§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
§ 12.32 a.m.
§ Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)On 16th June this year the Home Secretary, in answer to a Question, announced an experiment whereby reasons were to be given for the granting of parole for prisoners. I felt that that was very much a step in the right direction, until I received a letter today in which I learned that an answer to a question in another place has revealed that the experiment is a purely cosmetic or administrative one—a hollow experiment in which no prisoners are used at all. It seems that what happens is that people talk to one another and wonder how prisoners might have reacted had they been told.
I accept that parole is a privilege not a right. Goodness knows, enough fuss is made of that. I am never quite sure why, because freedom, which is the outcome of parole, is a condition and not a state of mind or penal statistic.
978 What concerns me is not the description or specification but the way in which parole is implemented. At the moment, the prisoner does not know when or via whom he will hear the result. His next of kin are even worse off. Sometimes they do not know that parole has been granted until the prisoner is virtually on their doorstep.
When prisoners are told that parole has been refused, they are not given reasons and tend to fear the worst. It is this senseless confidentiality that I should like to discuss.
The latest detailed criteria state that the factors to be considered are the nature of the offence, criminal and other history and co-operation with parole supervision. I do not accept those three headings. The nature of the offence is known long before the parole board meets and the local review committee even sees the prisoner. The criterion of the criminal and other history, by its very name, is similar. As for co-operation with parole supervision parole is explained pretty well to people seeking it, and I do not accept that a prisoner who seeks parole will say "I shall not co-operate with parole supervision."
This leaves the other three criteria, and these are the ones that desparately worry a prisoner. Parole is granted on prison behaviour and response to treatment on medical considerations or on home circumstances and employment prospects on release. What I should like to discuss are the reasons why it is impossible or seems to be impossible to publicise—certainly the Home Office does not at this juncture seem to do very much about publicising it—the category under which parole is refused. I ask for no more than that.
At present, what happens, very simply, is that when a prisoner has parole refused, he always thinks the worst and the worst in the absence of a "Dear John" letter is desertion by his wife. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be acquainted with a "Dear John" letter. It is the sort of letter that every prisoner fears. It says "Dear John, You will be in prison for a very long time and I am lonely and have found someone else."
It is for this reason that I feel that a modest step might be taken in telling the prisoner and his family under which category parole is refused, with the obvious 979 exception of instances in which the security of the country or community would be jeopardised.
The Parole Board's reasons for not granting such an explanation were stated in a report in 1975. They include members of the Board having different reasons for reaching the same conclusion. The report states,
Setting down reasons would be the determination of the highest common factor of their points of view, and there is a danger that these would be rather standardised and uninformative.I feel that something, no matter how crude, is better than nothing. If the board made it clear to the prisoner that the explanation was no more than the determination of the highest common factor, I see no reason why there should be anything more than a local problem. The local review committee draws up an explanation of its decision for the Parole Board. Therefore, it cannot be very difficult to give a similar if less specific reason to the prisoner himself.Another reason why it is stated that confidentiality should be retained is that the prisoner might be unable to handle the explanation, particularly if related to factors beyond his control. But the prisoner is bound to be released some day, so he will have to face these problems sooner or later. I think one should remember that prisons are now staffed with professionally trained probation officers, who are capable of explaining the Board's decisions.
Another reason given is that, upon learning of the reasons for his rejection, the prisoner might demand an opportunity to refute them, with a further hearing and an appeal system. I accept this, but as it is so constantly said that parole is a privilege and not a right, I do not think that there need be any fear, because there are no complaints or appeals against a privilege.
The most common ground that is given is that the explanation would create further problems and further tensions within prisons. It seems to me that there can be no greater problem or source of tension than that of uncertainty. According to Mr. Wright of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the largest single complaint that his organisation receives from prisoners and their families has to do 980 with this very matter. The greater the cloak of secrecy surrounding the system, the greater should be our suspicion of that system.
But the psychological strain associated with the uncertainty of not knowing why an application has been rejected is detrimental to a prisoner. He can improve his future chances of parole if he is made aware of the reasons for its having been denied in the past. If a prisoner is told that the reason is his behavioural pattern in custody, he can work on that. It is better than his having the nagging feeling that his wife has run off with the milkman. Excessive secrecy encourages at best confusion and at worst cynicism among prisoners and their families about the board's decisions.
The second point is the timing of the announcement of parole. At present most prisoners are told of the board's decision not later than two weeks before the earliest time at which they could be let out on licence. If one sits for an examination, one knows on what day one will learn the result. I see no reason why the decision of a local review board should be different. The Minister might think about announcing to a prisoner, in a prescribed way one month before he is eligible for parole whether parole will be granted, or under what broad heading it is refused. That month is important, because it will allow the prisoner to prepare himself mentally, physically and in every other way for the freedom that he is about to gain. It will certainly be of enormous help to this family, who should be informed officially at the same time.
I know that there are difficulties. I worked hard on behalf of a constituent, put his case for parole as favourably as I could, because he seemed to me to be a man eminently suitable for release on licence. When he was granted parole, he asked the prison governor to ring me and ask me on no account to tell his family, because he wanted it to be a surprise. Charming as that may be, it cannot be much of a surprise for a family who have let the spare room to find a prisoner coming home unexpectedly. Even while one leans over backwards to be kind to people, it would be right to be realistic, and 1 should like there to be a definitive date when people are told "Yes" or "No"—prisoner and next of kin.
981 Another point I should like the Minister to ponder on is the composition of the local review board. Parole has not been in existence all that long, and there is a great tendency—with the appointment of fully qualified people—to have on the board probation officers with no experience of parole, because, by virtue of their seniority, parole was introduced after they stopped doing field work. Thought might be given to lowering the age or having more appointments of people acquainted with case work.
I notice with some concern that even liberal criminologists are now coming round to thoughts of abolishing parole. Their argument is that when pronouncing sentence judges aim off. When one examines the case of the Porn Squad officer who received 12 years, it is pretty obvious that the judge imposed that sentence knowing that he would probably serve four or five years. These criminologists are of the opinion that it would be more sensible when a judge gives a sentence for that sentence to be served. I am sure that the Minister will agree that if that were so sentences would be very much shorter.
I am very much against this view, because it seems to me that for prisoners, prison is about hope and parole is the hope that keeps prisoners sane; certainly it gives prisoners a vested interest in co-operating with the prison authorities. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Angel Face Probyn, who, the Minister will remember, spent 30 of his 43 years behind bars. On 15 occasions he escaped from prison. A great expert at escapes, he even escaped from Dartmoor. However, when the Parole Board was set up and the parole procedure introduced, he stopped trying to escape and used his considerable mental powers to get out of prison by parole. He succeeded and it was a very much more cost-effective method of gaining his liberty.
I believe that it is the ambition of all sections of society to reduce the prison population so that it bears some relationship to the available accommodation. The parole system has gone a long way to help with the worst overcrowding. I am a total supporter of the parole system. I should simply like it to be administered more openly and more democratically. That would be to the enormous benefit 982 of prisoners, and their next of kin. I hope that the Minister will think on these things.
§ 12.47 a.m.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for raising at this late hour a series of questions that concern us and to which we in the Home Office devote a good deal of time. I am also grateful to him for the opportunity to return to the Dispatch Box from which I strayed as long ago as nine hours. It is a welcome return for me.
I set on record—because when people read these debates they need to be reminded of the facts—what the situation is. Although the hon. Member and I would agree that no parole system can be perfect, the parole system in this country is working extremely well although it is of comparatively recent vintage. Some 54 per cent. of prisoners receive parole at some time during their sentences. What is interesting is that the recall rate of those on parole licence remains at the low figure of 8 per cent. Some hon. Members who in some debates express exaggerated fears about people who are released on parole could well ponder that fact. Parole is a system of hope for the prisoner, as the hon. Member said, a system for ensuring that, if this behaviour warrants, he will get earlier release than otherwise.
The hon. Member rightly said that the Home Office stresses that parole is a privilege rather than a right, but this means—and this is a fact that does not impinge on the consciousness of some people—that there are nevertheless rights grafted on to it. There is the right to be considered for parole after one third of the sentence, or 12 months, whichever is the later. Secondly, there is the annual review. Thirdly, there is the right to make written representations. Fourthly, there is the right to be interviewed by a member of the local review committee. Fifthly, there is the right to opt out of consideration, which I believe to be an almost equal right. Thus, on to a privilege are grafted a number of rights. What we are discussing tonight is on the borderline of right and privilege, namely, the supply of reasons.
We do not aproach this matter with an undue care, but with a care which arises 983 from two main considerations. First, there is our concern that if reasons are given, that would lead to pressure for representations, to be followed by an appeal machinery, and that would create the impression that parole was a right rather than a privilege. The second point is the difficulty of giving reasons which do not create more harm than good.
In an otherwise admirable presentation the hon. Member was somewhat unfair to the Parole Board experiment and the developments which are now taking place. The experiment has been carried out by the Board to determine whether its members could specify particular criteria for their unfavourable recommendations, bearing in mind that often a unanimous decision is really an amalgum of a series of subjective decisions upon this point.
The hon. Member has categorised and castigated the experiment as being based upon a pure administrative convenience, not involving prisoners. But it does involve actual casework which is carried out carefully not least because we do not want to raise hopes which cannot be fulfilled. Until the experiment were known to be successful it would be unfair to involve prisoners and raise expectations which could not be met.
In the result many difficulties were encountered but sufficient success has been achieved in this limited objective for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide, as was announced yesterday, that the experiment should now be extended to a number of local review committees representing different types of prisoners. This will be done in association with the normal tasks of the committees. That is necessary because many cases are refused by the Home Secretary on the advice of the local committees without them having gone through the Parole Board.
I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that the experiment is not only being maintained, but extended to another type of body. That is being done for two reasons. First, we certainly have not abandoned any hope of giving such reasons. Secondly, we are taking very seriously the point about giving reasons, and we are trying to work out as carefully as possible the way in which we can do so.
984 A number of difficulties are inherent in the giving of reasons. These dangers exist because some of the reasons which lead to the refusal of parole must obviously be beyond the prisoner's control and could cause him distress. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes that eventually the prisoner will have to come to terms with this aspect, but many of the reasons which lead to the first refusal for parole may be overcome at the second application. If the reasons were to be given at first refusal that could cause difficulties. It is possible that if, for example, there is temporary domestic discord and this is made known at the time of the first refusal, that could sour the prisoner's attitude and cause him to react violently.
I do not want to labour the arguments against this idea. The hon. Gentleman, who takes such a close and keen interest in this subject, knows all the arguments, and they are underlined in the editorial which appeared in. The Times of 15th June last. We must be satisfied that the heavy responsibility can be put on the Parole Board to consider and communicate these facts and whether it would help the prisoner.
The other point that needs to be made, because the hon. Gentleman got it somewhat wrong, is that the decisions on the recommendation of either the local review committee or the Parole Board are taken not by those boards respectively but by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the local review committee should communicate one month before in order to avoid confusion and surprise of a very unpleasant nature. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments in the sense that I believe that both sides of the equation need careful preparation. But it is the Home Secretary's decision. It cannot be taken by the local review committee. Nevertheless, I undertake to think about the matter to see whether there is an appropriate way that is consonant with the Home Secretary's responsibility.
§ Mr. FreudMy point was not about the local review committee or the Home Secretary. It was simply that, however the decision is made, the prisoner should receive notification at a prescribed time.
§ Mr. JohnI take careful note of that. I take the point in the spirit in which it was made and I shall, of course, look at it.
The hon. Gentleman raised another interesting point on which I should like to check. If he is right, I shall see what can be done to correct it. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was a tendency for senior probation officers to be appointed to local review committees who are so senior that they have no firsthand experience of the probation system because of its comparative youth. I shall undertake to look at this and to communicate with the hon. Gentleman about the results of my injuries.
The point to which I should like to revert is that it is the Home Secretary who comes to the conclusion. We must then, through the prison governor, inform the prisoner of the decision. We must also inform him in good time. I accept the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the parole eligibility date. We are at one there. I shall look at the case that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I believe that the Government are taking real and reasonable steps to tackle this thorny problem of the giving of reasons by the Parole Board.
986 The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter on which there are divided views. The Government believe that if this proposition were to be implemented, it would have to be implemented for all cases out of a sense of justice. That would involve some public expenditure and manpower requirements, and we shall look at that as part of the experiment.
I undertake to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's important observations. We are not complacent about the situation. At a time when the prison population is so high, parole and how it can be most safely granted are very important. We want to ensure that if there are defects that are curable by the prisoner himself, he should be given the opportunity of correcting his mistakes in time for the subsequent consideration of the matter.
It is because we are not complacent and because we are perfectly prepared constantly to examine new ideas that I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I shall look at it most seriously, and I hope to be in communication with him in the near future about some of the issues he has raised.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.