Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about light at the end of the tunnel. That is what this suite of amendments is about for a cohort of young people who, at the moment, will not be seeing a light at the end of that tunnel. I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for speaking with such clarity about what these amendments are about, and other noble Lords who have described what this must feel like for a young person and pointed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, did, to some of the remedies that these three amendments offer to the Minister and the Government. I hope that they take them up and carry them through.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for all the points made on this part of the Bill. I shall take it first in the general and then the particular. In the general, these amendments quite rightly put on the radar, the horizon and public consciousness the importance of dealing with prisoners who received their sentence when they were still under the age of 18. This is already a very important function that these amendments have performed. As for the question of the light at the end of the tunnel, I share the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, were very pertinent as to what it feels like to be incarcerated in the dramatic circumstances that he related.
It is the Government’s view that these prisoners, among others, need to have light at the end of the tunnel. This is the whole purpose and thrust of the Government’s approach. In practical terms, as I understand it we have 32 prisoners in this position who have not been released, another 48 who have been recalled, and a hundred or so out in the community. These figures may not be exactly right; they are not quite the same as those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, although they are approximately the same. For the recalled cohort and for those in the community, the reduction in the licence period from 10 years to three will be significant and very much benefit those serving this DPP sentence. Against this background, the Government are not quite persuaded that these amendments would achieve our joint objective of providing this light at the end of the tunnel.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he comment on the point I was making about the aim of having these reviews written into the statute? Subsection (2) in the new clause set out in Amendment 162 says that they are taking place
“with a view to ensuring that all possible steps are taken to enable their safe release at the earliest possible time”.
That flags up, at the outset, exactly what these reviews are dealing with. I do not know whether it is already in the action plan that the Minister has been referring to, but is there some way of getting that purpose clearly identified, and of course communicating that purpose to the DPP prisoners themselves who are subject to the system, so that they know that that is the purpose for which these reviews are being conducted?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for that point. It is certainly something I will take away when we come to consider the Government’s position.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I apologise, because I know my noble and learned friend wants to complete his speech, but I ask this question simply because I failed to hear. The action plan has been spoken of a lot during the course of this evening. Is that an existing document, and is it published?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, and yes.
On the basis that I accept, on behalf of the Government, the importance of this topic, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords in the Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, not least for giving us an opportunity to thank, once more, the Prison Reform Trust, and I would add the Howard League for Penal Reform and UNGRIPP, in particular, who are the family members of these desperate people in many cases. I thank her for pointing out this issue of the window of opportunity for rehabilitation and seeing another possible way of life.
Hope springs eternal, and therefore we are particularly lucky to have “hope” in the form of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is so active in this Committee. Every point he made was quite hard, if I may say so, to resist. But my man of the match, I am afraid, was, none the less the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, because I feel that one of the reasons that we have not had a serious penal reform campaign in this country, possibly since the Victorian period, is because we have lost empathy for the prisoner. We have locked them away—out of sight, out of mind. They do not vote, et cetera: all these things that will set the alarm bells ringing at the Daily Mail, if anybody is up there. We have lost empathy for these people. They are not human anymore; they are prisoners; but in this group of amendments at least, we are talking about people who were children when they were given this sentence, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, had sufficient empathy to compare “criminals” with his late father’s friend and a war hero is the kind of empathy that I rarely hear about any demonised group in our society, whether it is convicted people, refugees and asylum seekers or anyone else who is, for the moment, in a demonised category. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
I am grateful, of course, to my noble friend Lady Thornton for the support of the Labour Front Bench. She of course was an Equality Minister in the not-too-distant past, and I hope that she will be one in the not-too-distant future, shortly, or in due course, or whatever these other phrases are that are occasionally—
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not wish her noble friend to place overreliance on the word “quite” in terms of statutory amendments. Statutory amendments are rather different from a proper approach in the action plan and putting that on a statutory basis.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, but my hope is not dashed, not least because my noble friend is a force of nature, as he has demonstrated throughout his career with the integrity that others have referred to in the way that he has conducted himself over this particular issue in recent times. I need to put on the record for the Committee that he feels particularly strongly about the injustice faced by this cohort. I repeat: every argument we have aired earlier this evening becomes turbocharged in relation to these people, who were children when they were placed under this sentence. But for the moment, at least, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the force and sincerity with which she put forward her views, as indeed have other noble Lords who have supported Amendment 167, which would go down the road of the resentencing exercise that we have been discussing.
In setting out the Government’s position, I find it hard to improve on the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just made. This is a situation where we are dealing with the potential release of IPP offenders, who have committed mostly very serious sexual or violent offences. One would be overriding the decisions that the Parole Board has already taken, in most cases on multiple occasions, and would be putting the judge in the most difficult position.
Indeed, it is not a resentencing exercise in any normal sense of the word because, in most cases, the tariff has already expired. It is essentially a question of trying to do something different, dressed up as a resentencing exercise, to release persons who have already been held, on many occasions, to be unsafe to release. It is very difficult for the Government to go down that road. Again, there is a real risk, if one does go on that road, of wrongly raising the hopes of those who have put their faith in what is, in the Government’s view, not an appropriate way forward.
I want to add just one or two points. First, as the Committee is aware, I have on previous occasions—and I will do so on future occasions—emphasised the pressures we have at the moment on the prison population. The Government would be only too pleased to create further space in the prison population, or to relieve those pressures by releasing certain prisoners, but we have to consider the interests of public protection. It is not a question of being frightened of the media or of cowering in fear of the Daily Mail; it is a question of the protection of the public.
Any responsible Government would have to think very hard before a process that would allow the release, or that was envisaged to achieve the release—perhaps even unlicensed, without supervision—of large numbers of people in this position. I fully accept that the situation is regrettable. I accept the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is very regrettable that the whole thing arose in the first place. Terrible things may well have been happening back in 2005, but we are where we are. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have made my point; I will not reprise it again. The fallacy in both the Minister’s arguments is that he says they are dangerous, but actually the state has helped make them dangerous, if they are dangerous, by acting in the way in which it has. Normally, someone who has made a mistake accepts it and bears the consequences. I am not going to say any more because I will not persuade the Minister otherwise.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, from the point of view of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the premise advanced by the noble and learned Lord. I hear what he says. I do not accept, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, implied at one stage, that there is anything wrong with the Parole Board processes. I think I heard the word “dodgy” at one point, but I may have misheard. The Parole Board is a body that the Government have complete confidence in in this respect. This exercise should remain with the Parole Board.
I will say again: can we please distinguish between the problem of the released cohort and the problem of the never released cohort? We seem to drift from one to the other a lot of the time. Cases such as those of Matthew Price and, I think, the case of David Parker, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are cases where people have been recalled after having been in the community for many years. That will no longer happen. The question of the recall is very largely dealt with, or very substantially improved, by the Government’s amendments in this Bill. What we are dealing with primarily is the never—not yet—released cohort.
I say again, in the light of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks about the expected possible reaction of those who are still in prison and how to be particularly vigilant in supporting IPP prisoners in the light of these debates and related points, that the action plan is intended to give people hope. It is focused on their future to prepare them progressively with a sentence plan, the psychology services support, and a multidisciplinary progression panel towards eventual release. I think he would accept, even now, that the action plan has made a difference already; I see him nodding. We will take that forward and, as I say, it may well be the case the Government will be in a position to propose to your Lordships that the idea of an action plan should have a statutory basis, that the broad terms of its content should be set out and that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament so that—whatever Government comes into power—we can continue on the process that we have already started. The resentencing exercise is not, in the Government’s view, the way to go.
On that basis, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Attlee would not arise because we are not going down that road. I do not think I need to say anything further about them, save to remark that what is being proposed would impose a very significant burden on our existing probation services. For that reason as well, one would have to reflect very seriously before going down that route. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on this point.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my amendment was a very fine amendment, but my noble and learned friend the Minister has addressed it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and we will hear what the noble Baroness has to say.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with all the speakers so far. My concern is that Clauses 49 to 51 may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, to dilute the human rights framework through the back door.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. Several groups have rightly raised concerns about that.
I, too, cite the Prison Reform Trust, which said:
“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.
In written evidence to the JSC, the Bar Council stated:
“There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles”.
In his speech at Second Reading in the other place, the chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill, said:
“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]
I really could not have put it any better, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, this group is a stand part challenge to Clauses 49 to 52 of the Bill, which, in essence, disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoner release legislation. The issue before us is, as much as anything, to do with the constitutional balance between Parliament and the courts. It is not about disapplying the Human Rights Act; it is about who does what. What do the courts do and what does Parliament do? That is the issue.
The provisions with which we are concerned include the new release test for releasing prisoners on licence—namely, the public protection test set out in Clauses 41 and 42, which make it abundantly clear that the protection of the public is the overriding factor. The Human Rights Act is also disapplied in relation to the referral mechanism, referring the most serious release decisions by the Parole Board to a court—currently the Upper Tribunal—and to other prison release decisions. As far as I am aware, no amendment has been tabled in this House objecting to the principle of the new public protection test, nor to the proposed referral mechanism—though there is an argument about which court it should go to—nor to the principle of our IPP reforms, except that it is argued that we should go further. Parliament has plainly indicated what it is trying to achieve.
Against this background, where exactly does Section 3 of the Human Rights Act fit in? Lest any misunderstanding persist—which it seems to do—my first point is that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by any prisoners, or anyone else for that matter, by virtue of Section 1 of the Human Rights Act or under the convention. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, whether it be the right to liberty, family life or any other right protected by the convention. Clauses 49 to 51 do not alter or detract from those rights in any way.
Even if—which I do not for one moment believe—anything in the legislation from which Section 3 has been disapplied were held by a higher court to be incompatible with the convention rights, in such a hypothetical case it would be for the court to make a declaration of incompatibility. Then, in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it would be for Parliament to decide what to do—whether to amend the legislation and, if so, in what way. In other words, it is the job of Parliament to make challenged legislation compatible with the convention. It is Parliament’s legislation; it is for Parliament to fix it, and it is the constitutional responsibility of everyone in either House to find a legislative solution.
The problem with Section 3 is that it gives finding the legislative solution to somebody else altogether—namely the court. This is Parliament’s legislation and not the courts’. That was why I said at Second Reading that Section 3 of the HRA is, in essence, a procedural and interpretive provision that requires legislation to be given effect to in a way which is compatible with convention rights. Those words “given effect” have led, in certain circumstances, to the court reading in or reading down words into the legislation that Parliament has passed. In other words, the court is empowered under Section 3 to add to or subtract from what Parliament originally intended. This has been a difficult section to apply. It has required courts to depart from Parliament’s intention and, if I may say so, to stray into the legislative realm.
These amendments directly raise the proper balance between the courts and Parliament when it comes to legislative matters. That issue was highlighted in the 2021 Independent Human Rights Act Review. It was discussed over 80 pages, toing and froing on all sorts of points and suggesting numerous recommendations and amendments, with the majority of the panel finally recommending a series of reforms to Sections 2 and 3.
On the Government’s position that Section 3 is a most unusual power in this respect, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the trenchant criticism of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act on constitutional grounds by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, King’s Counsel, present in this Chamber, in his evidence to that 2021 review. His basic point was that it is not the function of the courts to legislate; it is the function of Parliament. Against that background, in the present context, the Government’s position is that, on an issue of importance, such as public protection and prisoner release, it is for Parliament to determine what the test should be.
In the unlikely event of any of those provisions being disapplied, and a declaration being made under Section 4, again, it is for this House and the other place to put it right and not to delegate, abdicate or push away that responsibility on to the courts. That is the Government’s position and it is essentially a question of the constitutional balance between what we do and what somebody else does—in other words, the courts. That is essentially the background to these amendments.
Clause 52 sets out the approach a court should take if there is a challenge on human rights grounds regarding the release of a prisoner. I do not accept the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the wording of Clause 52 is effectively saying that public protection is an exclusive requirement; it simply says that that is a requirement to which weight should be given. No doubt, the courts are perfectly capable of arriving at a sensible interpretation of the provision, but the Government’s view is that the importance of public protection is a matter that Parliament can rightly draw to the court’s attention as something to which weight should be given. I will just add that that requirement does not apply to the so-called non-derogable rights under the convention, which are: Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of torture; Article 4, the prohibition of slavery, and Article 7, no punishment without law.
The courts already consider risk to the public. The Bill simply ensures that weight is properly given to that consideration. The essential point is that on these matters, in this context, it is not for someone else to be reading in or reading down what your Lordships decide; it is for your Lordships and for Members of the other House to put matters right.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, having heard that explanation, on the first part I suspect that this will have to come back when we have an array of former judges of all sorts in this House to test the position the Government have placed on this matter. To a lay person, it seems to be on a trail of chipping away Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, in particular. Therefore, I think this can wait for another day to have that legal learning that I think we will all need to take it on board.
In respect of the Minister’s second point, about weight, it would not be so bad if it were simply “weight”; it would not be quite so bad if it were “great weight”; but it is “the greatest possible weight” and the greatest possible weight to me means virtually everything you can possibly put into it. I will take a simple Welsh analogy. You have a scrum. You put the weight of everybody into it with the objective of pushing the other side off the ball so that you can take it yourselves. That is where you would apply “the greatest possible weight”. There might be a bit of pulling of hair and ears, and whatever else goes on inside a scrum—but I am not going to talk about that any more.
If you think about it, though, the words “the greatest possible weight” are pretty conclusive that what you must do is virtually everything that is in sight. So, I take on board the Minister’s view that the word “weight” is important, but I do not take on board the words “the greatest possible weight”. However, on the basis of the future legal discussion we are likely to have in this House, I beg leave to withdraw my objection to Clause 49 standing part.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group is actually more limited than the debate that we have had. It was very succinctly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, when he gave his three short points in introducing his amendments. Very amusingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said that the shadow of Dominic Raab should not remain across this Bill. A good way of removing the shadow is with these three amendments here.
The debate has strayed into the next group, but I will not address any comments on that group. As far as the specific proposals in the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, of course we agree with them on this side of the Chamber. I noted the point that the noble and learned Lord made about the reason why the chair of the Parole Board would not have a judicial function. It would mean that he or she could be sacked.
I also noted the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and other noble Lords, that it is absolutely normal and to be expected that in any number of judicial and quasi-judicial roles, the heads of those particular functions also sit as judges. That is standard practice and it adds confidence to the various institutions that the people who head them are also practising and sitting tribunal chairs or judges.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but there is a very strong array of speakers against the Government’s proposals, including the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who is a former chair of the Parole Board. We have two former Lord Chief Justices, a former Solicitor-General and my noble friend, a former shadow Attorney-General. It sounds like a pretty convincing line-up against the Minister.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for speaking to his amendments with his customary clarity. I hope I can be helpful to him and the Committee in my response.
I have heard unmistakeably the reservations expressed across the Committee about these proposals. Before saying anything else, I undertake to represent to my noble and learned friend the Minister the strength of those reservations. I do so without commitment at this stage but in good faith. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain where the Government are currently coming from in making these proposals so that noble Lords can understand the issues as we perceive them.
Amendment 169 seeks to remove lines 35 and 36 of Clause 53, which would have the same effect as removing the clause in its entirety. Clause 53 amends Section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows the Secretary of State to make rules with respect to the proceedings of the Parole Board. At the moment, the provision permits rules to be made about how many members deal with particular cases, or that specified cases be dealt with at specified times. This clause adds that the Secretary of State may also require cases to be dealt with by
“members of a prescribed description”.
Amendment 169 seeks to remove that addition.
I will explain briefly why we want to ensure that the Secretary of State can make rules about who sits on parole cases. In the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, the Government committed to increasing
“the number of Parole Board members from a law enforcement background”
and ensuring that every parole panel considering a case involving the most serious offenders has a law enforcement member on it. We are talking here about murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like.
The Government of course recognise that each and every type of Parole Board member brings with them different experience and skills. That range and diversity contributes to generally effective risk assessments and sound decision-making. However, members with law enforcement experience, such as former police officers, have particular first-hand knowledge of the impact and seriousness of offending. Many will also have direct experience of the probation system, including, for example, licence conditions and the likelihood of an offender’s compliance with such conditions.
Clause 53 enables the Secretary of State to make the secondary legislation needed to prescribe that certain Parole Board panels include members with a law enforcement background. We will, naturally, continue to consider operational readiness before we lay any secondary legislation. I hope that explanation is of help.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Am I to draw the inference from what my noble friend has just said that, under the current arrangements, inappropriate members of the board have been inappropriately appointed to particular cases?
Earl Howe (Con)
No, not at all, but we think that certain Parole Boards can be strengthened usefully by having additional members with the experience that I have described. I have not implied or, I hope, made any criticisms of Parole Boards that have sat in the past or their decisions.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I think that the explanation means that there is no confidence in the judgment of the chairman of the Parole Board to constitute the panels that they think are needed. Why is there a need for direction from the Secretary of State? That is what I fail to understand.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have heard the arguments. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow that I have already given an undertaking to take those arguments back with me, and I will do so.
Turning, if I may, to Amendments 170 and 171, the first of these seeks to remove the power currently in the Bill which would allow the Secretary of State to dismiss the Parole Board chair on public confidence grounds and would remove the prohibition on the chair’s involvement in individual parole cases. Amendment 171 seeks to ensure that the chair would continue to be permitted to attend and participate in individual parole cases alongside the more strategic role defined by other amendments to the chair’s functions.
Let me begin by confirming that Clause 54(10) means that any changes in respect of the chair of the Parole Board do not impact on the appointment or functions of the current chair, Caroline Corby. Caroline has led the board well since her initial appointment in 2018, and the Government are very grateful to her for her leadership. However, there might be an exceptional occasion in the future when requiring a change of chair before the end of their appointment period is the best or only option. For that reason, new sub-paragraph (2C) within Clause 54(5) gives the Secretary of State the power to remove a chair from office if it becomes necessary on the grounds of public confidence.
Lord German (LD)
What is the term of office? There is a difference between the impact assessment, which says three years, and the pack against which people have applied, which says five years. Which is true? I am happy if the Minister wants to reply in writing.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I am sorry that it is very late and I am being tiresome. My noble friend the Minister said that there may come a time or there may be circumstances in which it would be necessary to remove the chairman or chairwoman of the Parole Board. I wonder whether my noble friend could perhaps give me one or two examples of the sets of circumstances in which that might apply.
Earl Howe (Con)
A mechanism already exists for the Secretary of State to ask an independent panel to consider dismissing the chair if there are concerns about the postholder’s performance or ability to do the job effectively. That route remains our preferred approach in the unlikely event that a dismissal is required. However, as the board is a high-profile public body, making important decisions on public protection every day, it is right, in the Government’s submission, that the Justice Secretary should have the levers to change the leadership if a situation arose where it was necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the work of the board. It is not a power that any Secretary of State would ever use lightly, and ideally there will never be a cause to use it at all. We are talking here about situations where, for example, there might be conflicts of interest, security issues or confidentiality issues. At the moment, my understanding is that there is no mechanism to dismiss a chair should any issue of that kind arise. The grounds at the moment are quite restrictive.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Just to be clear, the Government are proposing that they will need to sack somebody who could be responsible for a breach of confidence, a breach of security, or some other grievous breach; but they will already have appointed this person to that job. Surely the vetting procedure leading up to the appointment would weed out the sort of eccentric people who would leak, or breach confidence, or misconduct themselves.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is exactly why I said that it is not a power that it is likely any Secretary of State would use often, if at all.
Lord German (LD)
To add to that point, I read out the list of delegations to Ministers about the appointment of the Parole Board chair. I am sure that Members of the House will have realised that it is a pretty extensive power over who gets a job. I wonder whether those delegations have altered. Once again, if the Minister does not know, perhaps he could write to me before we get to Report.
Earl Howe (Con)
I should be happy to do so.
Alongside this new power, we are setting out for the first time in statute the functions of the Parole Board’s chair. The intention is both to define the chair’s role as a strategic leadership role and to make it clear that the postholder does not play any part in the board’s decision-making when it comes to considering individual parole cases. The package of measures here, I am advised, ensures that the provisions that we are putting in place are consistent with the European convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked me why the Justice Secretary will send only some cases to the Upper Tribunal, and whether he will delegate the power to officials. In line with other significant powers that the Secretary of State operates, such as the power to detain under Section 244ZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows the SSJ to override a prisoner’s automatic release date and refer the case to the board, the operation of the power will be restricted to cases where it is considered necessary to take the not insignificant step of referral of a case via an operational policy.
It will be up to the Secretary of State to decide which of those cases they would like to refer to an independent court for a second check. We will develop criteria to ensure that this power is used only in those few cases where it is in the interests of protecting the public and maintaining public confidence. It will also be up to the Secretary of State, if he or she wishes, to delegate the power to senior officials, but we will ensure that there is a robust process in place.
I am of the view that retaining this clause—having a safeguard in case removal is ever necessary and being clear about what the role of the chair is—is vital. However, as I said at the start, I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said. I understand the concerns expressed. Without commitment at this stage, I undertake to consider the issues very carefully, in conjunction with my noble and learned friend, between now and Report.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the noble Earl for agreeing to take all these points to the Minister. There are two points I really want to make. First, it is suggested that these decisions are somehow quasi-judicial. I had assumed that two of our most basic rights are not to be locked up and not to have our freedoms curtailed by restrictions. Deciding on those points is judicial; there is nothing “quasi” about it. Therefore, how “quasi” has got into this is, to my mind, a complete misapprehension. I hope it can be corrected, because the protection of your liberty and your freedom to do what you do as an ordinary person is essentially something that a judge must decide and no one else.
Secondly, I hope the Minister—not the noble Earl—will think back to his own experience when he sat as chairman of various judicial bodies. I do not know who the Government have in mind, but it is utterly absurd to think that they could maybe appoint someone who has run a large department store—there may be one of those becoming vacant in a moment—someone who has been head of a particular branch of the Civil Service, a retired physician, or a person who has run a hospital trust. These are the kind of people who know absolutely nothing about the difficulties of making a decision. The chairman of the Parole Board has to do the business, and if that person does not do the business, no one—not the public and certainly not the members of the Parole Board—will have any confidence in them.
I have put the message quite strongly; I think it has been understood. I am sorry to have gone on a little bit longer on these points at this late hour. I must particularly thank the noble Earl for the very courteous and clear way that he dealt with this. I look forward to seeing him be a much better advocate than me in persuading the Minister to make a decision that removes all three of these clauses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.