Criminal Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 2:45 pm ar 11 Chwefror 2003.
David Heath
Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)
This is an opportunity for the Government to be absolutely clear about their intentions towards the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Stafford and compatibility with human rights legislation, and towards the House of
Lords in the case of Anderson. There was a clear indication that the Home Secretary's immediate reaction to those judgments was to seek to reintroduce the Home Secretary's role in dealing with the Parole Board on early release. It is not explicit in the Bill that it will do that job. There is fuzziness in the Government's approach as to whether the Bill is the vehicle that they have chosen—as they would say—to rectify that omission. We would say that an anomaly in the present situation will continue. It is entirely sensible to ask the Minister whether he believes that this is the vehicle to rectify the omission. If it is not, when does he intend to rectify it? Moreover, why has he not used the Bill to do so, given the clear intention that the Home Secretary expressed after the judgments in question were made?
Subsections (5) and (6) would give the Home Secretary a degree of control over the Parole Board. It is at least debatable that that degree of control would be in excess of that which is compatible with human rights legislation. The Clause might be subject to further challenge if it were found that that power had been used inappropriately.
First, the Minister must satisfy the Committee that what he is doing deals—or does not deal—with the situation. Secondly, if it is not intended to deal with it, does it not give the Home Secretary an inappropriately strong role in the Parole Board's proceedings? If the Minister does not believe that to be the case, why does he believe that? Why does he believe that for the Home Secretary to exercise that power in future would not fall foul of precisely the same legal findings of incompatibility as his previous Intervention?
Hilary Benn
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) (Minister for Prisons and Probation)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated after the Stafford judgment that he intends to review the directions on the release of prisoners serving life sentences, with a view to strengthening them. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that there is no legal impediment to the Home Secretary setting down directions, as long as they are compliant. I should point out that the Home Secretary is responsible for criminal justice policy, and is accountable to Parliament for all aspects of that policy. He is also, ultimately, responsible for the supervision of all offenders on licence and answerable to Parliament in respect of their release arrangements. It is therefore wholly reasonable that he should be able to set down the considerations that are to be taken into account when determining whether to grant early release.
However, that does not give the Home Secretary unfettered discretion to set down excessive or unreasonable criteria that must be met before release can be granted. All directions must be compliant with article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The rules that the Home Secretary may make have no influence on the determination of applications for early release. They offer a procedural framework within which the Parole Board works when it sits in a quasi-judicial capacity in the form of oral hearings. Although the Home Office draws up the rules, the Parole Board is always fully consulted.
Therefore we accept entirely that directions, in order to be lawful, must be compliant with article 6.
David Heath
Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)
That was not an entirely convincing argument.
David Heath
Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)
I was listening carefully, and I hoped that the Minister was going to make a more clinching point than simply saying that the proposal was not necessary. I remain to be convinced, as, I suspect, does my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), that the Government are addressing the issues raised by the judgments, or that the power to intervene is necessary bearing in mind the need for the independence of the Parole Board in exercising its functions. Having said that, we are likely to return to the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 219 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Also referred to as the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights was instituted as a place to hear Human Rights complaints from Council of Europe Member States; it consists of a number of judges equal to the number of Council of Europe seats (which currently stands at 45 at the time of writing), divided into four geographic- and gender-balanced "Sections" eac of which selects a Chamber (consisting of a President and six rotating justices), and a 17-member Grand Chamber consisting of a President, Vice-Presidents, and all Section Presidents, as well as a rotating selection of other justices from one of two balanced groups.
An intervention is when the MP making a speech is interrupted by another MP and asked to 'give way' to allow the other MP to intervene on the speech to ask a question or comment on what has just been said.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
Eric Illsley
Llafur, Barnsley Central