David Rundle: Parole Board Recommendation (Hansard, 20 February 1995)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, the Parole Board recommendation was rejected because Mr. Rundle was considered to be an unacceptable risk for open conditions following his recall to prison in March 1994.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that that is one of the most pathetic Answers ever given by a Minister from that Bench?

Noble Lords
No!

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, I cannot think of a worse one. Is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Rundle was recalled to prison last March—nearly a year ago—without having committed any criminal offence? Is she further aware that after eight months' consideration the Parole Board, having twice considered the case, came to certain conclusions? Can the Minister tell us whether the Home Secretary has any information which was not available to the Parole Board in November?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I do not regard considering the safety of the public or the public interest as being a pathetic reason for overruling a decision of the Parole Board. The vast majority of recommendations made by the board are accepted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but Mr. Rundle was recalled because of concern about public safety following police and probation reports that he posed a danger to a vulnerable woman. Mr. Rundle had a history of volatile relationships with vulnerable partners. Mr. Rundle's deception in continuing the relationship bore similarities to the events surrounding his murdering his wife in 1978. He did not co-operate when on licence. He ignored advice from his probation officer and a formal letter from the Home Office about his unsuitable relationship with a woman. He deliberately misled his probation officer by continuing the relationship in secret. All the information that was available to my right honourable friend is made available to Mr. Rundle himself.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her original Answer was thoroughly sensible and her second answer conclusive?

§ The Earl of Longford
: My Lords, does the Minister believe that that nonsensical intervention by the noble 912 Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, helps her case at all? He knows nothing whatsoever about Mr. Rundle, whom I have visited for 13 years. What the noble Lord believes he can contribute is beyond me. But does the noble Baroness agree that the truth is that all this information was available to the Parole Board after eight months' consideration and that the Home Secretary, knowing absolutely nothing about it, reached a different conclusion? That is the situation.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely wrong in what he says. To say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary knew nothing about the case is totally wrong. All the information available was given to my right honourable friend. He takes advice from all his legal colleagues in these matters, including the Lord Chief Justice. Certainly part of that advice comes from the Parole Board; but consideration of the public interest and public safety must be paramount. I believe that I have made it clear that there were very good reasons to be concerned about Mr. Rundle.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I accept that I know far less than either the Home Secretary or the Parole Board about this matter. The supplementary question which my noble friend Lord Longford asked, however, was as regards the information available to the Home Secretary which was not available to the Parole Board. The noble Baroness did not answer that question.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I did answer it. Hansard will bear me out. I said at the very end of my answer that all the information that was available to my right honourable friend was also made available to Mr. Rundle.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, that does not answer the question. The question was this: what information did the Home Secretary have which the Parole Board did not have, not which Mr. Rundle did not have?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, there was no information that the Parole Board would not have had. It can consider as much information as it wishes in order to come to a conclusion. My right honourable friend is the long stop in these matters. He takes information from the Parole Board, but he also has a specific responsibility in law to consider the public interest as well.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, so the Minister is confirming that the Home Secretary had no further information than that which was available to the Parole Board but simply made a different judgment. Therefore, the question becomes political. Is this the right system, when an amateur politician can overrule the views of those who are paid and expert in these matters?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, all the information which the Parole Board wishes to have to come to its conclusion comes from the police and the probation service and it can also call for information. As regards Mr. Rundle, it asked for further reports. Mr. Rundle and 913 his solicitors took three months to present that information. The decision was held over until it was received. It was fully considered and all the board's deliberations were made available to my right honourable friend, who in law is accountable to Parliament. He has the long stop decision to make, taking advice from his legal colleagues, including the Lord Chief Justice, in coming to a decision about the public interest, which he is specifically charged to consider.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Home Secretary, like other Ministers, is responsible and accountable to Parliament and that public safety is the responsibility of Parliament?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, that is absolutely true. It is a specific obligation in law laid on my right honourable friend which he carries out to the letter. I have also made the point that in the vast majority of cases my right honourable friend accepts the advice given to him by the Parole Board. As regards Mr. Rundle, he considered that the public interest had not been fully met.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, the Minister has referred twice to the Lord Chief Justice. Do I take it that he was consulted in this case? That sounds a most unusual proceeding in a parole recall case.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, no. I was making a general comment that my right honourable friend can take information from the Lord Chief Justice as regards release. I cannot comment now on whether he did so in this case, but I can write to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I am sure it is my fault, but can the Minister make the situation clear, at least to me? Is it right that when the Home Secretary came to his decision he had no information which had not previously been made available to the Parole Board?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, when my right honourable friend makes a decision, which he is specifically obliged to do under the law, he will have all the information made available to him by the Parole Board. He will also have official advice from the department and he can take further legal advice. All the information that he receives in order to come to a decision is made available to Mr. Rundle. If the noble Lord is asking me specifically, I am fairly certain that there was not a word, a dot or a comma that my right honourable friend had before him which was not available to the Parole Board and which would have been material to that body had it had that information.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, is that the case?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, if the noble Lord doubts my word I shall find out. However, I can say that no information which was material to the Parole Board making its decision was withheld from it.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I am not questioning whether the noble Baroness is telling us other than that 914 which she believes to be true. All I want to establish is what she is telling us. If I understand her correctly, she is now telling us that she is fairly certain that the Home Secretary did not have any additional information other than that which had previously been available to the Parole Board. If that is the situation, can she check it and perhaps write to us?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, of course I shall. I shall check what I said. My right honourable friend quite specifically considers the public interest, and that is not a specific obligation of the Parole Board. In considering the public interest, it may well be that my right honourable friend took other advice.

§ Baroness Faithfull
My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the position. If the decision of the Parole Board is overturned by the Home Secretary for very good reasons, has the man a right of appeal?

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
No.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, no, the man does not have a right of appeal when such a decision is made. The prisoner has the right to present his or her case to the Parole Board, and the full opportunity was taken as regards Mr. Rundle.