HC Deb 15 June 1972 vol 838 cc1956-64

SUSPENDED SENTENCE SUPERVISION ORDERS

Mr. Dell

I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 28, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments:

No. 21, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36 and insert 'a court sentences an offender for a single offence to imprisonment for a term of more than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.

No. 23, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'court' to end of line 36 and insert: 'sentences an offender for one or more offences and the sentence passed in respect of at least one of such offences is imprisonment for a term of more than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.

No. 24, in page 8, line 42, leave out' or sentences' and insert: (2) The Secretary of State may by order—

  1. (a) direct that subsection (1) above be amended by substituting, for the number of months specified in the subsection as originally enacted or as previously amended under this paragraph, such other number (not more than six) as the order may specify; or
  2. (b) make in that subsection the repeals necessary to enable a court to exercise the powers of the subsection in the case of any suspended sentence, whatever the length of the term.
Orders under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under paragraph (a) may be revoked by a subsequent order under paragraph (a) or (b).

No. 25, in page 10, line 3, after 'sentence', insert: '(whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act)'.

No. 26, in page 10, line 43, after 'circumstances', insert: 'of the offence and of the offender, including a report by, and, if the court considers it necessary, the oral evidence of, a probation officer'.

Mr. Dell

I am grateful for the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) on the Amendment which we have just debated. On this matter, however, I think that I carry less support. None the less, I still feel, with deep respect to the distinguished authorities who have recommended this course, that the introduction of the suspended sentence supervision order is an error of judgment.

It was, I know, recommended by Lady Wootton's Committee. I have a deep respect for Lady Wootton personally, but I think that in this case she is wrong. As I said in Committee, I notice a remarkable contrast between the very tentative way in which this proposal is mentioned in paragraph 189 of the Wootton Report and the much firmer way in which it is finally included in the summary of recommendations. In paragraph 189, it is said: The matter will have to be further examined in the light of the operation of the suspended sentence introduced by the Criminal Justice Act, 1967". But no further examination took place between paragraph 189 and the firm recommendations in paragraph 33 of the Conclusions. I believe that if that examination had taken place and the Committee had been aware of the way in which suspended sentences were being used by the courts, it might have hesitated much longer before recommending the suspended sentence supervision order.

Since I expressed a similar view in Committee, I have been reinforced in my opposition to this proposal by the experience of meeting a large number of probation officers, who were virtually unanimously against it.

I summarise the arguments in this way. The effect of introducing supervision orders will be to increase the tendency to use suspended sentences instead of probation. That tendency has already existed to far too great an extent, and the fact that there is now this opportunity, in effect, to combine a suspended sentence with a probation order will lead the courts to use suspended sentences even more than before instead of probation.

I believe that it will be regarded as a tougher suspended sentence and will be overused. We shall find that we are dealing not with a sentence of imprisonment which is suspended and combined with a supervision order, but with a new sentence known as the suspended sentence supervision order which will take its place in the tariff of penalties and will be greatly overused.

As many probation officers say and as was said at the meeting to which I have referred, if the offender needs guidance and supervision the best course is to put him on probation. The courts then have on reconviction a degree of discretion which they do not have when an offender comes up having committed another offence after being given a suspended sentence.

I fear that what may happen is that we shall have many suspended sentence supervision orders, that the probation officer will not have a chance to achieve anything with the offender, and that many people will begin to say that probation has failed when the truth will be that it has never had a chance.

If this proposal is to be introduced, at least there should be greater safeguards than are included in the Clause, to discourage the courts from using the supervision order instead of probation, and I take little comfort from the fact that it is intended now to confine the supervision order to the higher courts. The higher courts have used the suspended sentence instead of probation to an extent greater even than magistrates courts.

There should be a requirement for the consent of the offender. That again was a point made by probation officers, who feel that they will have allotted to them people who are unwilling and who will not co-operate with them in the work that they wish to do.

I believe that there is a need for the court to consider a report by the probation officer about the offender and his circumstances, and, if necessary, to hear a probation officer before awarding a suspended sentence supervision order.

These at any rate would be safeguards against the michief which may be done by the introduction of the supervision order. If they were introduced, I should be less unhappy and, more important, many probation officers would be less unhappy about this proposal, Even with such safeguards I would continue to believe that it is a thoroughly bad proposal, and it is for that reason that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle

With his usual consistency, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has opposed this provision throughout our proceedings on the Bill, although, as he knows, the view of the Government is that it is right to accept the recommendation in the Wootton Report that there are certain cases where it is appropriate to have the power to combine a supervision order with a suspended sentence.

For reasons which I advanced in Committee, I cannot go along with the right hon. Gentleman. But, with his Amendment since we are taking two Government Amendments, Nos. 21 and 24, perhaps I might say to him that as a result of our debate in Committee I agreed to look again at how wide the power to make a suspended sentence supervision order was.

Although the right hon. Gentleman says, and I accept it, that at the meeting to which he went he found almost unanimity in opposition to the suspended sentence, I think I am right in saying that at the time of our debates in Committee the official position of the National Association of Probation Officers was not that it was in any way opposed in principle to this, but that it was concerned about whether the power might be unduly widely used and there for increase the case load on probation officers.

In Committee I agreed to put down this Amendment, the effect of which is in the first place to limit the power almost to the higher courts—to limit it, to those cases in which the suspended sentence is one of more than six months, and by Amendment No. 24, to give to the Home Secretary the power to make an order—the order being subject to annulment—to lower the level of six months when he has seen the effect of the suspended sentence supervision order; whether it is used effectively by the courts, and whether there are adequate resources in the probation service to make it available in cases where the sentence of imprisonment is less than six months without putting undue pressure on these resources. I hope that the House will agree to Amendments Nos. 21 and 24.

I understand that we are also taking Amendment No. 25. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have agreed to consider the Amendment. I misguidedly spoke against it in Committee, on the basis that it would be inappropriateto have the power to impose a condition on a suspended sentence order, that is, a supervision order on a suspended sentence, where there had been a breach of suspended sentence, because it would impose a graver penalty than was at first imposed.

On reflection, that argument must be wrong because, if a court added to a suspended sentence order, or continued a suspended sentence, it would be doing that in place of its power otherwise to activiate the suspended sentence, and clearly the sentence together with the supervision order must be less in gravity than the actual term of imprisonment served. My argument that it would appear to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights was fallacious, and in those circumstances I am prepared to accept the spirit of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I have, however, regretfully to tell him that the Amendment does not quite meet its task as drafted, but shall look at it before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking about Amendment No. 25.

On Amendment No. 20, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has rightly said that he does not enjoy the support of his Front Bench in his wish to remove the Clause, none the less I assure him that we shall want to watch extremely closely how the new power works in practice. It is a power which is really a combination of the suspended sentence with probation, though called by another name, and it is therefore a departure from the previous thinking of the probation service.

We shall want to assure ourselves that the use of this power does not impose too great a burden on the service, and that it is used in the way that it ought to be used and does not suffer the fate which, to some degree, the suspended sentence has suffered by improper use.

3.0 a.m.

That leaves only two Amendments in the group which have not been dealt with and about which I should comment, or at least comment on one of them, Amendment No. 23. As the Minister will appreciate, Amendment No. 23 is purely a drafting Amendment. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in arguing it at this stage. We have doubts as to the term "a single offence", which we think might be misconstrued. The purpose of the Amendment is to re-word a Government Amendment in a way which would remove all possible doubt.

At three o'clock in the morning, all that I ask of the Minister is that he should look at it and satisfy himself as to whether his wording is adequate or whether ours might not be preferable.

Although grouped with this particular group, Amendment No. 26 is more in the spirit of Amendment No. 22, which will be moved in due course. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to leave to my hon. Friend whatever is to be said about it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36 and insert: a court sentences an offender for a single offence to imprisonment for a term of more than six months and makes an order suspending the sentence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 19677".—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams (Hitchin)

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'court' to end of line 36 and insert: ', having considered a report by a probation officer about an offender and his circumstances (and, if the court thinks it necessary, having heard a probation officer), and being satisfied that it is necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment, sentences the offender for one or more offences so that the sentences passed in respect of at least one of the offences is imprisonment for a term of more than six months and the court makes an order suspending the sentence under Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967'. The point of the Amendment is that the court will consider a report made by a probation officer and, if necessary, hear him before deciding on a suspended sentence supervision order. The reasons for this are partly those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), when he made it clear that there should be a limitation of use of the suspended sentence supervision order. This might go rather wider than envisaged by the Wootton Report or by the Minister of State in Committee. The Wootton Report made it clear that there was a limited number of cases for which this would be appropriate. In Committee, the Minister of State said: There is, of course, no basis upon which one could estimate the proportion of sentences of over six months where the courts will use their new power, but I emphasise that we do not intend it to be used as a matter of course and that we only expect such an order to be made when, in the opinion of the court, the individual circumstances justify it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25th January, 1972; c. 363.] The point of the Amendment is that it is much easier for a court to consider the individual circumstances if it has first considered a report by a probation officer. In view of the very considerable burdens laid upon the probation service by the Clause, and as a probation officer will be the supervising officer and, in addition, will have certain requirements to make reports following such a supervision order, we consider that it would be fairly straightforward for the Government to accept this relatively limited Amendment. It may assist in getting courts to use the new powers as was intended by the Wootton Report and accepted by the Minister of State.

Mr. Carlisle:

As the hon. Lady says, the effect of the Amendment would be to provide that the court should consider a social inquiry report before making a supervision order. We envisage that in practice this would be so, because at present, in putting someone on probation, the higher courts are not bound to have a report from a probation officer. However, although there is no statutory requirement that they should consider a social inquiry report, we have no doubt that they always do. Indeed, the view expressed by the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service—the Morrison Committee—that a social inquiry report should normally be obtained before a probation order is made has been brought to their attention.

I am prepared to consider whether it is suitable that similar notice should be given to the courts with regard to suspended sentence supervision orders. I accept that, if we draw to the attention of the courts the appropriateness of their considering a social inquiry report before making a probation order, it would be right to do so with regard to the making of a suspended sentence supervision order. I should not have thought that it was necessary to write it into statutory form. I am prepared to consider whether I can meet the hon. Lady's point in any other way.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

In view of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No 24, in page 8, line 42, leave out 'or sentences' and insert: (2) The Secretary of State may by order—

  1. (a) direct that subsection (1) above be amended by substituting, for the num- 1964 ber of months specified in the subsection as originally enacted or as previously amended under this paragraph, such other number (not more than six) as the order may specify; or
  2. (b) make in that subsection the repeals necessary to enable a court to exercise the powers of the subsection in the case of any suspended sentence, whatever the length of the term.
Orders under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under paragraph (a) may be revoked by a subsequent order under paragraph (a) or (b).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Forward to