HL Deb 17 February 1970 vol 307 cc1065-7
LORD MOLSON

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 whether the release on parole of Kenneth John Harding, while serving a four-year sentence for violence, which gave him the opportunity of attacking a sleeping man with a brick and inflicting grievous bodily harm was against the advice of the police and the probation service; and whether the Home Secretary will in future be more careful to protect the public from prisoners with bad records of violent crime.]

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, the Parole Board consider reports from various sources, including members of the prison service, the probation and after-care service and the police. Such reports are supplied in confidence. Exercising their judgment on all the information before them the Parole Board recommended the release of Harding on parole nine and a half months in advance of the date he would otherwise have been released. Any parole scheme inevitably involves judgments which cannot always be right, but the quality of the Parole Board's judgment is shown by the fact that of the 3,031 prisoners whom they have recommended for release only 125 have had to be recalled for misconduct of any kind.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, do the Government realise that even the number of 125 is fairly considerable, and that when a man has a "long and shocking record", as the judge said, of violent crime, to release him on parole while he is serving a sentence for another crime of violence, is running a risk which is not justified?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, there was the record to which the noble Lord refers, and that record had to be considered by those qualified to do so. In their judgment—and it was the second time that they reviewed this case—it was thought worth while to give this man the chance that he had.

LORD MOLSON

Do the Government now realise that their judgment was wrong?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I should be greatly surprised if, when the House agreed to the Act which enabled the parole system to be tried out, they did not think that there would be occasions when some error of judgment would be committed. But if one looks at the record as a whole I should have thought the noble Lord would agree that it was a fine one.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, is it not a fact that this decision has nothing to do with the Government's judgment, as the noble Lord suggested?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I do not think that we should pin this down too closely. As I have said, this was a recommendation of the Parole Board, acting on the basis of all the information they had, and after the local committee themselves had recommended on two occasions that parole should be granted in this case.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, with respect, I do not think the noble Lord has answered my noble friend's question. He asked whether the noble Lord considered that there was in fact an error of judgment in this case.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think that parole was abused in this case, certainly.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is also inaccurate in saying that the probation service were not consulted, in that the local review committee which made the original recommendation for release includes a probation officer, and the Parole Board includes two of the most senior and experienced probation officers in the country?