Clause 16

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at on 20 November 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Release of prisoners after recall

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice 4:00, 20 November 2007

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in clause 16, page 10, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) After section 255 of that Act (recall of prisoners released early under section 246) insert—

“255A Further release after recall: introductory

(1) This section applies for the purpose of identifying which of sections 255B to 255D governs the further release of a person who has been recalled under section 254 (“the prisoner”).

(2) The prisoner is eligible to be considered for automatic release unless—

(a) he is an extended sentence prisoner or a specified offence prisoner; or

(b) he has, during the same term of imprisonment, already been released under section 255B(1)(b) or (2) or section 255C(2).

(3) If the prisoner is eligible to be considered for automatic release the Secretary of State must, on recalling him, consider whether he is suitable for automatic release.

(4) For this purpose “automatic release” means release at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the prisoner is returned to prison.

(5) The person is suitable for automatic release only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he will not present a risk of serious harm to members of the public if he is released at the end of that period.

(6) The prisoner must be dealt with—

(a) in accordance with section 255B if he is suitable for automatic release;

(b) in accordance with section 255C if he is eligible to be considered for automatic release but was not considered to be suitable for it;

(c) in accordance with section 255C if he is a specified offence prisoner;

(d) in accordance with section 255D if he is an extended sentence prisoner.

(7) The prisoner is an “extended sentence prisoner” if he is serving an extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228 of this Act, section 58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

(8) The prisoner is a “specified offence prisoner” if (not being an extended sentence prisoner) he is serving a sentence imposed for a specified offence within the meaning of section 224.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend the number of days for the time being specified in subsection (4).

(10) In subsection (2) “term of imprisonment” means—

(a) in relation to a prisoner who is, or is to be treated as, serving a single term of imprisonment, that term;

(b) in relation to a prisoner serving two or more sentences of imprisonment (whether concurrently or consecutively), the aggregate of the periods that the prisoner is required—

(i) to serve in prison, or

(ii) to be on licence.

(11) In subsection (5) “serious harm” means death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological.

255B Automatic release

(1) A prisoner who is suitable for automatic release must—

(a) on his return to prison, be informed that he will be released under this subsection, and

(b) at the end of the 28 day period mentioned in section 255A(4) (or such other period as is specified for the purposes of that subsection), be released by the Secretary of State on licence under this Chapter (unless he has already been released under subsection (2)).

(2) The Secretary of State may, at any time after a prisoner who is suitable for automatic release is returned to prison, release him again on licence under this Chapter.

(3) The Secretary of State must not release a person under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that he should remain in prison until the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b).

(4) If a prisoner who is suitable for automatic release makes representations under section 254(2) before the end of that period, the Secretary of State must refer his case to the Board on the making of those representations.

(5) Where on a reference under subsection (4) relating to any person the Board recommends his immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must give effect to the recommendation.

(6) In the case of an intermittent custody prisoner who has not yet served in prison the number of custodial days specified in the intermittent custody order, any recommendation by the Board as to immediate release on licence is to be a recommendation as to his release on licence until the end of one of the licence periods specified by virtue of section 183(1)(b) in the intermittent custody order.

255C Specified offence prisoners and those not suitable for automatic release

(1) This section applies to a prisoner who—

(a) is a specified offence prisoner, or

(b) was eligible to be considered for automatic release but was not considered to be suitable for it.

(2) The Secretary of State may, at any time after the person is returned to prison, release him again on licence under this Chapter.

(3) The Secretary of State must not release a person under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that he should remain in prison.

(4) The Secretary of State must refer to the Board the case of any person to whom this section applies—

(a) if the person makes representations under section 254(2) before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he is returned to prison, on the making of those representations, or

(b) if, at the end of that period, the person has not been released under subsection (2) and has not made such representations, at that time.

(5) Where on a reference under subsection (4) relating to any person the Board recommends his immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must give effect to the recommendation.

(6) In the case of an intermittent custody prisoner who has not yet served in prison the number of custodial days specified in the intermittent custody order, any recommendation by the Board as to immediate release on licence is to be a recommendation as to his release on licence until the end of one of the licence periods specified by virtue of section 183(1)(b) in the intermittent custody order.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the number of days for the time being specified in subsection (4)(a).

255D Extended sentence prisoners

(1) The Secretary of State must refer to the Board the case of any extended sentence prisoner.

(2) Where on a reference under subsection (1) relating to any person the Board recommends his immediate release on licence under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must give effect to the recommendation.”’.

Photo of Frank Cook Frank Cook Labour, Stockton North

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 16, page 10, line 43, at end insert

‘, subject to the agreement of a Crown Court judge’.

Amendment No. 138, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, at end insert—

‘(c) if the person is under the age of 18, at the date of his or her return to prison.’.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 16, page 11, leave out line 33 and 34.

Amendment No. 84, in clause 16, page 12, line 2, leave out first ‘is’ and insert ‘and the Board are’.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 16, page 12, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) if the person is under the age of 18, at the date of his or her return to prison.’.

Amendment No. 85, in clause 16, page 12, leave out lines 22 and 23.

Government amendments Nos. 75 and 76.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment No. 77.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Welcome back for the afternoon sitting, Mr. Cook.

Government amendment No. 74 replicates the re-release provisions in clause 16 as it stands. In the light of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, we tried to put them into a structure that would be easier for practitioners to understand. That is not the result of this morning’s discussion. None the less, I hope that the hon. and learned Member will accept that we are trying—perhaps very trying. We are doing our best.

The provisions, which essentially replicate those in the original clause, define three groups of determinate sentence prisoners for whom different re-release procedures following recall must apply. The first group is offenders who are serving a determinate sentence for offences that are neither violent nor of a sexual nature. We are attempting to ensure that if such prisoners, having been assessed as not presenting a risk of harm to the public, are recalled, that will be for a fixed period of up to 28 days, at which point they will automatically be re-released. That is a significant change from the current arrangements, but in my view it would ensure that recall would be not a punitive measure but a measure of protection for the public; it would ensure that the purpose of fixed term recalls is to remove offenders from often rapidly deteriorating situations, and place them in secure environments.

The probation service will have the opportunity to review the supervision arrangements and, if need be, apply for additional restrictions. The enforcement of the licence through recall also underlines, for the offender, the importance of future compliance. I reassure the Committee that if individuals who are recalled for up to 28 days go out into the community again and commit further offences or cause further difficulties while on licence, they will be returned to custody until, potentially, the end of the sentence, and not for a second fixed term period.

The second group is of determinate sentence prisoners who are serving a sentence for crimes of a sexual or violent nature, or who have been assessed as unsuitable for automatic re-release because they present a risk of serious harm, or, indeed, have already served one fixed term recall and as a result are no longer eligible for automatic re-release. The provisions allow for such prisoners to be re-released through two possible routes. In the first, the Secretary of State has discretion to examine the case and determine whether re-release should occur; that involves determining that the offender is safe to release. The decision will be taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of up-to-date risk assessments provided by probation staff. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied on the matter, there is the option, as there is now, of the Parole Board. The case of any recall prisoner who remains in custody for 28 days must be referred to the Parole Board. If neither the Secretary of State nor the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to re-release the prisoner, he must accordingly remain in custody.

The third and final category in the amendment, which also replicates the original clause, is of those sexual or violent offenders who are serving extended sentences. Such prisoners will be re-released only if the Parole Board recommends it. If the board does not consider it safe to re-release them following their recall they can potentially be held until the end of their sentence.

We are trying to demonstrate swift and effective enforcement of licence conditions. The figures on enforcement of licence conditions following breaches of licence show 33 per cent. enforcement in 1997, rising to 91 per cent. in 2006. We need to manage that in connection with the prison population. The proposals strike a balance between public protection and ensuring that licence conditions are met. Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77 are consequential upon the main amendment.

That leads me to the Opposition amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. In my view, amendment No. 13 would produce a further step before recall takes place in requiring prisoners recalled for a fixed term to be referred to the Crown Court before they can be re-released. That measure is potentially slow and cumbersome and would add very little to the process. I will be grateful to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman’s reasons for that amendment, but if it is designed to enhance public protection, I reiterate that prisoners serving sentences for sexual and violent offences are automatically precluded from being given fixed term recall and that prisoners eligible for fixed term recall will be subject to the risk assessment conducted by probation staff that I mentioned earlier. I believe that the probation service is well placed to assess the level of risk presented by an  offender and that it will do a sound job in that regard. The Secretary of State will also have considerable powers to examine in detail any assessment showing whether the offender presents a further risk to the community. I believe that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure public protection. It is not in our interests to put public safety at risk.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to re-release a young offender following recall. I recognise that the provision to re-release recalled prisoners using Executive powers as opposed to going through the Parole Board is a departure from existing practice. However, as I have already mentioned, we are keen to refocus the board’s energies to considering the release and recall of the most dangerous offenders in the system—those who serve long terms for sexual and violent offences. In that way, it can provide a most useful service in protecting the public.

Amendment No. 14 would deny the Committee, the House and the Government the opportunity to amend the number of days that an offender serves on recall, other than by amending the Act through further primary legislation. Similarly, amendment No. 85 would remove the associated order-making power in new section 254A(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The introduction of fixed term recall provisions is a new initiative. We trailed it in our paper published on the first day of the Ministry of Justice, 9 May. As with other provisions, it has the support of not only the previous Lord Chancellor, but the present Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

May I test the Minister on one aspect of legislation within his Department? He refers to the Lord Chancellor, who is the Secretary of State for Justice. However, the legislation refers to “the Secretary of State”, which, as we know is an interchangeable term between any Secretary of State and could therefore put this very important power within the compass of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That would place the matter in the executive arm rather than in the Department of Justice. I wonder why the term Lord Chancellor, which is still a statutory position that separates its holder from the run-of-the-mill Secretaries of State, has not been used in this legislation.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

That is an interesting probing point. In terms of Pepper v. Hart, I will make some policy on the hoof and say that, for these purposes, the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. In the event that I find that that is incorrect, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. That seems to me to be relatively clear in the circumstances.

I hope that with that point and the hon. Gentleman’s ever helpful smiling contributions—I think that today’s score is about 2-all—I commend the revised Government amendment to the Committee. I urge the hon. and learned Member for Harborough not to press his amendments.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

Sacre bleu, nom d’un nom, merci beaucoup.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Cook, for inviting me to contribute to the debate on clause 16. I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to deal with amendments Nos. 138 and 139, which deal with the point about which he spoke this morning—the age of the persons subject to recall. I shall concentrate briefly on our amendments Nos. 13, 14, 84 and 85, which fit into two sets.

One set deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make orders amending the number of days for the time specified in particular new subsections. Amendment No. 14 deals with the number of days that come under what was, until the Minister moved his amendment, the provisions on pages 11 and 12 of the Bill. About 40 pages of new amendments were tabled by the Government at the end of last week, so, not for the first time, they have come forward with a complete rewrite of the guts of clause 16. If we read the clause alongside the amendment paper, we would see a completely different animal.

Although my amendments do not now tag on in the same way to the latest set of Government amendments to clause 16, they allow us to discuss the powers of the Secretary of State. A moment ago, we heard the Minister claim reasons of administrative efficiency—he said that if the Conservative amendment were made, each time that we wanted to change the number of days we would have to amend the primary legislation. Well, there is nothing much to worry about if we have to get the Government to come back to Parliament to ask for permission to do things.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know of the affirmative procedure. Any change made by the Secretary of State in the number of days would have to come before both Houses of Parliament anyway.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

I do know that, but it does not alter the fact that I find the giving of powers to the Executive—the handing away from Parliament of the ability to control in an effective way a Secretary of State—something difficult to live with. Given the great avalanche of legislation that is coming through, of course we understand that if we did not give the Secretary of State, of whichever Department, the power to amend primary legislation, we would be stuck dealing with statutory instruments or special debates on matters as detailed as adjusting the number of days that the Secretary of State, or rather the statute as the Bill will be by then, would apply to a recalled defendant.

As a matter of principle, we should not always nod through such matters. In too many cases, we have seen the Secretary of State taking unto himself powers to alter primary legislation. The affirmative procedure is better than nothing. I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in the Whips Office.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

They know their trade. If the Minister is trying to persuade us that the affirmative procedure is an effective way of holding the  Government to account, he is still wearing his Whip’s hat and he ought to get out more. I assure him that there is no better way of getting what he wants by bundling something upstairs with a short Committee process, particularly towards Christmas as hon. Members are busy concerning themselves over all sorts of other things but the matter in hand.

I do not need to expand on the argument; I have made my point and I think that old subsection (7) and old subsection (10) are just another set of examples of where we are losing control of the Executive and the Executive must be kept in check.

Through amendment No. 13, I want to add to clause 16 as previously drafted the requirement that a Crown court judge should agree before someone is released, not before he is recalled. In a sense this is a slightly fruitless conversation because what I am arguing about will no longer be part of the Bill if the Government have their way and their amendment No. 74 is made. However, let us struggle on and see how we go.

Proposed new section 254A(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states:

“If the Secretary of State is satisfied, on recalling a person to whom this section applies, that the person will not present a risk of serious harm to the public if he is released at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he is returned to prison, then subsection (4) applies.”

Amendment No. 13 would insert at the end of that subsection:

“subject to the agreement of a Crown court judge.”

I am after some form of judicial input, so that it is not the Secretary of State—not a politician or the Executive—who is deciding when a recalled prisoner should be released. There should be something outside Government dealing with matters of this sort. That is precisely why in my amendment I include the board—the Parole Board—in relation to proposed new section 254B(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, such that the section would read: “The Secretary of State must not release a person under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State and the Board are satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that he should remain in prison.”

I am not trying to stop the release of people whom it is appropriate to release or to prevent the Secretary of State and the judicial system from recalling for periods limited to 28 days those who have committed breaches, because I can see that there is good sense in setting a short return period for those who committed breaches while on licence. What I do think is important—this is a constitutional point as much as a point of detail relating to the Bill—is that Secretaries of State should not have a direct say on whether somebody should be released or not, whether they are Secretaries of State in the ordinary sense of that term or whether we are using the term interchangeably just because the Lord Chancellor happens to be the Secretary of State for Justice. It should be either the Parole Board or some quasi-judicial or judicial input that makes the decision.

As I said earlier, this is a slightly unreal discussion because my amendments relate to a provision that the Government are not satisfied with themselves. They  have taken it out and put in two and a half pages of their own revisions under Government amendment No. 74.

I will finish by making one or two general remarks about the 28-day automatic recall period. I think that that is sensible, based on the experience of the state of New York. The recall rules there have been changed in respect of people on parole who have committed minor acts of misconduct—they might have had a row with their neighbour in the next-door flat, or there has been a minor altercation over a parking space but it did not lead to anything of a serious criminal nature. Under the old rules in the state of New York, if reported to the police, those people were automatically recalled to continue to serve their life sentence in custody, and the prisons were becoming full of people who were perfectly safe but had had one minor loss of temper, which led to the recall. We do not need that. My understanding is the position in New York is that the behaviour of paroled prisoners on licence has improved markedly. The prisons run more efficiently and humanely as a consequence of not having a lot of people who are recalled for minor breaches.

If we accept the deal that people should be recalled only when necessary and if there is a limited 28-day period subject to all the safeguards so that if the man—I say man because it usually is a man—is a danger to the public, he will have to serve out a far longer period on recall, I would ask the Government to do me the deal of allowing the release from recall to have a far greater judicial input, and not to be a decision made by the Secretary of State.

We need clarification. This is not a flippant point—it arises from the intervention by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the office of Secretary of State. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which attempted to do away with the office of Lord Chancellor, and the guarantee that was negotiated between the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, and the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, the holder of the office of Lord Chancellor is statutorily required to maintain and safeguard the independence of the judiciary.

Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor is also the Secretary of State for Justice. Wearing that hat, he has a big spending budget and huge budgetary restraints are rained down upon him. Every time that we have a discussion about prison accommodation or capacity, that fact becomes increasingly apparent. However, at the same time, that same individual office holder has to protect the independence of the judiciary, and through various forms of semaphore and direct speech, the judges are being told to be careful about sending people to prison because the prisons are full.

I do not care what the right hon. Member for Blackburn calls himself, either in front of his shaving mirror or when addressing his Ministers. I know, because I have teased him about it, that he rather enjoys being called not only Lord Chancellor, but Lord High Chancellor. He loves wearing the official state robes. I do not deny him the joy of wearing those robes—perhaps one day not too far away they will be worn by a Conservative. There is another debate to be had about the importance of uniforms and the separation of the individual and the office holder. However, whether the current Secretary of State for Justice and Lord High Chancellor enjoys being called  this, that or the other does not matter. What is essential, is that he separates in his mind his role as a spending political Minister, and his role as the protector of the independence of the judiciary. It is possible to do that, and it is essential that he does it under the current regime. However, it is increasingly difficult for the public to have confidence that he is doing it if, at the same time as being the Secretary of State who deals with prisoners on recall and releases them after 28 days to ease prison capacity problems, he does something that I suggest should more properly be done by the judiciary—controlling the sentencing and sentence plan of those who have been sentenced by the courts.

That will do for now, I think. I look forward to hearing from others who have something to contribute.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons 4:15, 20 November 2007

It was perhaps a mistake for me to have intervened, as it enabled the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to say most of what I was intending to say on the subject of the persona of the Lord High Chancellor. It is an important distinction. When we allow the Executive quasi-judicial powers, we must be careful and clear what we are talking about. There are some responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Justice in his capacity as Lord Chancellor which are inalienable, and which should not be available to other Secretaries of State. I say that simply because there is a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor, and on his position as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

This is a good example of one of those matters that should rest not with a common-or-garden Secretary of State, but with one who is charged with maintaining the interests of justice, and that is the role of the Lord Chancellor. It so happens that the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor are the same person, and that is fine. I do not have a problem with that. In legislation, however, it is helpful to make that distinction. Although my interjection may have appeared to be a debating point, it was slightly more serious. Where we intend the Secretary of State for Justice to take on a quasi-judicial role, it is helpful to specify the Lord Chancellor in statute for those purposes, so that we have no confusion and to remind everyone of the responsibilities involved.

I would like to say a few words about amendments Nos. 138 and 139, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and which have been subscribed to by the Conservatives. They brings us back to the issue of how we treat children and people under the age of 18.

In his opening remarks, the Minister said that he wanted the Parole Board to concentrate on the most difficult cases, where there was concern for public safety. I suggest is another area in which the Parole Board can be usefully engaged—where the person under recall is a vulnerable person himself. I suggest that young people fall into that category. This morning, we had a consensual discussion on the needs of young people within the penal system and our desire to keep as many as possible out of our prisons. One would assume from that that it is necessary to stop them returning to prison, as far as possible. If that is the case, having the assessment by the Parole Board seems to be a useful safeguard that would ensure that young  people were not incarcerated additionally any more than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the operation of the clause.

I am pleading a special case for the young person. The existing arrangements work reasonably well with regard to young people. I see why the Government are proposing the clause and do not argue against it as a whole, but I am saying that young people are a special case and asking the Minister to at least consider the possibility of pursuing the issue at a later stage.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for their support for the principle of fixed term recall. I am grateful, because I expected some political discussion around those issues, and I appreciate that they have made a judgment on that. The experiences in New York that the hon. and learned Gentleman described are apt.

With had that element of consensus, we have discussed the amendments before the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the possibility of some form of judicial oversight or involvement in the decision-making process, rather than simply leaving it to the Secretary of State. The reason that we have not taken that route is simply one of scale and scope with regard to the determinations to date. I estimate the number of fixed term recalls that can be expected to happen in any one year to be approximately 4,500.

If I were to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, those 4,500 cases might well have to go through the judicial process, which would add a significant burden to the work of the courts. During the discussions that we have had to date on this subject, I believe it has been shown that, regarding the cases that we have addressed—those of sexual or violent offenders—the Secretary of State has the ability to exercise discretion accordingly.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice) 4:30, 20 November 2007

If the Minister is going to have 4,500 people recalled for up to 28 days during a given year, does he anticipate that they will be recalled into category B, category C or category D prisons, or a mixture of all three? How will he make that assessment? Will the decision be made simply on the basis of the spaces available, on the basis of the original crime, or on the basis of the conduct that led to the 28-day recall?

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

We have to make risk assessments on all those matters, which are dependent on the reason for the recall, the activities involved and the advice that we receive in the first place about the level of risk in relation to the prisoner and the recall. So, there would be a range of mechanisms whereby individuals could be recalled to a range of prisons, based on the risk assessment that was undertaken at the time.

The hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment seeks to have judicial involvement in that process of risk assessment. I suggest that that would place a significant burden on the courts, which the proposals before the Committee would avoid while still giving protection to the public, as there is a risk assessment of different categories of prisoner on recall. That would apply even  within the first 28-day recall option for prisoners and on a second recall. There are opportunities for consideration accordingly.

The issue of parliamentary oversight and the delegation of powers to the Secretary of State is important. I value, as any Member of Parliament would, the rights of Parliament. For goodness’ sake, I spent five years in opposition—that is not as long as you spent in opposition in another role, Mr. Cook. Therefore, I know how important it is to have parliamentary oversight of the Executive, having spent a lot of time trying to secure that.

Proposals for a change to the amount of time on a recall would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I accept that I am a former Government Whip—in fact, I am the Whip who lost the former Member for Caerphilly during his sojourn, so my whipping credentials might not be that strong. Nevertheless, as a former Whip, I appreciate that there will still be debates in this House and in another place under the affirmative procedure. In those debates, I could not take for granted the votes of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I certainly could not take for granted the votes of Members of another place. In another place, my party—and, indeed, the party of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, were it to form a Government—would not have an overall majority. There are parliamentary and legislative safeguards with regard to this matter, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be reassured by them.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to re-release following recall a young offender who had either been deemed unsuitable for a fixed term recall, or who was ineligible for such a recall because he was serving a sentence for a specified offence. Once again, I will reflect on what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has said, but I will also reflect on what I have said to the Committee to date, which is that the purpose of these provisions is to help to refocus the Parole Board on what I believe it should be doing: looking at the parole needs of serious, dangerous, violent and sexual offenders, and considering the recall of the most dangerous offenders in the system. It is important that the Parole Board focuses on those issues, because, in my view—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston, who deals with many of these matters, would agree—the Parole Board is heavily burdened at the moment by a lot of work that could be done elsewhere just as effectively, efficiently and appropriately.

I hope that the Opposition amendments will not be pressed and that, given the consensus on the broad thrust of the new clause, which is essentially the old clause made simpler, there will be common acceptance by the Committee of the need for the changes on recall.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 75, in clause 16, page 12, line 38, leave out ‘254A(7), 254B(4) or 254C(2)’ and insert ‘255B(4), 255C(4) or 255D(1)’.

No. 76, in clause 16, page 12, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—

‘“ section 255A(9),

section 255C(7),”.’.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.