HL Deb 08 October 2003 vol 653 cc404-12
  1. 21 Subsections (1) and (3) of section 245C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) (provision of remote monitoring) have effect as if they included a reference to the electronic monitoring of the community requirements of a suspended sentence order made or amended in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
  2. 22
  1. (1) Section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 (c. 24) (which provides, among other things, for service in England and Wales of Scottish citations or warrants) applies to any citation or warrant issued under paragraph 13(2)(a) or 15(3)(a) as it applies to a citation or warrant granted under section 134 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46).
  2. (2) A summons issued by a court in Northern Ireland under paragraph 13(2)(b) or 15(3)(b) may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed by rules of court, be served in England and Wales or Scotland."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clauses 186 to 189 agreed to.

Clause 190 [Unpaid work requirement]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 179B:

Page 112, line 21, leave out "300" and insert "400"

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 179B, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 195A. It may assist the Committee if I say that I will not speak to or move Amendment No. 179E, which is grouped with this, nor shall I move the amendments listed below this group—that is, Amendments Nos. 179C and 179D.

In Clause 190(2)(b), the Government increase the maximum number of hours that a court may specify as part of what used to be known, in the old days, as a community service order, now known as a community punishment order. Once the Bill is enacted, it will be known as a community order with unpaid work requirement. When I read the Bill through, one refrain keeps going through my head—pity the poor sentencers who will have to relearn not only the language but the incredibly complex procedure that will have to be followed. At present, the limit is 240 hours, but under the Bill the Government propose to increase that to 300 hours. My amendment, which is of course for the purposes of debate only, simply proposes a figure of 400 hours to ask the Government to clarify why they chose 300. What research and what proof was there that made them alight on that particular maximum rather than any other?

In the White Paper, the Government stated at paragraph 0.18 that they wished community punishment to be,

"a tough and credible alternative to custody".

No doubt the increase in the maximum hours from 240 to 300 is part of that strategy, but it would be helpful to know what the Government took into consideration to reach that decision.

Do the Government anticipate that some offenders will now receive a community rather than custodial sentence because more hours of community work can be ordered? Do we have a different client group, if I may call it that? The alternative is that the 25 per cent increase in the maximum number of hours simply means that those doing community punishment will do 25 per cent more of it. That would of course have no effect on the prison population, though I can see the advantage of that. What are the Government trying to achieve?

Amendment No. 195A relates to the imposition of an attendance centre requirement as part of a community order. Attendance centres, which are of course focused on young offenders, run practical activities such as sport. I have visited such centres and seen the hard work that the people there put in, and try to ensure that the young people put in. They were originally designed to occupy Saturday afternoons for those convicted of football-related offences. That is certainly no longer the case, in that their use has extended well beyond that.

The Bill reproduces the current minimum and maximum number of hours for such orders—namely, 12 and 36. However, in other areas of the Bill, the Government have chosen to increase the time limits available to the courts. My probing amendment asks why the Government did not change these limits? What evidence do they have that shows that the situation is so perfect that they do not wish to tamper with those limits? I beg to move.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

It is important to know that there is a proper reasoned basis for any change in the maximum number of hours. It would be helpful if we could be told how many people have been sentenced to 240 hours community service or community work in the past 12 months. My understanding is that it is a very small proportion of those who have been sentenced to do unpaid work in the community.

There is evidence in some areas that the probation officers and those who run the schemes are very hard put to make schemes suitable for a structured programme of as much as 240 hours. It is pointless, as any probation officer would tell us, simply to have the hours. There needs to be a purpose and structure and a contract. There is in effect always a contract between the sentenced person and those who supervise the work. That means that there must be a theme to the work imposed.

I suspect that it would be difficult to find many areas in England and Wales where it is even possible to set up structured useful schemes with 300 hours work. That is why I would be doubtful about a figure in what I understand to be a probing amendment, rather than a commitment to a particular figure.

Will the Minister tell us what the rational basis is for the figure in the Bill? May we simply include in the Bill that which can be achieved rather than an aspiration that cannot in realistic terms be achieved?

Baroness Stern

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, set out why 300 hours is a very high figure and why the quality of the experience can be much more effective than quantity. There is also a danger that 300 hours introduces a high possibility of failure, the result of which is to be sent to prison. We may be defeating the object of the clauses and simply increasing the chance of failure. We are also very much increasing the cost of supervision, and we have already discussed the load on the probation service and how that will be increased by these provisions. I therefore endorse the points that have been made.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

I certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says about these amendments, and I am going to respond to the probing nature of the noble Baroness's amendments. I also take very much into account the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. However, it is very important that these alternatives to prison are made credible, that they bite and that they do the job that all of us in this Chamber wish them to do. If they do, they will be a viable alternative to imprisonment. I know that each and every noble Lord who has spoken in this short debate feels passionately that we have to find genuine alternatives to prison as that is sometimes better for everyone concerned.

Amendment No. 179B would increase the maximum from 240 to 300 hours. That will bring our legislation into line with the Scottish legislation and, frankly, is necessary to allow for a more punitive order. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that in various areas we are challenged by the nature of the community sentence programmes that we are able to put forward. Of course that was true in the past. However, noble Lords should know that a huge amount of proper effort is being made to engage local communities, non-governmental organisations, voluntary organisations and others to join with the efforts made by the probation service to broaden the sort of activities that could properly be encapsulated within a community order.

Indeed, when one looks at the menu of options that can be encompassed within a community order, one can see the opportunities to craft with the probation service and the other organisations a package of community orders— formerly community service orders—to target different parts of the offender's development. Consequently, it may be possible to structure a package with various different elements— such as N number of weeks doing X, M number of weeks doing Y and so on.

What we wish to do, particularly with the experience of our Scottish brethren, is to give the court sufficient flexibility so that it is tempted to utilise that flexibility if it is appropriate and the programmes are available, rather than jumping straight to imprisonment. Of course imprisonment is there if that is the right solution. However, in order to test that it is the right solution, it must be possible to give the court the discretion to see whether there is a cogent alternative which addresses the offending behaviour and will be a proper punishment and actually works in rehabilitating the offender. That is the purpose. We would very much like the court to have that bracket, so that as we develop more finely honed community order schemes there will be an opportunity to take advantage of them.

Baroness Stern

I revert to the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about whether any research shows that 300 hours constitutes credibility and teeth. The research with which I am familiar suggests that what gives credibility and teeth is public involvement, how much the public know about it, whether the public can see that what is done is of value and whether they can see that someone has clearly put something of themselves into it and given something back. With respect, that could be achieved in 100 hours or in 50 hours. I am not familiar with any research that suggests that 300 hours is preferable to the 240 that we have lived with for so long.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Hylton

Before the Minister replies, does she recall what I said last night when we discussed the Anti-social Behaviour Bill about remedial work, as it were, regarding fly posting, graffiti, fly tipping and so on? Of course I realise that that is not a very high grade of community service work, but perhaps it could be combined with other more constructive forms of work to produce a thoroughly effective order.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

There is much in what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord should know that together with the other agencies and non-governmental organisations working in this field we are trying to consider the creative opportunities that we have to work together to make available a broader spectrum of community orders. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right to say that this is a valuable, visible form of recompense to the community. That relates to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said about making such service well targeted, well honed and understandable to the public at large. We want the effectiveness of the sentence to be its judge. We need to improve the effectiveness of such sentences, not just increase their length. The length is not the only criterion.

However, I say to the noble Baroness that the length of the service can be of great significance for offenders who may have exhibited very challenging behaviour. It is useful for a court to be able to impose up to 300 hours of service which a person can carry out undertaking the kind of activities that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggests. That would constitute a visible payment back to the community. Therapeutic interventions that change behaviour would also be useful. I know of no specific research which assesses the difference between 240 and 300 hours of service. I shall certainly check and if such research exists, I shall write to the noble Baroness but I pray in aid the fact that the 300 hours of service is available in Scotland. That enables the court to have flexibility and the longer period obviously carries greater weight.

It will obviously be a matter for the judge dealing with a case to evaluate all the elements that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the length of a community order and whether it will be effective in achieving the things that he wishes; namely, punish the offender; address the offending behaviour; reduce the likelihood of reoffending and compensate the community in an appropriate way. Latitude is there for the sentencer to utilise if he so wishes and if there are opportunities available for such service in the relevant locality. Work has been done by local criminal justice boards on needs-based assessments to find out what is happening in their local areas and to address it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I thank the Minister for her comments on the research point that I raised and which was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. It is tempting for governments to try to find headline figures that make them look as though they are being tough. That happens with governments of all hues. The difficulty is to ensure that one justifies that. That is why I asked about research.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said with regard to the availability of programmes. When I meted out sentences it was very difficult to make provision for anything like 240 hours of service, even if that was appropriate—and it was rarely appropriate. It was difficult to find a programme that was suitable and available. It is not necessarily just the easy answer to say, "Gosh, we'll look more tough if we have 300 hours". I appreciate the Minister's offer to look at how we might be provided with some information and research about the reason why.

I was intrigued by the part of the noble Baroness's explanation in which she said that the provision would bring us in line with Scottish legislation. My goodness! A number of times, I have tabled amendments to ask why we are different from Scotland, and the response from her and other members of the Government has been that one of the joys of devolution is to have differences. Hey presto—the Government accept that sometimes we have to be the same. She will find that I table a few more amendments of that sort in future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Simply because we do not have to be the same does not mean that that we cannot learn from others. I am very happy to learn from Scotland from time to time, as my name demonstrates.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I am prepared to learn as well from Scots, although they are rather distant relatives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 190 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Colville of Culross

I have not given the noble Baroness any notice of my question and I apologise, because she may not know the answer. I was looking at relevant orders under Clause 187. Now that we have got to Clause 190, one ingredient of a relevant order is an unpaid work requirement. It is my recollection—I may be completely out of date—that when one imposed a community service order, one could do it only with the consent of the defendant, otherwise one was sentencing him to what constitutes slavery, which is in contravention of our international obligations and the European convention. Will it still be necessary to require consent for unpaid work requirements under the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

I think that it is. I shall certainly write in confirmation, particularly if I am wrong, but I believe that unpaid work is something to which the defendant would have to agree, primarily because if one does not get his assent there may be alternatives. I shall definitely have to write once I know the precise position, because I do not know whether no means yes or yes means no, coming from that Box.

Viscount Colville of Culross

I sympathise with the noble Baroness. I would be very glad if she would write to me, and certainly do not put her to the test tonight.

Clause 190 agreed to.

Clause 191 [Obligations of person subject to unpaid work requirement]:

[Amendment No. 179C not moved.]

Clause 191 agreed to.

Clause 192 [Activity requirement]: [Amendments Nos. 179D and 179E not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

moved Amendment No. 180:

Page 114, leave out line 22. The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 180 and 195AZA deal with the activity requirement. There has to be a correction. The amendments ensure that community rehabilitation centres can be used for any purpose on a community sentence, not only within the supervision requirement. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 192, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 193 to 197 agreed to.

Clause 198 [Mental health treatment requirement]:

Lord Dholakia

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 181:

Page 116, line 37, after "periods)" insert "or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience The noble Lord said: I have some difficulty with this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, rang me last night and asked me whether I would move the amendment on his behalf. I said I had no difficulty in doing so. This group of amendments is tied up with a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Walmsley. In between are a number of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.

My difficulty is that this morning the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, was told that we would not reach this amendment today and that he would have the opportunity to move it on the next occasion in Committee. I am therefore reluctant to move it on his behalf. It would be helpful to know whether we intend to proceed at this stage and to move forward. If we are moving forward, I suggest that I do not move the amendments and that they are dealt with on Report. I should be grateful if I could be informed about the nature of business after ten o'clock.

Lord Grocott

We were hoping to conclude with the group beginning with Amendment No. 195AA. There have been brisk discussions with the usual channels, having moved on more swiftly than we thought. If the group cannot be moved by someone else, the alternative is to bring it back at Report stage.

Lord Dholakia

In that case, I suggest that the amendments are not moved.

  • [Amendments Nos. 181 to 185 not moved.]
    • 411
  • Clause 198 agreed to.
  • Clause 199 [Mental health treatment at place other than that specified in order]:
  • [Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
  • Clause 199 agreed to.
  • Clause 200 [Drug rehabilitation requirement]:
  • [Amendments Nos. 188 to 190C not moved.]
  • Clause 200 agreed to.
  • Clause 201
  • [Drug rehabilitation requirement: provision for review by court]:
  • [Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
  • Clause 201 agreed to.
  • Clause 202
  • [Periodic review of drug rehabilitation requirement]:
  • [Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 not moved.]
  • Clause 202 agreed to.
  • Clause 203[Alcohol treatment requirement]:
  • [Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
  • Clause 203 agreed to.
  • [Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
    • 412
  • Clause 204 agreed to.
  • Clause 205 [Attendance centre requirement]:
  • [Amendment No. 195A not moved.]
  • Clause 205 agreed to.
  • Clauses 206 to 210 agreed to.
  • Schedule 11 agreed to.
  • Clause 211 agreed to.
  • Clause 212 [Provision of attendance centres]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 195AZA:

Page 125, line 22, leave out "'community" and insert "relevant"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 213 and 214 agreed to.

Lord Grocott

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.