Parole System: Policy (Hansard, 12 October 1989)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering the whole structure of the parole system in the light of the recommendations which were made by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow in his report on the parole system in England and Wales. He hopes to make an annnouncement soon.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that for those prisoners much time and effort have to be spent on carrying out reviews which everyone knows are perfectly futile? Does he also accept that those arrangements mean that the Executive is taking it upon itself to differentiate between the sentences which the judiciary think appropriate? Does he agree that, above all, it means that some of the worst and most dangerous prisoners are eventually discharged into the community without any supervision at all? Some of the other changes which the Home Secretary is no doubt considering would involve legislation. Could not this change be made by a stroke of the pen next week? Can the Minister think again?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the Minister is thinking very hard. That is why I cannot tell the noble Lord the answer. The noble Lord has said that the reviews are futile. I do not agree. Reviews continue throughout the whole of a prisoner's time in prison. That is quite right. I accept the noble Lord's arguments, which are very substantial, but there are also other arguments. I can assure the noble Lord that when my right honourable friend has been able to consider the considerable implications of my noble friend's report he will be able to make a statement.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we very much hope that, when he eventually publishes his views on the report of the 558 noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues, the Home Secretary will take into account that the committee said that the policy was flawed in principle and harmful in practice and that that was the unanimous view of the committee appointed by the present Government, including two very experienced members of the judiciary?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, such a criticism could not go unnoticed by my right honourable friend. That is why he is giving so much consideration to the problem.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not a matter for comment that the issue has been under consideration by the Minister's right honourable friend and the Government for some considerable time? Does the noble Earl recall that some months ago the House debated the Carlisle Report and that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, himself took part in that debate? The Minister now tells the House that his right honourable friend is still thinking about it. We realise that his right honourable friend is otherwise occupied this week, but when he comes back will the noble Earl have a word with him and tell him that we should be very grateful if he were rather more expeditious about the matter?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition can be assured that the one week which my right honourable friend is spending elsewhere is not a pre-emptive move in his decision-making process. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is considering the matter carefully. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will realise that a change of such a magnitude would make a very great deal of difference. If sentences remained the same and periods in prison became longer, that would have a considerable effect on the prison population. If he makes alterations my right honourable friend would like to link them with various other criminal justice proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, expressed certain concerns. He will accept that my right honourable friend set up the committee because of the very concerns to which the noble Lord drew my attention.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the noble Earl say how much longer his right honourable friend requires? Is it one month, six months, or 12 months? Should he not be able to tell us ghat within a reasonably short period of time a report will be issued by his right honourable friend?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I fancy that the period may be longer than the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would wish but shorter than he might expect.

§ Lord Carr of Hadley
My Lords, reverting to the narrow and specific point of the original Question, will my noble friend at least give us hope to think that we need not wait for a decision and implementation until legislation, which will undoubtedly be necessary if more major changes are made to the system, is introduced? I am sure that the 559 Government, with the safety of the public in mind, must realise that the great safety provision of the old system from the public point of view is that those people are never let out of prison except under supervision. We are endangering the public by the present practice, not protecting it.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that is obviously a point of great importance. I can only tell my noble friend Lord Carr that the question of whether the matter can be dealt with without legislation will depend upon the length and breadth of the decision of my right honourable friend. I should imagine that this point could be dealt with without legislation.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, during the 10 years preceding the decision of Mr. Leon Brittan to restrict the criteria for parole in certain categories of offence, Home Secretaries had been able to accept the positive recommendations of the Parole Board in all but 0.3 per cent. of cases involving more than 34,000 prisoners who received parole licence in that decade? Is that not striking evidence of the sound judgment and high sense of responsibility of the Parole Board in the public interest during that time? Does the noble Earl therefore agree that the decision of Mr. Leon Brittan displayed a lack of public confidence in the Parole Board which was quite unjustified and unhelpful to the parole system?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not think that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on that point or that we should go back into history over it. There was considerable public concern at that time that many people who had committed serious offences were being allowed out at a very early stage. That is a judgment which the Home Secretary must make and upon which the Parole Board gives advice. The decision of my right honourable friend's predecessor was taken in that context.
My right honourable friend set up the committee because of the concern which had been expressed, and which has been expressed again today. He is now considering what the committee said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it has taken the same or a similar view as that which he expressed, but implementation of the proposal would have a considerable effect on prisons.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, given that the Home Secretary has got this week of the year over, it might be a peculiarly favourable period from the point of view of rational thought as opposed to political attitudinising? Will he not therefore encourage him to use the immediate aftermath in order to implement what is clearly the unanimous view of informed opinion all round the House?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will observe that my right honourable friend always has rational thought even when he is involved with political decisions. He will of course give rational thought to that point, as I have told the noble Lord.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this Question bears upon the question of life imprisonment? That is the subject matter of the report of a Select Committee of this House which has not yet been published. Does he also agree that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should also be given at least a little time to study the recommendations of that report?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing my right honourable friend a little more latitude than some noble Lords would wish him to have. I can assure the House that the matter is being considered very carefully. By that, I do not mean to suggest that it is being put to one side; it is not. It is being considered carefully and my right honourable friend will make a statement when he can.