SEXUAL OFFENDERS

HC Deb 20 February 1991 vol 186 cc287-93

`.—(1) Where, in the case of a long-term or short-term prisoner—

1. (a) the whole or any part of his sentence was imposed for a sexual offence; and
2. (b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence, having had regard to the matters mentioned in section 26(6)(a) and (b) above, directed that this section should apply, sections 27(3) and 30(1) above shall each have effect as if for the reference to three-quarters of his sentence there were substituted a reference to the whole of that sentence.

(2) In this section "sexual offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.13 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Patten

These amendments will enable the courts to require many sexual offenders to undergo longer and more intensive programmes of supervision. The purpose is to increase the confidence of the courts—that is very important—and of the public in the arrangements for dealing with sexual offenders, to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from sexual offenders, and to try to help sex offenders to reduce the risk of their committing further sexual offences in future.

New clause 9 provides for sex offenders sentenced to custody for 12 months or more to undergo an extended period of supervision on release from prison. I hope that the House will welcome that. Under the Bill, all offenders serving sentences of more than 12 months will be supervised in the community until they have completed three quarters of their sentences. New clause 9 will allow the supervision to continue right up to the end of the sentence, if the court considers that it will be helpful in preventing further offending and—this, too, is very important—in protecting the public as well as rehabilitating the offender. It will be for the sentencer to indicate in passing sentence that the offender was one to whom the extended supervision requirements would apply. The court would have to have regard to the criteria set out in clause 26(6), the need to protect the public from serious harm, which I believe to be of overwhelming importance, and the desirability of preventing offenders from reoffending.

The most dangerous sex offenders rightly receive custodial sentences, and the courts are awarding longer and longer custodial sentences, particularly following the important guideline judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in the case of Billam in 1985 about rape. Quite a number of sex offenders, however—this may surprise but, I hope, not alarm some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—are not sentenced to custodial punishment but are given probation orders and other punishments in the community. It is the Government's belief that some of these people—about 1,000 per year are sentenced in this way—would also benefit from extra supervision.

Accordingly, amendment No. 25 inserts an additional requirement into part II of schedule 1 of the Bill. It provides that where a sex offender is placed on probation and the court wishes to include additional requirements directed at his sexual offending—it is almost always "his" rather than "her"—the normal maximum of 60 days, which applies to requirements for attendance at a probation centre or participation in specified activities under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part II, can be extended as directed by the court.

This will give the sex offender the chance to have much more practical work done with him by the probation service and by the voluntary organisations who help the probation service. I pay tribute to what they do in trying to persuade sex offenders not to reoffend, to minimise the risk to the public and to women and children in particular. In both cases, the programme of supervision could be more intensive than with offenders whose activities do not pose a risk to the public.

Depending on the individual case, the programme might consist of more frequent and lengthy contact with the probation officer or direction to a special programme in an effort to make the offender face up to his criminal behaviour in this most difficult area of trying to stop sex offenders reoffending, to consider the consequences of his behaviour and to accept responsibility for his actions.

I have been told time and again—the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), with their links with the probation service, will not need to be told this—that sex offenders live in a fantasy world and are often not prepared to face the consequences of what they have done. They try to push it away or ignore that it has happened. They try to say that the victims actually wanted it to happen. It is critically important that these people should be brought face to face with the damage that they have done and accept responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Can the Minister tell us about the control mechanism, as it were, in new clause 9? At present, a person allowed out on parole has to meet the conditions of the parole up to the three-quarters mark. If he does not do so, there is a recall provision which involves his completing the whole sentence. Under the new clause, as I understand it, he will be under supervision until the end of the sentence, but what happens if in the last month of the sentence he fails to carry out the instructions or advice that has been given to him? There will be no control mechanism left.

Mr. Patten

The person will be subject, as always, to recall and being brought back before the court if he fails to carry out the programme of activity laid down by the court. Working with sex offenders must be one of the most difficult jobs for the probation service and for the voluntary agencies which help the probation service. It is very tough and demanding work and it is currently in the process of great development. I am confident that the probation service will build on its good practice in helping these offenders to control and contain their behaviour, with a consequent reduction in reoffending sex offenders and much greater public safety for women and children. I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

It is a sad fact that the number of sexual crimes has increased. Like the Government, the Opposition believe that there must be action to deter such offenders and to ensure that those who commit some of the ghastly offences about which we all know are deterred by appropriate sentences. We agree with the new clause and the amendment.

There are two Government proposals. The first provides that a court may, when imprisoning a sex offender, direct that he must be on licence or release for the whole of the sentence and not after the three quarters point, as is laid down in the Bill. Secondly, a court may direct that a sex offender who is placed on probation with a condition to participate in specified activities or a condition to attend a probation centre can be subject to that order for longer than 60 days.

The Government's stated aims are to provide further protection for the public and to help sex offenders not to commit further sexual offences. On the first of those points—deterrence—we strongly agree with the Government. On the other, we should like some clarification as to the Government's purposes, and the resources that they have and will dispose so as to deliver that intention, since their aim is to help offenders not to commit further sexual offences.

Sexual offenders often have inadequate personalities and a history of being sexually abused when children. Those of us who have read any of the case histories of sex offenders know what a ghastly cycle of sexual abuse and intimidation is carried on in generation after generation. We also know that throwing these people into a typical British prison, even in the 1990s, is not likely to help them to come to terms with their behaviour, or to correct that behaviour. The number of units in our prison system that provide such treatment is small, as both Ministers will acknowledge.

Our hesitation about the second of the Government's proposals arises from our worry that this cannot be delivered. We believe that sex offenders must be deterred and helped to come to terms with their offending, so that they can stop doing it. It is no good sentencing a sexual offender, throwing him into a ghastly prison with no treatment, no counselling and no psychiatric help, and then turning out someone who is sexually more deviant and pathological than he was when he went in.

What do we want to do with our society? Do we want this man—as the Minister said, it is nearly always a man—to come out of prison after five years likely to commit a more horrific sexual crime? This is a special kind of offence, and one that is becoming far more common in our time. It is crucial that sex offenders have adequate treatment within prison. Sadly, that is often not the case. There are few specialist programmes in prison, and it offers little protection for the public if offenders spend long periods without help and then get a few extra months of supervision on release. We do not think that those two things make sense. It is not the quantity of supervision which is important, but the quality.

The Minister has said that the most difficult task of probation officers must be dealing with and helping sex offenders. I think that is right. The training of probation officers to ensure that they have the right qualities is scarce. Quality is difficult to obtain, even with good training. We need the right recruits, and then the right training. Sadly, the resources are not available. It is daft to introduce fine provisions in criminal justice legislation if they cannot be delivered with the resources available. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be a move on the quality of supervision and not just on its quantity.

Some sex offenders may benefit from a treatment programme on release which lasts longer than the normal licence, but it will be impossible for the trial judge to know that. That is a problem with the amendment. Is the trial judge the best person to decide whether an extended period of treatment is right for an offender? At that stage, the decision could be arbitrary. The parole board might be in a better position to know whether the extended period of treatment was necessary.

Some of the same problems arise over the 60 days-plus for community penalties. The critical issue is the lack of specialist facilities for sex offenders. We need more specialist facilities in the community. There are few in existence, and they are over-subscribed. The probation service runs groups for sex offenders, but it obviously needs enough people at any one time to form a group. Geographically it may be more difficult to form a group in a rural environment.

It is not clear exactly what the Government have in mind. Do they intend the provision to be used when a court has a particular treatment programme in view, or is it to be used more generally? Will something be tailor-made, or will there be a general prescription? The amendment merely refers to the length of contact. The accompanying press release from the Government referred to a more intensive programme and more frequent contact with the probation service. We want to know what exactly is in the Minister's mind.

The new provision has been introduced at relatively short notice. The National Association of Probation Officers first knew of it from press reports, yet in a letter dated 12 December to NAPO, the Home Secretary said: I share your concern that the Bill contains important proposals which deserve the fullest consideration. The proposals should have been subject to the normal consultation process, and it is a shame that they have not been. A specialist task is involved. The people who will have to deliver the service are probation officers. If there is to be a greater call on that scarce resource, planning is necessary, and the earlier consultation takes place, the better.

As the two homosexual offences of soliciting and indecency will remain in clause 25, it is likely that licences or community sentences will be extended. There is small fear that a bigoted bench would use that. Perhaps the Minister will note my reasoning and come back on that; we may be able to discuss it at greater length later.

We accept that the new clause and the amendment are necessary, and we welcome them, but we would be unhappy if, when it came to putting this part of the Bill into action, there was no move by the Government to make treatment a reality, in prison and out of prison. I am sure that this is not what the Government intend, but we would be very disappointed if they merely introduced a late amendment to the Bill to make themselves look good in the public eye without delivering the resources that are necessary to deal with the root problem of sexual offenders. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that score.

4.30 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not devoted more time to discussing the resources needed to make the new clause work rather than simply talking about the technicalities. I fear that throughout our ensuing debates will run the complaint that we are trying to deal with criminal justice and the reform of our prisons before we have had an opportunity to read the Woolf report and to study the recommendations that have arisen from the problems at Strangeways.

The Government's priorities are wrong. Rather than forcing through legislation at this stage, they should wait for the report. I am sure that it will deal with the treatment of sex offenders at Strangeways and with the substantial problems involved in keeping some of them separate from other prisoners. Such problems are bound to raise questions about resources, and about whether it is appropriate to house the two groups of prisoners in the same prison.

Many sex offenders lead a very restricted life in prison, not because of the nature of their offences but because of the attitude of other prisoners. Their treatment should start as soon as they go into prison and continue as they emerge into the community, but, as yet, I see very little evidence of a system to enable that to happen. The Government must think seriously about the resource implications and the achievement of continuity of treatment; at present, far too many sex offenders are locked up for long periods, while no attempt is made to enable them to come to terms with their crimes and to modify their behaviour so that their is little chance of their offending again.

I was a little concerned about the Minister's idea of how the mechanism will work as a pensioner approaches the end of his sentence. As the law stands, a probation officer will move from working with someone on an agreed basis as part of his parole conditions to a system of voluntary supervision. If a prisoner's treatment is to succeed, is not it far more important to persuade him to accept voluntary conditions than to make the conditions compulsory—especially at the end of his sentence, when it will be almost impossible for the probation officer to enforce such conditions? By the time the offender is taken back to court, major problems will have arisen.

I do not think it helpful to bring in arbitrary decision-making by probation officers, rather than concentrating on the court's decision; but that is simply a passing comment.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the trial judge may not be the most appropriate person to make decisions and that it is important to see how someone responds to the time that he spends in prison and to establish what is the most appropriate way to deal with him on his release at the time when he is released. At a time when he is overwhelmingly conscious of the behaviour that has resulted in his conviction, the offender cannot possibly anticipate whether his behaviour will change as a result of the years that he will spend in prison.

Mr. John Patten

I am very happy to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Important issues such as who should make decisions about resources I shall leave until I am dealing with similar, although not identical, points. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is quite right that the number of sex crimes has increased. I realise, of course, that he is as careful as I am to attribute a proper proportion of the apparent rise to the welcome increase in the reporting of such crimes. People are now coming forward and reporting rape, indecent assault and domestic violence—of course, domestic violence is at the margin of sex crime—in a way that did not apply 10 or 15 years ago.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want women and children to be encouraged to report such crimes, which hitherto have often been hidden, or submerged. It is much better to have the true crime picture than to suspect that things are going on but are not being reported. All sex crimes and attempted sex crimes should be reported, and with the welcome trend towards increased reporting the police and others have a better chance to get to grips with the problem when they have the full picture.

I welcome the general attitude of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to the new clause and the associated amendment. One or two organisations have already made their views known. At least one probation body—the Association of Chief Officers of Probation—yesterday made a statement welcoming what is being done. The probation service generally, at its different levels, is trying to develop integrated programmes to deal with sex offenders. A great deal of experimental work is going on. It is a mistake to think that all treatment of sex offenders has to be medical or neo-medical. Much of it is a question of simply getting people to face up to what they have done. I have visited probation areas such as Cambridgeshire which have very active programmes within which people are doing this tough, difficult work.

The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked where the money would come from. They agree that these are interesting ideas and there is broad Opposition support for them, for which I am grateful, but they want to know how implementing them will be paid for. In the autumn statement we announced that we intend, over the next three years, to employ more than 800 additional probation officers—men and women. That is the biggest-ever single injection of personnel into the service. By 1993–94 we shall see also increased public expenditure on the probation service—an increase of one quarter in real terms. It is from that very substantial, not to say huge, increase in resources that we hope to fund the new programmes.

Related to this is the important issue of sex offenders in prison, which was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and the equally important issue of what happens when they get out of prison and are in the care of the probation service. Is what is known in the trade as the through-care adequate? On the question of sex offenders, I refer to the excellent work being done in Grendon Underwood prison in Buckinghamshire. Treatment of various types—psychotherapy, counselling, aversion therapy, and so on—is provided in about 60 of our prisons. I do not, of course, pretend that in all those prisons they are full-time activities.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the Minister agree that there is a very long list of prisoners waiting to be transferred to Grendon?

Mr. Patten

Yes, and it is a very competitive list. As Grendon is a therapeutic community, people are accepted only if the other prisoners there believe that they can be worked into the system. Hence, I believe, the comparative success of Grendon. As I said, 60 other prisons in England and Wales provide sex therapy courses of one sort or another—courses aimed at getting offenders to face up to their offending behaviour.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

When I visited Grendon I saw that it provided a very useful programme—whether it still does I do not know—of plastic surgery for cauliflower ears, noses, and so on, and the removal of tattoos. That seems to have an enormous effect on prisoners of all types—sex offenders and others.

Mr. Patten

That is a very valuable point. Within the past 10 days, a number of people from Grendon Underwood have come to see me in the Home Office to discuss just that sort of work. I do not want to get into the jargon, but I have to say that, clearly, many sex offenders have two characteristics. First, very often they themselves were abused, either physically or sexually, when they were children. Secondly, many of them have very low self-esteem. That is not to say that they have not done bad things, but their problems must be taken into account when we try to persuade them not to do bad things in the future and to try to go straight. I hope that they will be helped by the provision of the new clause and the associated amendment.

The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked whether it is right to leave it to the trial judge to decide. I think that it is right because the trial judge will be advised by the probation service with the new pre-sentence report that will be written to national standards within set periods of time. That will give the probation service the opportunity to say whether it thinks that someone will benefit from a period of extended supervision. I would not claim—nor would anyone in the probation service or the medical authorities involved—that there is a cure for sex offending. Some people tell me that it may never be cured in the way that some of us would like. However, it can be controlled by people being made to face up to the damage that they have done to others and to realise that victims have been involved.

I hope that with those points of clarification the House will accept the new clause and the associated amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.