that that would be unjustifiable, or when representations to recall him had been made before the Board and rejected. These are the main provisions for recall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, was a little too suspicious. I have no desire to put a fresh obstacle in the way of a prisoner being released and I do not believe that any Home Secretary would be in a tenanble position if he held up a release for more than a short period. Equally, however, it would be very difficult to draft a provision to give us this discretion, which I regard as absolutely essential if this parole system is to work properly and one is to have regard to when the man comes out and his future prospects.

Therefore, this discretionary power of "may" release, which is intended to allow elbow room over time and circumstances—and nothing else—is the best we can do. From this point of view, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept my assurance as to how I think it will work—

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I have no doubt that, in working out the compromise, which we all welcome and think a wise and generous one for the most part, my right hon. Friend has studied the systems in other countries. Has any other country a parole system administered by a parole board in which the executive retains any rights not to accept its advice?

Mr. Jenkins

I studied the position in other countries before deciding what would best suit our circumstances, but, although other countries have done interesting experiments with parole boards, not all, by any means, have succeeded in finding the ideal solution. Many have worked with considerable friction with the judiciary and with the prison department or its equivalent.

The point which ran through the discussion was the question of high judicial office. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill, said that the term was ambiguous, which is perhaps an argument against putting it in the Bill, but would not be my main argument. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that there were recorders and recorders. My impression is that there are also judges and judges and one could not necessarily get around this difficulty.

I did not understand why those urging the Amendment should think that if one were allowed to appoint someone with judicial but not specifically high judicial office, a Home Secretary would be assumed to go out of his way to make almost the most foolish appointment possible and to choose some superannuated deputy chairman of quarter sessions with no experience of the matters with which he is concerned and who commanded no respect in the profession or anywhere else, and that if he was instructed to appoint someone with high judicial office, he would act with good sense and exclude all Chancery judges or anyone else who was not suitable—

Mr. Hogg

I am not sure that there is an intermediary position. In his original speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to say brazenly that he would not have a High Court judge at any price but would choose someone simply because he had a lower position. That seems to be exactly his intention.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

If I gave that impression, then I expressed myself with less than the required lucidity. I do not specifically intend to exclude a High Court judge or someone who had been a High Court judge, or possibly had held higher office but I do not think it desirable to be so bound, but would regard it as overwhelmingly desirable to get someone who commanded high respect in the legal profession and generally. I think that that would certainly be the view of any Home Secretary. I would ask to be allowed the discretion to do this, without necessarily having to have someone who had been a Queen's Bench Judge.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained engagingly that some of his Divisions should be regarded not so mach as expressions of opinion but as attendance records and if he wishes to record attendance on this, I do not complain and am grateful to him and the House for their general reception of the proposal.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order. I understood from Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he was in the Chair, that two of my Amendments would rank for a Division if I proposed to move them formally, but I am not sure when I would be in order in doing so.

Mr. Speaker

It depends on where they are.

Mr. Hogg

I proposed to move formally for Division, when reached, the Amendment at the top of page 7578, to the Government's new Schedule, No. 60. It is the one which the right hon. Gentleman himself invited me to do in the end of his speech. I had originally intended, but do not now, to move formally the one on page 7575, to the Government Amendment, No. 48.

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment on page 7578 to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, he will move formally when we reach the debate on the new Schedule. I understand that he will not move the other?

Mr. Hogg

No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.