HC Deb 12 April 1961 vol 638 cc414-25

Scotland

17. In relation to anything falling to be done in Scotland under Part I of this Schedule, any reference to a probation officer shall be omitted, and references to an officer of the Society shall be construed as including references to any other person authorised by the Society.

18. In relation to proceedings in Scotland, paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall have effect as if for the reference to a magistrates' court there were substituted a reference to the sheriff, and references in paragraphs 9 and 10 to the court and to a magistrates' court shall be construed accordingly; in paragraph 8 the words "under the said section one" shall be omitted; and the following shall be substituted for paragraphs 6 and 7:— 6. Proceedings for an order under paragraph 5 above shall be commenced by sworn information laid by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners before a sheriff having jurisdiction in the area in which the supervising officer carries out his duties; and upon any such information the sheriff may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person under supervision or may, if he thinks fit, instead of issuing such a warrant in the first instance. issue a citation requiring that person to appear before him at such time as may be specified in the citation. 7. If the sheriff before whom a person appears or is brought under the last foregoing paragraph is satisfied that that person has failed to comply with any of the requirements of his supervision, the sheriff may make an order under the said paragraph 5 accordingly".

19. If any proceedings in Scotland, a certificate of notice which, under paragraph 12 or paragraph 13 of this Schedule, is evidence of any matter shall be sufficient evidence of that matter.

20. Where an order is made by any court in Scotland under paragraph 5 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule sending back to prison a person under supervision, the court shall commit him to a prison in Scotland; but the Secretary of State may, without application in that behalf, make at any time an order under section twenty-four of this Act transferring him to a prison in England.

21. In relation to a person detained by virtue of an order under the said paragraph 5 or paragraph 10 in a prison in Scotland, paragraph 11 (and, if that person is released from such a prison under that paragraph, paragraph 2) of this Schedule shall have effect as if for references to the Prison Commissioners there were substituted references to the Secretary of State.

Northern Ireland

22. In relation to anything falling to be done in Northern Ireland under Part I of this Schedule, any reference to a probation officer shall be construed as a reference to a probation officer in Northern Ireland.

23. In relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, paragraphs 5 to 10 of this Schedule shall have effect as if—

  1. (a) for references to a magistrates' court there were substituted references to a court of summary jurisdiction;
  2. (b) for references to the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (except references to section one of that Act) there were substituted references to the Summary Jurisdiction Acts (Northern Ireland); and
  3. (c) for references to the said section one there were substituted references to section eleven of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851.

24. Where an order is made by a court in Northern Ireland under paragraph 5 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule sending back to prison a person under supervision, the court shall commit him to a prison in Northern Ireland; but the Minister of Home Affairs may, without application in that behalf, make at any time an order under section twenty-four of this Act transferring him to a prison in England

25. In relation to a person detained by virtue of an order under the said paragraph 5 or paragraph 10 in a prison in Northern Ireland, paragraph 11 (and, if that person is released from such a prison under that paragraph, paragraph 2) of this Schedule shall have effect as if for references to the Prison Commissioners there were substituted references to the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland.

Channel Islands and Isle of Man

26. Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her to be proper for the purposes of or in connection with the application of Pan I of this Schedule to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man.

General

27. In relation to anything falling to be done outside England and Wales, any reference to the Society in Part I of this Schedule shall (subject to any Order in Council under paragraph 26 of this Schedule) be construed as a reference to the Society within the meaning of paragraph 14 of this Schedule or such other society as may be designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State; and different societies may be designated under this paragraph for different purposes of the said Part I, or for any purpose of that Part in its application to persons of different classes or in different circumstances.

28. The enactments authorising warrants of arrest for criminal offences issued in any country to which this Schedule extends to be executed in any other such country shall apply to any warrant issued for the purposes of proceedings under Part I of this Schedule as they apply to such warrants as aforesaid.

This section is much longer than that in the Bill at present. The House will recall that during the Committee stage my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, as a result of representations made from both sides, introduced a procedure for recall of those former prisoners doing compulsory supervision, and the procedure which was put into Part 1 of the First Schedule is a procedure which invokes the jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts in order that anybody may be sent back to prison for breaking the requirements of the supervision order. It is necessary to dovetail that procedure with the circumstances which will sometimes arise, namely, that a person who to do compulsory supervision after serving a sentence of an English court may decide—as he is free to do—to live in some other part of the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

This new Part 11 of this Schedule contains what I can best describe as dovetailing arrangements. They provide how the supervision order shall be carried out in other parts of the United Kingdom, or the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, and it will be seen that we have set out what will happen in Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here to deal with any matter which may arise on that point. Then, we have set out what will happen in Northern Ireland, where the position is relatively simple, because Northern Ireland also has a probation service and magistrates' courts and will be able to operate this procedure for recall without trouble.

In the case of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, we shall have to proceed in the way in which we normally proceed when any question arises of legislative provisions being needed which are within the competence of the Governments of either of those places. In those circumstances, Her Majesty legislates by Order in Council. Therefore, we say in the Amendment that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her to be proper for the purposes of or in connection with the application of Part I of this Schedule to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man.

Then follow some general provisions which apply to any of those parts of the United Kingdom and which are of a purely formal character.

These provisions are necessary. They are somewhat formal. No hon. Member need feel that they are likely to give rise to any difficulty of substance or of practice. They are the kind of provisions which we need to include whenever we are attempting, while legislating in England or Wales, to ensure that intentions are not frustrated merely because somebody goes outside the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales and into the jurisdiction of the courts of another part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Steele

We are indebted to the Under-Secretary of State for his explanation. I followed the Committee stage of the Bill, but a different provision is now in the Bill because of a principle which was altered in Committee. It is true that in the original Bill the Government had decided on the recall procedure, but because of the difference of view in the Committee, which was not confined to either side, the Government decided to alter the recall procedure and that if anyone who was under compulsory after- care had to be brought back, it should be done through the courts.

I agree that this long Amendment is essential. If someone who is convicted in England and who is under compulsory after-care goes to Scotland and commits a breach of the regulations governing after-care, it is necessary to have a provision of this kind to enable the Scottish courts to deal with the matter without having the person brought back to England. All that I understand.

I should not have worried too much about the matter, because the former terms of Part II of the Schedule fully met my point concerning the question of who should do the after-care supervision. The Under-Secretary has said that Part II sets out how the supervision would be carried out. May I first of all draw his attention to that part which is now being taken away? Paragraph 18 of Part II of the Schedule—Supplementary Provisions—states: Any reference in this Schedule to a probation officer shall include a reference to a probation officer in any part of the United Kingdom… That is quite clear and concise, and there can be no doubt that if the After Care Council so desires the job of supervision will be undertaken by a probation officer.

It is true, of course, that in England the After Care Council does, in fact, act as a liaison between the prisons and the field work done by the probation officers, apart from some after-care work which the After Care Council itself undertakes in London. But, generally speaking, what happens is that the After Care Council in England will have the information given to it when a prisoner is released and will contact the probation officer who is nearest to that individual's home and arrange for the probation officer to undertake the necessary supervision.

That is the situation in England, and, of course, the Bill makes no alteration to that matter. If, of course, the person is released from prison in England and goes home to Scotland then the After Care Council in England will take the necessary steps to ensure that a probation officer in Scotland undertakes his supervision and deals directly with the After Care Council in England. That, too, is satisfactory. But if the hon. Gentleman will look at Part II of the proposed new Schedule he will see that paragraph 17 says: In relation to anything falling to be done in Scotland under Part I of this Schedule, any reference to a probation officer shall be omitted … whereas under the Northern Ireland provision paragraph 22 says: … any reference to a probation officer shall be construed as a reference to a probation officer in Northern Ireland. I think that we are entitled to some explanation because Part II refers to a probation officer whereas if we look at paragraph 2 of Part I we see it stated in brackets: (being an officer of the Society or a probation officer)". That is the person who will be exercising the supervision. This new Part II says that the probation officer will be the supervising officer in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but that the probation officer will not be the supervising officer in Scotland.

The reason why I raise this matter is because the whole question of after care and the organisation which will deal with after care is at the moment being considered, and it seems to me to be very odd indeed that in this Schedule dealing with Scotland the probation officer should be deliberately omitted from those who might undertake the supervision. Of course, we have an After Care Council in Scotland as well, but what is happening there is that the After Care Council itself is building up a staff and hoping to do the field work. This, I think, is contrary to what is happening in England. It is contrary to the experience in England in so far as too many people are entering into one home.

12.15 a.m.

It is my experience that this problem usually arises as a family problem. One boy in the family, who has gone through an approved school or to Borstal, may be on after-care. In Scotland under these provisions the child welfare officer from the local authority may be going into a home, as well as the welfare officer from the approved school, the probation officer to deal with a boy on probation and an officer of the After Care council for an older boy who has come out of prison.

This is nonsense. We are entitled to an explanation why it has been done. It may be that the Joint Under-Secretary of State does not possess the information to enable him to give full details, but I want an assurance that the bodies which are discussing the whole question of supervision and aftercare will not be stultified in their examination of it and in any recommendation which they make by this provision in the English Bill. I hope that its inclusion in the English Bill will not mean that when we deal with a Scottish Bill it is accepted as part of the procedure and that the probation officer will be ruled out from acting as a supervisory officer. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to answer those points.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

I will try to help the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). The question is at present under consideration by the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, and it is not possible at this stage to predict what system the Advisory Council will recommend should be adopted. Whatever system it recommends could be introduced in a future Scottish Bill even if it were different from the system in this Bill. If it is desired in future in Scotland to make use of probation officers, as the hon. Member suggests, it could be authorised by the society.

I hope that this explanation indicates to the hon. Member that there is no intention of binding future Scottish legislation by the provisions of the Bill. I hope that that sets the hon. Member's doubts at rest.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

I think hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise that that reply is hopelessly inadequate. Compulsory aftercare if a new system. I have been doing my best to follow Part I of this Schedule and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), I wonder why the probation officer is regarded as a suitable person to supervise the young person who is in after-care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but in Scotland the probation officer is considered by the Ministers to be quite unsuitable for this purpose.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the whole question was being looked at by the Advisory Council for the Treatment of Offenders in Scotland, and he added, "After we get their recommendation we shall see what we shall do in some future legislation for Scotland." Could not we consider what we should do in Scotland, after having received the advice of the Advisory Council, notwithstanding the fact that we had given the probation officers in Scotland exactly the same place under the Bill as that given to probation officers in other parts of the United Kingdom?

After all, as my hon. Friend said, in Part II as it is, unamended, in the Bill the words that are proposed to be taken out keep the probation officers in Scotland in exactly the same position as probation officers in the rest of the United Kingdom. When the original Part II was drafted, the Joint Under-Secretary knew full well that the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders was at that time also considering the whole question.

Is this not offensive to the probation officers in Scotland, who have for long felt that the Secretary of State was not willing to allocate to them the kind of duties that were allocated by Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom? This is the grouse. The probation officers in Scotland have not hitherto had the necessary status, and if the House passes the Amendment in its present form there will be further evidence of Parliament having less confidence in the proficiency of probation officers in Scotland than it has in probation officers in other parts of the United Kingdom. There can be no reason for that.

This must have come in as an afterthought. When the Bill was first introduced and when it was going through Committee, it was considered, apparently, that probation officers in Scotland were as fitted as probation officers in other parts of the United Kingdom to undertake this supervising work, but suddenly there has been a change and we have got this Amendment on Report. There is a change because the new Part II says that a probation officer in Scotland shall not be a supervising officer.

It is no answer to say that an examination is being made of the treatment of offenders by an advisory body in Scotland and that at some time it may advise us on the rôle of probation officers. As my hon. Friend has said, it is known that the After Care Council would like to undertake this work itself using its officers for it, and it is interesting to note that the new paragraph 17 says: In relation to anything falling to be done in Scotland under Part I of this Schedule, any reference to a probation officer shall be omitted, and references to an officer of the Society shall be construed as including references to any other person authorised by the Society. So Her Majesty's Ministers consider that a probation officer is unsuited to do this supervising work. It says that the officer who shall do the supervising may be any person who will be authorised by the society—the After Care Council—to undertake the work. If there is an explanation for that, the Joint Under-Secretary might have given it rather than the hopelessly inadequate one that he gave.

I have another question about the part of the Amendment which relates to Scotland. Paragraph 20 says: Where an order is made by any court in Scotland under paragraph 5 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule sending back to prison a person under supervision, the court shall commit him to a prison in Scotland; but the Secretary of State may, without application in that behalf, make at any time an order under section twenty-four of this Act transferring him to a prison in England. There might be a very good reason for the Secretary of State to make such an order without application being made to him, but I think that, generally speaking, it would be desirable for him to make it only on application.

It may well be that the young person committed to prison and later made the subject of compulsory after-care is domiciled normally in Scotland but happened to commit his offence in England and, therefore, went to an English prison, returning to his home in Scotland upon release. In those circumstances it would be wrong if the Secretary of State made an order sending him back to an English prison because the Scottish court in the first place had power only to commit him, for a breach of supervision, to an English prison.

Again, the young person might normally be domiciled in England, and then, while he is in prison or when he has become subject to compulsory after-care, his family moves to Scotland. It would appear, however, that the Secretary of State, without any application being made to him, could at any time send that person back to prison in England. It seems wrong, and if there is a reason for this provision we shall be delighted to hear it.

Mr. Renton

If the young man is domiciled in Scotland he will not be sent back to England even though he had originally been sentenced there and had returned to Scotland while under supervision. If, on the other hand, he is domiciled in England, then it might well be considered in most cases, and certainly in many, that he should be returned to England if there is a recall to prison. I hope the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) thinks that reasonable.

The hon. Member dealt with his other point at great length, but I hope I shall be able to deal with it quite shortly. I can re-assure him completely. I do not think he realises that under existing law there are reciprocal provisions between England and Wales and Scotland for the supervision of people who are on licence from Borstal or from a sentence of corrective training or preventive detention. At the moment, the recall of an English prisoner is by the Prison Commissioners to a prison in England. We are abandoning the idea of recall by the Commissioners without any intervention by the courts, and it is in the light of the fact that we are introducing the safeguard of intervention by the courts that we have to regard the provisions of the Third Schedule.

The hon. Member asked about the position of probation officers and is, quite naturally, anxious that probation officers shall play their part in supervision and, indeed, in any legal proceedings which may be involved. Here, again, one needs to bear in mind the present as well as the future position. In England, the supervising officer under the after-care arrangements in the Bill will be either a officer of the Central After-Care Association, or a probation officer. That is secured by paragraphs 2 and 3 read in conjunction with paragraph 14 of the Schedule. In Scotland, the equivalent duties are at present undertaken by officers of the After Care Council and not by probation officers.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Steele

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman certain that he has his facts right? My understanding of the situation is that if the After-Care Association in England is responsible for someone living in Scotland, it contacts a probation officer in Scotland who acts as a supervisory officer, and that in general that is not done through the Scottish After Care Council. It is my fear that the system will be altered and that the English After-Care Association will not use a probation officer.

Mr. Renton

I was going on to explain, and that intervention will add emphasis to my explanation, that both the Central After-Care Association in England and the After Care Council in Scotland use probation officers as after care agents in many but not all cases. That is the present position.

It is true that paragraph 17 in the Amendment says: In relation to anything falling to be done in Scotland … any reference to a probation officer shall be omitted, and references to an officer of the Society shall be construed as including references to any other person authorised by the Society. For the definition of the Society we have to turn to paragraph 27 of the Schedule. What is to be done about after-care agents in Scotland is now being considered by the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, we cannot predict what the Advisory Council will recommend, but I can repeat what he said—that if in future it is desired to use probation officers, that can be authorised in future as it has been in the past by the After Care Council, subject to what the Advisory Council recommends. That being the position, it is perhaps unfortunate that we have to express it this way in the legislation, but the Society will be the responsible body in Scotland instead of probation officers being made directly responsible.

Incidentally, in England also, even though probation officers will in many cases and perhaps in most cases be used, it is the After-Care Association which is also made responsible for the supervision arrangements under Part III.

Mr. Steele indicated dissent.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he cannot get away from the words of the Third Schedule.

Mr. Steele

I am following what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but why make this difference between Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales? That is the point. I suspect that it has been decided to cut out probation officers in Scotland. There is a long history behind this, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of that. If the whole system of after-care is being considered in Scotland, it is also being considered in England and Wales, and surely the form of words which is there for Northern Ireland, England and Wales is good enough to safeguard the position in Scotland? If a change is to take place because of the recommendations of a committee, the use of the words in the Bill, without being altered, would not alter that position.

Mr. Renton

I believe that I have a right to speak twice, but if I wish to speak a third time I think that I must have the leave of the House to do so, and I hope that I may have that to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he does not accept what both my hon. Friend and I have said, that when the Bill refers to the society, bearing in mind the powers and duties of after-care societies, it enables probation officers to be employed. That surely is the position, and I cannot add to or take away from it. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman still seems to have doubts about it I will consider whether these words are the most apt words which need to be used, and if they are not they will be corrected in another place.

Amendment agreed to.