HL Deb 28 July 1964 vol 260 cc964-5

2.48 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take, pending the passing of the necessary legislation, to ensure that no further sentences of preventive detention are awarded; and whether they will undertake a review of the sentences now being served by preventive detainees, with a view to the early release of men who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for minor offences.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME I OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, the Government have no authority, without legislation, to restrict the powers of the courts to impose preventive detention; and pending the legislation which I foreshadowed in my statement of July 23, it would be premature to consider the position of persons now serving that sentence.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that already two preventive detention prisons, namely, Nottingham and Parkhurst, are no longer used for preventive detainees? If further sentences are awarded before the relevant legislation is passed by Parliament it will mean that it will be impossible for the preventive detention régime to be administered in any of Her Majesty's Prisons, because there will be no more preventive detention prisons. How do Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with this problem? Is the noble Lord saying that absolutely nothing can be done prior to introduction of legislation that the Government have now promised?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, it is a matter for the courts whether they continue to give sentences of preventive detention, and not a matter for the Government.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, will the noble Lord now deal with the part of my Question on the Order Paper which he has not answered—namely, the review of sentences of men at present serving preventive detention sentences?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the Government's proposals are not simply to do away with preventive detention, but to put something in its place, and until this is done it is not possible to consider the sentences of existing preventive detention prisoners. I would point out to the House, however, that under the new proposals the vast majority of those serving preventive detention could have received sentences as long as those they already had.