Clause 19

HC Deb 15 June 1972 vol 838 cc1969-76

PROBATION ORDERS REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AT DAY TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. S. C. Silkin

I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 17, line 12, leave out 'sixty' and insert 'one hundred and twenty'.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke with enthusiasm about the provisions of Clause 14, though he would have wished them to be more flexible. I can speak with equal enthusiasm about the provisions of Clause 19. What I am not enthused about is the very little attention which this important new weapon in the armoury of the courts has received. The Secretary of State, on Second Reading, spoke extremely briefly about it. We tabled no Amendments to the Clause in Committee largely because we knew very little about it and that was mainly because the Secretary of State had said very little about it on Second Reading. We began to learn what was involved when the Minister explained its purpose a debate on the Clause which lasted less than an hour. That was a great pity.

It is an even greater pity that we should be considering this matter at this hour and with a small attendance of Members because it concerns an important new provision. I can safely say that it is not a punishment because it is a provision which enables a condition to be made on a probation order to which the probationer will have to consent before the condition is made. It enables the court when a probation order is made, to require that the probationer shall attend a day training centre for not more than 60 days.

This could be an extremely valuable provision. What is highly uncertain is for whom the Government intend it. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that it was …an experiment designed to deal with people who are persistent offenders because they cannot cope with the complexities of present-day life. Instead of being shut up in prison, they will have treatment at a day centre which will in one way or another help them cope with the problems which they will have to face."—[Official Report, 22nd November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 974.] At one stage in his remarks he spoke about the purpose of these provisions as being to assist the inadequate recidivist, which certainly gave the impression of a man not younger than in his middle thirties, who had been going back to prison repeatedly. This was consistent with the Secretary of State's observations. But at another point the Minister of State referred to the experiences of tutor organisers in detention centres who found that even in a period of two months, much can be done to increase the reading and writing age of a chap of 18 or so, by an intensive course of remedial education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10th February, 1972; c. 530.] At another stage in his remarks he appeared to have in mind young people as well as inadequate recidivists of the type described by the Secretary of State. It is a pity the Government do not seem to be wholly clear about the purpose of the provision, the more so because it was a proposal, or at least very similar to a proposal, which was rejected by the Wootton Committee, although the Home Office Working Party on Probation gave strong support to it. There is, therefore, a difference of view as to its value. This may well be reflected in the apparent uncertainty as to whom it should provide for.

The main point I wish to make, which is the subject matter of the Amendment, is whether it is the type of treatment which could be suitable, as the Minister of State said, for the socially inadequate petty recidivist—the sort of person who has a bad work record, who repeatedly returns to prison for minor crimes, and who basically is socially incapable, when left on his own, of coping in society without getting involved in petty crime."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G 10th February, 1972; c. 530.] It is obvious the Minister is not thinking of the young man. But what if he is thinking of the young man of 18 or so, who could undergo an intensive course of remedial education which would make him literate and give him some training in the social requirements of life, enabling him to meet his inadequacies, particularly assisting him to lead a normal life in society, and to get and hold a job, which is very necessary for many of the young people who come before the courts?

Regardless of for which of these two categories the treatment is suitable, a period of 60 days as a maximum, seems extremely low. It may be that some people who are wholly illiterate can be made literate in a period of 60 days. That would be an exceptional situation. But to think that we can do a great deal in 60 days for many people of the petty recidivist type, or those who at an early age have become rebels against society and have not benefited from such education as society has given them, is optimistic in the extreme.

3.30 a.m.

When this point was put to the Minister during the very short debate in Committee—he may have been taken a little by surprise—his answer was that we could not expect people to accept more than about 60 days if it involved taking them away from their employment. Yet many of the people whom he was considering were people about whom the assumption is that they are unemployed at the time. Elsewhere, the assumption is made that they are the type of person who cannot settle down to a job, who had a bad work record and so on, that they are people in respect of whom the answer that it would be wrong to seek to keep them away from paid employment for more than 60 days does not seem a very acceptable reason for this maximum.

I do not suggest that a maximum of 120 days would mean that in every case the court would seek to persuade the probationer to accept a period of four months rather than two, or six rather than three. What I do suggest is that there will be many cases in which the court will feel that the man is one who might well benefit from as much as six months' training, but who is highly unlikely to benefit from as little as 60 days. In those cases the court would have the degree of flexibility which the Minister lauded in another connection and be able to seek to make the requirement, with the consent of the probationer, of training for the longer period rather than the shorter.

This is a very important new provision, and it is important that it should succeed. It is to be introduced by way of experiment in a small number of areas to begin with, with a view to extending it later. If it is to succeed, it is much more important that fewer people should have that degree of longer training which is more likely to succeed than that more people should have a shorter period of training which is less likely to succeed. That is the whole basis of our seeking to increase the maximum period to 120 days from the present 60, which as a maximum we feel to be unnecessarily short.

If it were found, in the light of experience, our Amendment having been accepted, that the period of 120 days was an unduly large maximum, the Government could no doubt alter it. I do not know whether they have taken powers to alter it, but such powers could be introduced in another place if necessary.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that the Government would be well advised to leave themselves more elbow room in relation to this new experiment and not to risk prejudicing the chances of success at the beginning by setting too low a minimum, and that they can achieve that by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle

I do not think that there was necessarily anything inconsistent in what I said in Committee. I envisage the probation day centre as being available for the inadequate offender in need of training, either remedial educational, or general, and the only thing I should have added was that "offender" would be better than "recidivist". The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that today one can have a young inadequate recidivist as well as an elderly inadequate recidivist.

This will be a full-time requirement to attend during the day and it was felt that in the circumstances, 60 days, equivalent to three working months, was adequate.

On the question of literacy, experience in borstals and detention centres and some prisons shows that there has been progress in minimal literacy standards in two months.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

Even though that be so, it is only a beginning.

Mr. Carlisle

Yes. I was going on to say that I therefore envisage, and the Government envisage, that it is unlikely that the maximum period at a training centre would be longer than 60 days, but I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary because, by reason of Clause 19(5), in cases in which it would be appropriate for a person to attend for more than 60 days, the court would have the power to amend the probation order. I am advised that by saying that this was an additional condition—to attend at day training centre—120 days could be given, as the hon. and learned Gentleman requested, but it means that it would have to be in two lots of 60 days and that there would have to be an application back to the court to extend the period of training.

This is full-time day training and since 60 days is the equivalent of three working months, it is not unreasonable that where probation officers feel that it would be valuable to extend the period of training, in conditions of that degree of harshness, they should apply back to the court to extend it.

While I am on my feet, may I correct a disastrous remark I made when I was explaining the type of course which I envisaged—simple tools, carpentry, redecorating, basic maintenance and so on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said: It sounds as though we could all do with a course of that". —and I am quoted as saying I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my wife, in particular, could do with a more than 60 days' course"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10th February, 1971, c. 533.] What I meant to say was: "I am sure that my wife would say that I in particular could do with a course of more than 60 days."

Sir Elwyn Jones

I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that I shall not inform his lady wife of this gross indiscretion on his part.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

I thought the Minister of State was going to help us when he referred to Clause 5, but it would probably exacerbate the situation because, if someone initially is given some conditions which have to be fulfilled and knows that he has some 60 days maximum to get through, then he may be reasonably motivated in that time and has some date by which he knows he will be released. If towards the end of that time one says, "We think you should have another 60 days", I think the effect would be disastrous.

We are all human and we all work to targets of various sorts. I can remember the extreme bitterness and resentment that I felt as a National Service man when the Government of the day extended the period by three months because of international difficulties. We had all accepted that we had a certain amount of service to do and the realisation that the Government had extended the period caused bitterness and resentment, although we saw the reason for it. We see these things in personal terms.

We are attempting here to create a new structure of human relations with people who are inadequate in society. We say of these people that they are inadequate and cannot cope with our increasingly complex and sophisticated society. But what is also inadequate is the education system which they have passed through and from which they have seemingly got no benefit. We have seen that the Schools Council is increasingly disquieted at the specialism in secondary schools, and there is need to broaden the secondary syllabus. The emphasis on the subject syllabus in secondary schools is one of the reasons why some of these people find themselves in aposition where they cannot cope with society and so come into the category of those we are talking about here.

With these people there is need to clear away years of repeated failure in various aspects, of failing to grapple with things such as literacy. Our society puts a tremendous premium on literacy, which is only one fairly narrow aspect of human achievement. When they come into the sort of supervision envisaged here, there is often not only need for a massive restructuring job in their whole approach to life but also the need to give them a chance to establish warm human relationships with people sympathetic to them.

I feel that this maximum of 120 days would give those in charge more of an opportunity to motivate these people into some form of self-help without which all the efforts at remedial work are wasted. Would it not be possible, under subsection (8), which says References in this section to attendance at a day training centre include references to attendance elsewhere…. and so on, to include, say, attendance at work, where they could go under inspection so that there would not necessarily be a total separation from work? One might even envisage some form of day release for a day or two a week over a continuing period of time. This is a maximum. Many people would probably receive substantial benefit from shorter periods, but this is one area where greater flexibility would pay handsome dividends.

Amendment negatived.