§ 3.17 p.m.
§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy 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 Home Secretary still has complete discretion in recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy or whether his complete discretion has been fettered by recent legislation such as the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, the Home Secretary's discretion remains unfettered, although in considering its exercise he has regard to constitutional convention and to the spirit of any relevant legislation.
§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy Lords, may I take it, then, that in the case of a particular prisoner who was discussed last week it would have been open, and is still open, to the Home Secretary to release him at any time without the permission or advice of the Parole Board?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the Home Secretary's discretion would be unfettered, but I think that he would hesitate very long indeed before he acted capriciously to reverse a decision by the courts. This has been urged upon him in another recent case and it is a course of action that my right honourable friend would hesitate long before taking.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, would my noble friend tell the House what he means by conflicting with "a decision by the courts "? The power of the Home secretary to vary sentences as an exercise of the Prerogative has always existed, and certainly has never been regarded as the independence of the Judiciary.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, as I indicated, the Home Secretary's power in this matter is unfettered. But my noble friend will recall that in Section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1001 1967 it was established that the Home Secretary would release a prisoner on licence who was serving a sentence of life imprisonment only if recommended to do so by the Parole Board, and that is my right honourable friend's position.
§ Lord AIREDALEMy Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord's right honourable friend to consider altering the expression "free pardon ", because to most people "pardon "means forgiveness for a crime actually committed, whereas a free pardon "under the Royal Prerogative does not mean forgiveness at all. It means the setting aside of a conviction.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the noble Lord will recall that I myself have not used that term this afternoon. However, I will certainly look into the point and write to him about it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE:My Lords, although it may well be desirable, would it not be the case that to alter the term would require legislation?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, on that, as on other matters, I am perfectly prepared to take instruction from the noble and learned Lord.
§ Lord CHORLEYMy Lords, in the Minister's reply and in his reference to Section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act, he ran away from what he said about the Home Secretary's discretion being completely unfettered in relation to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Will he again make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in either of the two sections which deal with parole which fetters the Home Secretary's use of the Prerogative in these matters?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, perhaps I did not speak with sufficient clarity when giving the initial Answer. However, when the noble Lord looks at Hansard tomorrow he will see that I dealt with that point in the original Answer.