Mr. James Pollard: Parole (Hansard, 12 March 1985)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)
Yes, my Lords.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that last week, when answering a question on this point at somewhat greater length, he accepted that the Parole Board had released upon society a man who had threatened to kill the witness against him and who, on his release, carried out that threat? In the circumstances, would it not make for the peace of mind of the community and of innocent people outside if in future persons who had uttered such threats were not paroled?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, we have long experience of cases in which threats of this kind have been uttered, and in none of them have they been carried out.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, is it not a question of each case in justice being looked at on its merits? Is this not a case where, most unfortunately, the Parole Board was not informed by the police; nor was it stated in the papers before the board that this threat had been uttered to this poor woman? Ought not very careful attention to be paid to the fullness of the information which is placed before the Parole Board?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that this piece of information was not before the Parole Board. That is one of the matters at which my right honourable friend and I have looked most closely. We are now in correspondence with the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider how we can ensure that the information which the police give is in the most helpful form it can be. I should, in fairness to all, add that in the past we have very often had such threats uttered and they have not resulted in a crime of this kind; and I should say also that the other information before the board might still have led to this release taking place.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that, although his replies in this House invariably command very general assent and respect, on this particular occasion there is a flavour of complacency which some of us find very disturbing?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the first part of his supplementary question. On the second part, I would deny any atmosphere of complacency whatsoever. I would say that the parole scheme has been running for 17 years, since 1968, and in every year but three for which we have figures fewer, and sometimes substantially fewer, than 5 per cent. of licensees have committed offences of any type while on licence. That leads me to suppose that the Parole Board system works to the benefit of society as a whole as well as to the benefit of offenders, but it does not lead me to think that Ministers or officials can for one moment relax their vigilance over how it works, and I undertake to continue that vigilance.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the inference to be drawn from the Question is that this terrible crime would not have occurred, or might not have occurred, but for the decision of his right honourable friend to grant parole to Pollard following the recommendation of the Parole Board? Is it not at least as likely, to put it at its lowest, that Pollard would have committed his crime early this year, having completed his sentence and earned full remission, and having been released into the community with no conditions attached at all? Is not the invariable question before the Parole Board, and eventually before the noble Lord's right honourable friend, one of whether the public interest might not be better served by an earlier release, under conditions, under supervision and subject to recall?

§ Lord Elton
The noble Lord is right, my Lords, that the only time we have the statutory power to supervise an offender is while he is on parole. If parole was discontinued, that power of supervision would be discontinued also, and in our view that would substantially increase the risk to the public which we seek to minimise.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that his acquiescence to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon from the Front Bench rather alters the answer that he gave to me last week? He then said—and I shall quote quite briefly: We have found that it was properly taken after careful consideration of all the information available to those who took it".—[Official Report, 5/3/85; col. 1203.] Do not the points made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon totally alter that answer in that the normal functions were not carried out and there was a breakdown in communications somewhere between the police and the parole authorities? On that basis does the noble Lord not agree that the whole situation should be looked at, even though the clock cannot be turned back? Finally, the Minister must be aware—

Noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, finally, may I ask the Minister this question? Is he not aware that, despite all the precautions taken and the so-called severer sentences, over the past decade the crime of rape has increased by 33 per cent.? Will he keep an open mind on the basis of making it a non-parolable offence in future?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, if I can recall the questions which the noble Lord asked, he has correctly quoted from the record our exchanges on the last occasion when we discussed this matter, when I said that the parole authorities had considered all the information available to them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew the attention of your Lordships to a fact which has not been concealed but which is known to many, that that information did not include the fact that a threat was uttered by Pollard to his victim before he was arrested to the effect that if she identified him he would kill her.
I have already said that such a threat has very frequently been uttered in the past and not carried out. Nonetheless, I repeat what I said on the former occasion and which I have just repeated: that we look at these proceedings very closely and will continue to do so. I shall repeat what I said on the last occasion: that I do not think that because of this single failure all those convicted of this type of offence should be denied parole. I believe that parole offers a measure of protection to the public which in this unfortunate case did not succeed, but which results in fewer offences being committed than otherwise would be the case.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the reliance on the value of supervision of a paroled prisoner which he indicated in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was apparently not sufficient to prevent this particular paroled prisoner from carrying out his threat of murder? Is my noble friend aware that if supervision is as inefficient as that, it will not carry very much confidence, particularly among those brave people who have given evidence against a criminal at his trial?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, my noble friend looks at one case, which we all agree was a tragedy. I have looked at the record of supervision and I believe that it was conscientiously carried out. I do not think that blame attaches to those who supervised. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in the years 1979 to 1983 there were paroled 950 people who had committed rape. I can recall only one other case which in any way resembled the case now being discussed. That was in 1982 and the parole licence had expired and so parole was not a factor in that case.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is it not the case that a large number of applications for parole are turned down for safeguarding reasons? Can the noble Lord give any figure for the percentage involved, lest it be thought that parole is granted recklessly?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, in each year from 1979 to 1983 about 10,000 prisoners were eligible for parole. About 5,000 only were granted parole, and of those there were recalled some 500, of whom only about 300 had committed a further offence. That, perhaps, puts the matter in perspective.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, is it not a fact that the majority of the Members of this House agree that the Parole Board is doing a jolly good job? Is it the intention that, because of one mistake, we should scrap or try to scrap the Parole Board as it exists at present?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary question, to which the answer clearly is, no.