Parole: Proposed Extension (Hansard, 9 June 1981)

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in his foreword to the review that the Government had reached no conclusion on these proposals, and was publishing them as a basis for informed discussions. We shall decide as soon as possible, in the light of reactions to the review, whether to ask Parliament to approve a scheme on the lines proposed.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who served on the Parole Board himself and is therefore in a position to speak with first-hand knowledge of the matter, has spoken publicly in favour of this proposal? Furthermore, in view of the urgent need to reduce the prison population and the prospect held out by the Home Office review that this proposal could have the effect of reducing that population by some 7,000 prisoners, and of the resultant benefit to the community at large, as well as to prisoners themselves, of their serving a proportion of their prison sentences under supervision in the community, will the noble Lord impress on his right honourable friend the urgency and importance of implementing a proposal on these lines at an early date?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said as a result of the reply I gave. Yes, indeed, I am aware that the Lord Chief Justice has already commented that the proposed scheme could prove successful and worthwhile. If I might register my agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, then went on to say, it can be argued, of course, that statistically parole has worked. Statistically, we can see that those who are granted some parole are less likely to commit subsequent offences than those who have not had parole. Frankly, I attach a very great deal of importance to that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his experience, for the importance he attaches to it, too. As far as the noble Lord's final question is concerned, my right honourable friend hopes to be able to reach a decision in time to take advantage of any opportunity for legislation which may be available next Session. I hope the noble Lord can decipher what I mean and that I have made myself clear.

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, in the event that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary releases more prisoners on parole, may I ask whether adequate steps will be taken to see that the supporting service—namely, the probation service, which is responsible for looking after parolees—is strengthened so that adequate numbers of probation officers will be available? I am sure that the noble Lord knows that that service is very much overstressed at present.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the central concept of parole, release under supervision with liability to recall, 117 is proposed for this scheme for early release. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the probation service has plenty of work on its hands and that this will be an additional commitment for it if Parliament thinks it right that such a scheme should come into effect. In that event, I think that Parliament must assess what this will mean for the probation service and we must take decisions then.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, is the Minister aware that copies of the discussion document are not available in the prisons, and since the governors, members of prison staff and prisoners are in a better position than the general public to make comments on it, will he not see that copies are placed in the libraries of our prisons? Also, can the noble Lord say whether there is not a danger that discrepancies will arise between short sentence prisoners, who will get automatic remission and who therefore if sentenced to 18 months will do only six months, and the men who get long-term sentences where, if they do not qualify for parole and get a two-year sentence, will serve 16 months minimum? Cannot the noble Lord say whether, in conjunction with these reforms, the Government will implement the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Penal Policy for reduction of the maximum length of sentences?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, certainly I will look into the question of making available copies of the document to the prison service. Copies have already been made available on a wide scale. As to the general thrust of what the noble Lord is saying in his second supplementary question, I think it is certain that if the scope of this scheme were to run at the lower end from those with six-month sentences to those at the upper end with three-year sentences, there would be no anomalies and therefore the rest of the supplementary question which the noble Lord asked would fall.

§ Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge
My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the report in today's Guardian, the accuracy of which I am unable to guarantee, which suggests that the secretary of the Magistrates' Association—and may I say that some of my best friends are magistrates?—has said that if the scheme were pushed through the magistrates might retaliate—and I repeat the word "retaliate"—by committing more offenders to Crown Courts for sentencing? Does the noble Lord think it suitable for magistrates who are appointed by the Crown, through the Lord Chancellor, to speak of retaliation against a decision of Her Majesty's Government?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I would not wish to make any comment on what the noble Lord has put to me about that, except to say that with regard to the suggestion—and it was no more than a suggestion; because this review is for consideration, and indeed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked for views to be expressed by the end of July so that the Government can then think of their position—which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the scope of the scheme could be between six months 118 and three years, I do not think that this would so much affect the work of the magistrates' courts because of the six-month period. That would be entirely incidental. There are sensible statistical reasons for making the suggestion which I have made. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising as a matter of principle whether this scheme is a good thing or whether it is not. I should like to repeat once again that I think there are arguably good reasons for seeing whether some form of early release scheme should not extend to those at the shorter end of the sentencing tariff because they might benefit in the same way as those who have had parole in the past have done—they have shown (to my surprise, I must say, when I read the review) that those who receive parole are less likely to offend in the future than those who have not.

§ Lord Ferrier
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, is the Minister aware that there is a great measure of support on this side of the House for what was said about strengthening the probation service, not only numerically but in the quality of the men and women employed; because if this scheme is to work it is essential that it is properly undertaken?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier. The recall rate of those who misbehave while on parole under the parole scheme, ever since the scheme was brought in under the Parole Board's supervision under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in 1968, has remained pretty constant at between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. I ascribe one of the reasons for this steadiness of the recall rate to the work done by the probation service in supervision.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, if and when this scheme comes into being, can my noble friend give an undertaking that the magistrates will not do what it is thought some of the higher courts do, which is to pass longer sentences on people because parole is taken into account? It is statistically shown that the sentences passed in the 1930s were shorter than those passed in the 1960s and 1970s. Can this point also be taken into account?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it is not for me to give any undertakings as to the way in which the courts should exercise their judicial discretion. Perhaps it is more seemly for me to repeat, as a final word, a point I made at the beginning: that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has commented that the scheme proposed could prove successful and worth while.

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, while each and every Government from time to time tend to make a virtue out of necessity by doing something about reducing the number of prisoners in this country—which is a necessity—would the Minister be prepared (I hope it is fair to ask him this) to give an undertaking that the Government will not pursue this matter of releasing more people on parole until they have taken a thorough stock of the services which will provide back-up and support?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think it is most important that I should repeat that my right honourable friend has asked for reactions to this review. The review is of course a review of the whole of the work of the parole system during its first 11 to 12 years. Also, he has asked for reactions to the paragraphs within that review winch deal with this scheme which is the subject of the Question today. My right honourable friend will of course take very serious account of any views which are expressed.