PREVENTIVE DETENTION (Hansard, 2 February 1965)

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

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, legislation is, of course, required to abolish preventive detention, but there is unlikely to be time for it in the present Session. As to what should take its place, my right honourable friend has as yet reached no conclusion. We want to take a wide and constructive view of the problem of persistent offenders. They are not all of one kind, and we do not believe that our only approach should be to lock them away for long periods. We are anxious to ensure, on the one hand, that the public is properly protected from those offenders from whom it really needs protection and, on the other hand, that offenders are not detained unnecessarily for excessively long periods.
The solution depends partly upon new legislation, which will not necessarily 1081 follow the lines proposed by the noble Lord in answer to a Question on July 23 last, and partly upon the development within the prison system of better means of assessing the character and needs of particular prisoners and relating them to a wider and more effective range of training facilities and prison industries. The further development of the hostel system and of after-care, to which much effort is being devoted, are also important factors.
My right honourable friend will make a statement about his proposals as soon as he is ready to do so, but I cannot at the moment say when this will be.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, is the noble Lord really telling us, after all the things he said repeatedly in the last Parliament, and after all the things the noble Earl the Leader of the House repeatedly said in the last Parliament, and two years after the Advisory Council have published their recommendations, that Her Majesty's Government have still not made up their minds on this question?

§ LORD STONHAM
No, my Lords. What I am saying is that on May 1, 1961, after persistent pressure from the Opposition, the noble Lord's Government appointed a sub-committee to consider preventive detention and announced their decision to abolish preventive detention on July 23, 1964—that was some 1,200 days afterwards. I do not complain about the fact that after 100 days, the noble Lord complains that we have taken no action. In fact, I regard that as a friendly assessment by the noble Lord—perhaps over-generous—of the relative efficiency of the two Governments.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, was this House not repeatedly told by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the Party opposite had made up their minds about this matter and that we had not done so? May I ask this further question? The noble Lord said that there would be no Parliamentary time this Session. What has Parliamentary time got to do with it, when the Government have not made up their minds about what to put into a Bill?

§ LORD STONHAM
No, my Lords, the noble Lord is wrong on two counts. First 1082 of all, the Government have made up their minds to abolish preventive detention. There is no question whatsoever about that. The point on which we have not wholly made up our minds is what to put in its place. What my first Answer was intended to convey was that we have not necessarily accepted what the previous Government had said they would put in its place, as announced in the noble Lord's Answer of July 23. If we carried out the previous Government's intention, it would mean that a man of 25 who for a third time stole a bottle of milk could be sent to prison for ten years. That is the kind of thing we are reviewing. It seems wholly unlikely, therefore, that we shall accept such a provision. We will announce our final intention in this matter, together with other matters which are needing urgent consideration, as soon as we are ready to do so.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My lords, while recognising that preventive detention was introduced by the last Labour Government and that the present Government are firm in their decision that it was wrong to introduce it and that it should go, are we to take it from what the noble Lord has said that we shall not have any statement as to what is to take its place, and as to legislation to put something in its place, until after this Session has ended, whenever that may be?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I would say, in answer to the noble and learned Viscount, that there will be a statement as to what will take its place, but I think it unlikely that we shall be able to find time for a comprehensive measure, including the abolition of preventive detention, during this current Session.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, should I be wrong in thinking that the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, think, with me, that this further delay is really quite outrageous?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I cannot answer for my noble friend the Leader of the House; but, for myself, I wish to see the abolition of preventive detention as much as any noble Lord in this House, but I also do not wish to 1083 see, as apparently the noble Lord would, something put in its place which would be even worse.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, are the Government being dynamic?