I beg to move amendment No. 906, in

clause 236, page 130, line 12, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 13.

I have been reflecting on the wording of the amendment, and I am not sure whether it achieves my intentions, so I say right from the start that I do

not intend to press it to a Division. However, I wish to use it to explore an important issue.

The clause enables persons to whom the extended sentence detailed by clause 236 applies to be removed from the United Kingdom at the appropriate break point in their sentence without reference to the Parole Board. The argument given in the explanatory notes is that if a person is being sent abroad, they are out of sight and out of mind, and the Parole Board is therefore not relevant to that procedure. However, it is important to remember that clause 236 applies to clauses 207 and 208, which cover those offenders who have been convicted of violent or sexual offences and are considered to be a significant risk to members of the public, through the occasioning of serious harm in the future.

If the Government plan to release people who are likely to commit further serious offences of a violent or sexual nature, it, it does not matter ha'pence whether they are released in this country or into another community to commit those offences. It is an irresponsible act. Surely we in the United Kingdom have some responsibility to the public in other countries.

If a person is likely to remain a serious threat to public safety, irrespective of whether the Secretary of State makes the decision without the benefit of the advice of the Parole Board, that person should be released only if that means translation to imprisonment or appropriate custody or other sentence in another jurisdiction. Anything else is simply washing our hands of the results of our action. That is not the behaviour of a responsible Government or judicial system.

In what circumstances would the power be used? Would not it be more sensible for the Parole Board still to be consulted? If the board maintained the view that the individual represented a serious threat to the public, would not it be more appropriate for that person neither to be released in this country nor deported to be free to commit further offences in another country? The provision seems irresponsible, and I cannot support it. I should need a great deal of justification from the Minister to show in what circumstances it would be appropriate to send serious offenders elsewhere to do their mischief.

A prisoner who is liable for removal from the United Kingdom—that is what we are talking about: people who can be deported—and who is serving an extended sentence can be deported after serving half the sentence. Under the clause, release followed by deportation would occur automatically halfway through the sentence. Clearly, offenders who are not being deported are, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, subject to the Parole Board's decision about their release. The amendment would make the release of offenders due for deportation also a matter for the Parole Board.

It might be helpful to mention that the clause is a re-enactment of section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Only a few offenders would be covered by the provision, which has been in force for getting on for 12 years. The difficulty with the amendment is that the

Parole Board would consider matters such as licence conditions and supervision following release, which are irrelevant to someone who is to be deported. There would be no means of enforcing those licence conditions or ensuring supervision. It is simpler and more practical to deport such offenders at the earliest opportunity.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it would be for the jurisdictions that were to receive individuals who had been convicted in the way set out in the Bill—or, indeed, people convicted of very serious offences under the current provisions, who reached the end of a fixed sentence and were then deported and returned to their country of origin—to determine how to safeguard themselves and their people. However, given that the clause is a re-enactment, I undertake to find out more about the extent to which the existing statute has been used, and about what is done, in the few relevant cases, to inform the other jurisdiction that the person in question is coming its way.

With respect, that does not answer the point. Informing the other jurisdiction is of no benefit because, unless its legal system is oddly framed, it would be unable to take into account the offence committed by the individual while he was in the United Kingdom, where the offence is, effectively, a spent offence, because the term of imprisonment has ended. I cannot envisage circumstances in which that person could then be taken into custody for that offence. So we have a situation in which, if the person had remained in this country, he might have been assessed by the Parole Board as continuing to pose a risk to the community, but the moment he goes outside British jurisdiction, he is entirely at liberty, irrespective of whether that advice is given to another jurisdiction.

I said that I was not entirely satisfied with the purport of the amendment because it still allows the Secretary of State to make a decision, irrespective of the Parole Board's decision to deport in those circumstances. I add that proviso about the strict interpretation of the amendment. What would happen if the polarity of the situation were to be reversed? The situation does not apply in European Union jurisdictions, but let us suppose that it does. Can one imagine what the tabloid newspapers would make of it if the French Government were to send us people who had been convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who, in the view of the competent authorities, remained a danger to the public at large, who had served only half of the sentence imposed by the court in that jurisdiction, and who were then deported to our shores and were at liberty to commit offences in our jurisdiction? My suspicion is that the editor of The Sun would have something to say about that, and I believe that any responsible person would.

Whether it is a re-enactment or not, it opens up some serious questions about the policy objectives of allowing people to be deported in such circumstances, other than to go directly into custody in another

jurisdiction, which is entirely different. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said, but he has not really dealt with the case that I put to him. I should be interested to receive any information that he can give me on the number of occasions on which the provision has been used in the past and in what circumstances. The matter is a cause for grave concern and undermines co-operation between jurisdictions and police authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 568, in

clause 236, page 130, line 14, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Clause 236, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 237 and 238 ordered to stand part of the Bill.