§ 2.41 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy 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 they will publish a paper on the parole system, including a discussion of the work done by the Parole Board (referred to in the introduction to their 1978 report) on the feasibility of indicating, in general terms, the reasons why parole is refused in individual cases.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the Government intend to publish an assessment of the working of the parole scheme after the first 10 years. The paper will include discussion of the feasibility of giving reasons for the refusal of parole. The Government feel it right, however, to say that, on the available evidence, the giving of reasons would be incompatible with the present parole scheme and would make unacceptable demands on resources.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that that statement will 5 cause widespread disappointment, but that, according to its annual report, the Parole Board has sent the Secretary of State a full account of its thoughts on the difficulty of explaining to prisoners why they are refused parole? Will the Minister confirm that that full account will form part of the paper which he has just mentioned? Furthermore, if that account is not published, will it not excite suspicion in the minds of the public—it is, of course, already widespread among prisoners—that the system is arbitrary and capricious? Also, is he aware of the evidence that exists to show that prisoners who are liable for deportation on completion of their sentences are, notwithstanding the assurance he gave me in his Written Answer of 14th June, treated less favourably than those who are patrial? What steps will he take to reassure prisoners who are in this position that there is no discrimination against them, and will he welcome an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into this matter?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the parole system is not arbitrary or capricious. It is run by volunteers and it works very well indeed, as the last report of the Parole Board confirms. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that it is the intention of the Government to put together the findings of the Parole Board—which the noble Lord asked me about—the findings of the local review committees, which were undertaken and ended in December 1978, and also the findings of the review which has been going on within the Home Office about the general working of the parole scheme, and, in answer to the noble Lord's question, to put all that together in a Government paper. That is the assurance that the noble Lord asked me to give him. So far as deportees are concerned, I have previously replied to the noble Lord on that particular subject.
§ Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAMMy Lords, while I accept that, as we found in a recent debate in your Lordships' House, there are real difficulties about giving reasons, and, while I should also like to welcome what the Minister has said about publishing an assessment, can the noble Lord go any further this afternoon and say whether or not that assessment will 6 include details of the recent series of experiments which have been carried out?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am sorry to seem evasive on that, but at the moment we are still formulating our ideas as to the form the assessment will take. I do not think that I can go any further than that this afternoon.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, before the Government publish their proposed paper, will they be addressing themselves to the policies of both the Parole Boards, as they may be operating on different lines? This question refers to "the Parole Board", and it is not clear whether the policies of the Board north of the Border and the Board south of the Border are to be considered.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I shall certainly take into account the remarks of my noble friend.
Lord HUNTMy Lords, will the Minister accept that, I, too, welcome the statement of the Minister that the Government intend to publish the findings of the internal review which has been going on for a long time?—I think for rather more than 12 months. Therefore, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to see its appearance. Would not the noble Lord agree, however, that in general the workings of the parole system, which I suggest has amply justified its existence in the last 12 years, would be greatly improved in the public eye by a policy of more openness? Finally, can the Minister give an assurance, even at this early stage, that the system, despite its shortcomings, will not be made more burdensome, costly, and time-consuming by substituting a policy of a prisoners' right for the present principle of the Home Secretary's discretion?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the expense of the scheme is very much in our minds. This of course is one of the things which I would ask noble Lords, and other people who will read the paper when it is published, to take into account. May I just add that I think it is natural that there should be a wish for reasons to be given for decisions which affect a prisoner's liberty, but the difficulties of actually doing this are formidable. What I am asking is that your Lordships would wait to make 7 up your own minds on this issue when the Government paper, which I have promised, is published. The noble Lord quite rightly said that an internal review within the Home Office seemed to have been going on for some time. One of the things we had to wait for was the ending of the local review committee experiment, and that ended only seven months ago.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his undertaking that all these discussions will be published, may I ask him whether there will be statistical material in the Government document which will enable us to form some opinion as to whether or not prisoners who are liable to deportation at the conclusion of their sentences are treated less favourably than others? Will he answer my question about whether the Government would welcome an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into this matter? Can the Minister say whether he would allow Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House to sit in on the process of review, so that, while respecting the principle of confidentiality, they could assure themselves that the process was as they would hope?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I really do not think that I can go further than I have this afternoon. I have, in essence, answered the Question which the noble Lord put to me, which was, will there be a Government paper? My answer is, yes. With that, I hope your Lordships will be content.