§ Mr. McFallI beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(1A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are no compassionate grounds which would justify the release of a person on licence he shall inform that person of his decision and the reasons for that decision as soon as practicably possible.'.The amendment would add a new subsection to clause 3, requiring the Secretary of State to give reasons for a decision not to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds. The clause allows the Secretary of State to release a prisoner if he is satisfied that there are compassionate reasons for so doing. If he refuses to release him, the prisoner has no means of discovering the reasons for the refusal and no means of requiring the decision to be reviewed. The amendment is necessary to make the Secretary of State accountable for his decision.I remember a Labour party working group, under the auspices of Lord Macaulay of Bragar, looking into the criminal justice system and asking prisoners about their anxieties. Their main concern was not their physical conditions, although often they were not up to standard: what they were worried about was the lack of communication in the prison between governor, prison officers and prisoners. Prisoners feel vulnerable and isolated, and if the Secretary of State is not obliged to give reasons, that will serve only to heighten prisoners' fears.
It is surely not asking too much for the Secretary of State to be made accountable for his decisions in the form of a written response. The Minister remarked in Committee that the giving of reasons by the Secretary of State should be a "matter of good practice". We maintain that it should be enshrined in statute.
The suggested remedy—of a judicial review in the event that the Secretary of State does not provide reasons—is unduly cumbersome. I invite the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on this. This remedy would be time-consuming and expensive. It would be much more economical and efficient if the Secretary of State were made to give his reasons in writing.
§ Dr. GodmanI support the amendment. If a decision is made to reject an application for release on licence on compassionate grounds, the reason for that decision 475 should be conveyed to the applicant as quickly as possible. There is nothing worse for prisoners than being kept waiting for weeks before hearing about such decisions.
Will the Minister assure me that these decisions will be conveyed to prisoners as quickly as possible? I know that decisions by the parole board used to take an interminable time to reach prisoners. I know that there are difficulties —the massive work load imposed on members of the board, and the work undertaken by the local review committees—but I have known of prisoners waiting for more than two months before parole board decisions reached them. There should be no delays in matters of this kind.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellWhen one man holds the power of liberty over the life of another, that power must surely be exercised reasonably, responsibly and with sensitivity. If the Secretary of State concludes that an applicant for release on licence cannot be released on compassionate grounds, it is only right and proper that the person, he or she, whose liberty is being denied should be told why. It is a simple proposition needing no elaboration. The Government claim to be in favour of more openness, so I hope that they will find it easy to accept.
§ Mr. HoodI agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that the amendment is not meant as a criticism of the incumbent of the office of Secretary of State; it is designed to make the decisions of the Secretary of State more publicly accountable.
I am concerned about the way in which the powers relating to licences and their withdrawal have been exercised. I do not wish to repeat all that I said on Second Reading, but the case of one of my constituents is worth considering.
George Beatty was released after 13 years in prison, but six years later he was pulled back into prison to serve the rest of his life sentence on the basis of a spurious allegation that he had kicked a social worker. When the case went to court, that accusation was withdrawn, but was replaced with a charge of breach of the peace and, lo and behold, George Beatty was pulled back into prison. It would be awful and disgraceful for that to happen to anyone, but that case is even more disgraceful because everyone, except someone high up in the judiciary, believes that that man is innocent.
On Second Reading, I spoke with some hesitation about this case because I was concerned about the sensitivities of the family of the victim who George Beatty was found guilty of murdering some 13 years ago. However, I have now been informed that the family do not believe that he murdered their daughter. Compelling reasons now suggest that there was no evidence to convict him of that crime.
I am sure that the reasons for the conviction will come out in the future. I hope that that will happen soon, because, until then, George Beatty will be in prison in Edinburgh. His case should concern not only parliamentarians but everyone in our country, because what happened to him could happen to anyone. That innocent man was convicted of a crime, yet the evidence shows that 476 he could not have committed it. The judicial system has closed ranks on him and he is now faced with the full power of the establishment.
I hope that, in the end, justice will be done, because there is no reason why George Beatty should be kept in prison. I hope that the Secretary of State will allow his appeal to be heard quickly. When the opportunity comes to examine all the evidence, I am absolutely convinced that it will be found that George Beatty was wrongly convicted and imprisoned. For that reason, I support the spirit of the amendment.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI must tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that I do not propose to discuss in detail individual cases that have been the subject of meetings between him and the Minister of State. The issue of the recall of released life prisoners is not strictly relevant to clause 3, and the issue of any possible miscarriage of justice is even less pertinent to the debate. However, I will draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
I can assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that decisions on compassionate release will be communicated without delay. Normally the Secretary of State is limited by the parole board's timetable of meetings, but clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make a decision without consulting the board in cases of urgency. That will happen as necessary.
As I made clear earlier in our proceedings, I am fully in accord with the spirit underlying the amendment. Our aim, as I indicated then, is that every prisoner should be kept fully informed of any decisions which affect him, and should have the reasons for such decisions explained to him. I suspect that, when a similar amendment was suggested in Committee, I may not have made the Government's policy sufficiently clear.
If a prisoner puts forward arguments in favour of his or her compassionate release, the Secretary of State will consider them very carefully in the light of medical, social work and prison reports. If the Secretary of State concludes that compassionate release is unjustified, when he informs the prisoner of that decision, he will state his reasons for it. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with those reasons, he or she may make further representations to the Secretary of State. If there is a change in the prisoner's health or circumstances, the Secretary of State will be prepared to review the case again.
I mentioned the question of judicial review in Committee, but judicial review will of course be a last resort for a prisoner who has exhausted all the administrative avenues of recourse. Our intention is to give reasons administratively when the decision is communicated to the prisoner. This will enable the prisoner to question the reasons if he or she wishes to do so and recourse to the courts would—as I said—be available if the Secretary of State appeared to be acting unlawfully in refusing release. Against this background, the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
§ Mr. McFallIn Committee, the Minister was not agreeable to our amendment, because we asked for the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision. Given what the Minister has just said, however, is it the case that the Secretary of State will give reasons to the prisoner and that therefore there will be no need for an application for a judicial review? Such an application is made when the 477 Secretary of State does not provide the reasons for his refusal to release a prisoner, but it now appears that the Secretary of State will provide those reasons. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, the Minister is accepting the spirit of our amendment.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonThe reasons will be given. As I said in Committee, in the previous Parliament I had to look at one case extremely carefully. I wanted to release the prisoner in question, but when I looked at all the circumstances—he had killed a young child—I did not feel that the risk to the public justified his release.
In some cases, the Secretary of State may be considering the release of a prisoner because that prisoner is very ill. However, he may not know how ill he is and the Secretary of State may not necessarily want to inform him, at an early stage, of the extent of that illness.
I can assure hon. Members that reasons for a decision will be given, so the spirit of the amendment will be met.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellI do not want to interfere with the sense of agreement that is now evident between members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that one must be careful to point out that if an application for judicial review is successful that does not have the effect of producing reasons for a decision; it has the effect of quashing the Minister's decision. In other words, one is then back in the position that existed the moment before the Minister took that decision. The furnishing of reasons is separate and distinct, but it may be—this is where agreement has broken out—that the furnishing of reasons may, of itself, be enough to dissuade people from embarking upon the more complicated procedure of judicial review.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ Mr. McFallI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.