Clause 53
Policing and Crime Bill
4:00 pm
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
I have some further information that may be of benefit to the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), in answer to the questions that they put earlier on our debate on amendment 253.
First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—no doubt, he will intervene if I do not fully answer the comments that he made—for highlighting the error in clause 48(6)(a), which refers to
“the Council Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System of 12 December 2006”.
We have looked into the issue and we will amend subsection 6(a), so that it refers to the Council Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system of 12 June 2007. That change can be made by way of printing, so I am advised by parliamentary counsel that there is no need for an amendment.
At the end of the previous sitting, I was responding to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who raised a particularly important point that we must clarify; I thank him again for the helpful points that he made. I was explaining that, where someone has been extradited to an EU member state before the end of their UK sentence, clause 53 makes it clear that time spent in custody overseas will only fall to be deducted from the relevant UK sentence where the person in question has been extradited to face trial and has then been acquitted of all charges.
However, where time falls to be deducted from a UK sentence, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch rightly pointed out, it is possible for someone who was extradited at a time when they were serving the custodial period of any sentence to return to the UK after the date on which they would ordinarily have been released on licence. The reassurance that I think the hon. Member for Hornchurch is seeking in tabling this amendment is that, where this situation arises, a person returning to the UK would not be automatically released into the community without proper consideration being given to the terms of their release. I am pleased to be able to reassure him that that certainly will not be the case. Proposed new section 59(6)(b), which would be inserted into the Extradition Act 2003 by clause 53, makes it clear that where a person who has been extradited while in custody returns to the UK and is entitled to be released on licence, they are
“liable to be detained...by a constable or immigration officer”
so that they can then be formally released.
The purpose of this limited period of detention is to meet the need that the hon. Member for Hornchurch has flagged up; that is, to ensure that all the usual procedures that must be carefully followed before someone is released on licence are followed where a person who has been extradited returns to the UK. Crucially, that will allow the authorities to ensure that the conditions of the licence fit the offender and that all the relevant bodies charged with dealing with offenders after release are aware of the situation. While clause 53 would allow someone to be detained in order for them to be released on licence, detention would only be for as long as was strictly necessary in order for the person to be released.
That was raised by Liberty in the public evidence sessions, and I want to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of detention here is solely in order for the person to have their licence imposed or for them to be released. However, this is an important point and I will consider whether we need to do something further. Effectively, we are detaining someone who has come back and who, had they been serving their sentence in the UK, would already have been released on licence. Clearly, detaining someone in that situation meets the public policy need of ensuring that the conditions of a licence are put in place. There is an issue about making sure that any detention needed to fulfil those licence conditions is as short as possible. While that is implicit in the Bill, and I have made it explicit in my remarks in Committee, the question is whether it should be explicit in the Bill. I think I need to reflect on that further as the Bill makes progress. I hope those remarks have helped the hon. Member for Hornchurch and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.