Life Licence Release: Re-Offenders (Hansard, 11 January 1994)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, the figures for 1993 are not available in the way requested. However, during 1993 two people were convicted of murder who had previously been released on life licence. Figures for re-offending while on home leave are not collected, but we are considering how such statistics might be collated centrally.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the two people to whom he referred had previously been convicted of and sentenced for murder and that they then committed a second murder after the Home Office had released them? Can he also tell the House how many murders a man can go on committing and still be released?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the first part of my noble friend's question is quite correct. Both the people to whom I referred had committed murder before. They were released. When they were released they committed murder again and were brought back into custody. The tariff is now being considered in both cases. I think that the second part of my noble friend's question is remark able and does not need a proper answer.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, when the figures are published for 1993 will it also be possible for the noble Earl to give figures for the number of serious offences, including murder, which were committed during the same year by persons who were originally sentenced to determinate sentences and were released on home leave, life licence or parole? Further, does the noble Earl agree with the Home Office in its research paper regarding taking offenders out of circulation, which was published some years ago, that it is almost impossible to predict the likelihood that a particular offender will commit an offence of the same kind on release?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, when one goes into the statistics of such matters it all becomes very involved. However, I can tell the noble Lord that between 1987 and 1991, 347 people were first released on life licence. Of those 347, three had been reconvicted of a violent offence by the end of 1991 and 16 others of a serious non-violent offence. I believe that that will put the noble Lord in the picture. Nevertheless, I shall certainly consider the point he made.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, can the noble Earl say what will be done to prevent a repetition of the two instances quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his very important supplementary question? The 68 Government seem to have admitted that such things have happened, but the vital question is. what will be done to prevent similar things happening again.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern. When anyone re-offends, especially in the case of murder, it is a matter of enormous concern to the House, to the Home Office, to prison governors and, indeed, to everyone else. Before a murderer is released, he or she will have been very carefully tested in conditions of gradually decreasing security and the release will not be authorised unless all the indications are that it is safe to do so. On some occasions it would appear that the decision was wrong. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set up a review to consider such matters. He has already received a summary of the review, which appeared just before Christmas. He will now have to consider what it says.

§ Lord Tebbit
My Lords, my noble friend is right to be careful about the statistical problems. But does he recollect that on 19th November 1990 I was informed in a Written Answer (Hansard col. 72) in the other place that during the period 1963 to 1989. 59 people in England and Wales were killed by persons previously convicted of homicide? That seems to point to a run rate of two deaths a year at the hands of previously convicted killers. Is the run rate still as high? if so, that is an unacceptably high ratio of deaths to releases.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I had prepared myself for a number of aspects in regard to the Question but not for the Written Answer which was given to my noble friend in another place three years ago. His information comes as a slight surprise to me. I would not describe the process as the "run rate". But what is happening gives us cause for great concern. However, I can update my noble friend in the following respect. The number of convicted murderers who have killed again after having been released on life licence in the past seven years is eight. Therefore, in that respect, and to use my noble friend's disagreeable expression, the run rate is lower.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, in the light of the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Avebury and the subsequent reply, does the noble Earl agree that the proportion of life prisoners released on conditional life licence—certainly during the 25 years in which I have been involved in such matters—is remarkably low? Does he further agree that it is essential to prison management and prison discipline that an element of hope should be retained in prisoners' minds that they will eventually (and under certain conditions) be released, however remote in time and likelihood that may be?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. If we are to be absolutely certain that people will not re-offend we must lock them up for ever. But if you do so there is no hope; and there must be hope. There must also be an opportunity for some people to try to live a better life again. The noble Lord is correct in saying that very few people re-offend; 69 indeed, only 2 per cent. of lifers are convicted of a further grave offence within two years of release and 4 per cent. within five years of release.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, do not the figures suggest that release in cases of serious crime is granted too frequently and, therefore, requires review?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that is precisely what my right honourable friend has in mind. He has set up a review to look into such matters. As I said, a summary has been given to him and is now being considered.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, in response to admirably persistent questions from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Earl has said that the Home Office is reviewing the procedures for life licence and home leave. In view of the case which was reported in the newspapers only this Sunday, does the noble Earl agree that a more urgent task might be to ensure that the existing rules are in fact adhered to? In the case reported in the Independent on Sunday, the prison governor concerned had not notified to the National Identification Bureau the fact that the prisoner had absconded; nor did it appear that the prisoner should have been released, as he was suffering from a mental disorder which appears to be contrary to Home Office review rules. Would the noble Earl further agree that a review of that situation is more urgent than a long-term review?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, when such instances occur great attention is paid to the circumstances. The noble Lord asked why a more urgent review is not in process and why the scheme has not been tightened up. It was tightened up in October 1992 and was tightened up again in July of last year. The working group was set up in June 1993 to review the operation of the home leave and temporary release scheme and to ensure that public safety is not compromised by offenders being allowed home on leave. That information has been reported and my right honourable friend is considering it at present.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, in view of the helpful indications as regards the progress of the review, can the Minister tell the House whether it will be published after it has been considered and agreed by the Home Secretary?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my right honourable friend has seen only a summary of the report; he has not seen the whole detailed report. The decision will be taken in due course. But no decision has been taken at present.