HL Deb 02 April 1968 vol 290 cc1183-5

2.50 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

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 how many prisoners have so far been reported on by local review committees as suitable for release on licence under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; how many of these has the Home Office decided not to refer to the Parole Board for consideration; how many have been so referred; and how many have been recommended by the Board for release on licence.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, up to March 28 local review committees had recommended 1,032 prisoners for release on licence. Of these, 559 were not referred to the Parole Board. Of the remaining 473 cases referred to the Board, 332 were recommended for parole. In addition, 53 prisoners not recommended as suitable for parole were referred to the Board, and of these 18 were recommended for parole, yielding a total of 350 prisoners recommended for release on licence.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that I am as anxious as he is to see that the Parole Board is a success, and that I have the fullest confidence in the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as chairman of that Board? May I ask the Minister of State whether he will explain the reasons why, after Parliament had set up the Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary on these cases, the Home Office decided not to refer to the Board, or seek its advice in, half of the cases which were recommended favourably by the local review committees?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, at all times during the discussions in both Houses it was made clear that in the exercise of his responsibility my right honourable friend was to take the decision as to which cases would be referred to the Parole Board. Therefore, a filter was set up in the Home Office for this purpose. There are a number of reasons for the disparity between the numbers of 1,032 and something over 500. We were cautious, but obviously we were not overcautious, because about one-third of the cases submitted to the Board were not recommended for parole. In many cases additional information which was not available to the local committees but available to the Home Office changed the whole view. This is something which we are remedying in future. Again, it was necessary to try to secure a consistent level of recommendations. We found that some local review committees were more optimistic with regard to the outcome in many cases than we thought was promised by the facts.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I tabled this Question in no spirit of hostility but in order to elicit further information, some of which he has been able to give to your Lordships? May I ask whether he and the Home Secretary will give careful thought to the best means of making it known among prisoners in prison on what principles the Home Secretary and the Parole Board are operating, because I am sure the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate that there is considerable danger in a lack of communication with prisoners, or if they think that they are being judged unfairly behind closed doors?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and I entirely accept that his Question is a helpful one, and it is accepted as such. But I reject the implication that the fullest possible information about the working of the scheme has not been conveyed to prisoners. The Home Secretary circulated to every prisoner technically eligible under the scheme full information as to the working of the scheme and how decisions would be made and what his rights were. That was given to every single prisoner. I will undertake to forward a copy of this to the noble Lord, who I am sure will be satisfied. With regard to the conveyance of decisions, again the fullest possible information is given, and I am happy to say that so far as our investigations go they indicate that, despite the understandable disappointment when nine out of ten have to be disappointed, the decisions have been accepted very well in almost every prison.