§ 11.15 a.m.
§ Lord CHORLEYMy 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—
- (1) how many cases of life sentence prisoners who had served seven years of imprisonment were referred to a local review committee of the Parole Board in 1972;
- (2) what proportion this number bears to the total number of life sentence prisoners who completed seven years of imprisonment during the same year; and
- (3) whether they will give the same information for the first full year after the procedure for the review of such cases was changed in 1973.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, the figures asked for in parts (1) and (2) of the Question are, 68 prisoners and 97 per cent. For 1974, which was the first full year after the change in the review procedure, the corresponding figures are 88 prisoners and 1404 94 per cent. These figures relate to England and Wales only.
§ Lord CHORLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I do not propose to take him up on the actual figures. As he has probably realised, I am trying to get material for use in the debate on the parole system which we are to have immediately after the Recess. Since putting down the Question, I have seen the Reports of the Parole Commission for 1972 and 1973. Incidentally, I should be glad if the noble Lord could tell us when the 1974 Report is likely to appear. Will it be in time for the debate to which I have just referred? On the figures given, is it not reasonably clear that a substantial number of prisoners are now having to wait until they have completed 10 years of their sentences before they get their parole submission considered? This is clear particularly from the Reports to which I have referred. Does it not stand to reason that it is very frustrating and upsetting, not only for the prisoners but for their families who are supporting them from without and looking forward every day to the time when parole will be agreed upon? These are heart-rending matters—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord CHORLEYMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord is bearing this in mind, particularly as an astonishing number of prisoners—
§ Lord CHORLEYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an astonishingly high proportion of life-sentence prisoners are working hard on further education and that a number of them work—.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick)My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would have regard to the fact that this is Question Time. Could the noble Lord put a question? It might be helpful.
§ Lord CHORLEYMy Lords, I will put it in the frame of a question. Is the noble Lord aware that this is largely a matter for discussion? I will conclude by thanking the Minister. We shall have 1405 a full discussion on this topic at a rather later stage.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, on the latter point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as he rightly indicated, there will be a debate in the near future and I will reply to the points he raised then. So far as the Parole Board Report for 1974 is concerned, I cannot pretend to know offhand when it will be published, but I will find out and let him know.
§ Lord FOOTMy Lords, the noble Lord told us, if I have rightly understood it, that in the year 1972 only 3 per cent. of the prisoners serving life sentences were not referred to the Parole Board or the local committee. If it is the case that only 3 per cent. were not referred, on what principles were those 3 per cent. discriminated against, as against the 97 per cent. who were referred?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is referring to the situation before the change in practice announced by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Carr. The current situation is described in the latter part of the answer. This will deal with the point he raised.
§ Lord FOOTMy Lords, in that case, since the proportion, as I understand the second lot of figures, is that 94 per cent. were referred and 6 per cent. were not, may I ask the Minister what principle was applied in deciding not to refer that 6 per cent.?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, this is the procedure which was announced by the previous Home Secretary on 21st June 1973, and the explanation for the change of policy, which the present Government support, is that the new procedure prevents false hopes being raised in the minds of prisoners who are unlikely to be recommended for release, particularly in a case where the trial judge has made a recommendation that someone should be kept in prison for a very substantial period of time. It was then the view of the Home Secretary, Mr. Carr, that the new procedure would avoid false hopes being raised in the minds of such prisoners. In addition, the new procedure enables the sub-committee which exists between the Parole Board and the Home Office to identify such cases where 1406 early release can be considered, which was not previously a possibility.
§ The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELDMy Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that a Category B prisoner, by name Michael Luvaglio, who is at present in Her Majesty's prison in Wakefield and known to me personally, and who was sentenced to life imprisonment in March 1967, did not receive his review under the procedure obtaining prior to June 1973? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that when the Home Secretary agreed with the Parole Board in June 1973 that it would no longer be necessary for every case to be reviewed after a fixed period, it was stated that this would not apply to prisoners already in the seventh year of their imprisonment, as was the case with Luvaglio? Therefore, could the Minister give an undertaking that the Parole Board will be asked to grant this prisoner a review at the earliest possible date?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, as the right reverend Prelate will, I am sure, recognise, it would be impossible for me to comment now on any individual case of which he has not previously given me notice.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, may I also ask the noble Lord, in regard to the case of Michael Luvaglio, in which I am also interested and made representations to the Home Secretary, why the action has not been taken, because it seems most extraordinary. Would the Minister please refer to the letter which I have written to the Home Secretary so that I should know all the facts, as I think there has been some misunderstanding and a wrong decision has been taken. I wish action to be taken in the case of Michael Luvaglio.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, as the noble Baroness will, I am sure, recognise, it is impossible to deal with the factors underlying the decision in an individual case without notice being given. But, as the noble Lord who put the Question indicated, there is to be a debate on this subject and no doubt this matter can be raised then.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, may I just add that I do not want to wait for the debate. 1407 I want an answer to the question I put to the Home Secretary on the subject.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I note the noble Baroness's point. I will try to ensure that she gets a reply to her letter as soon as possible.