Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill (Hansard, 22 March 2000)

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what statutory mechanisms exist to ensure that(a) an offender convicted of an offence against a child not listed in Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and (b) an offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months for an offence committed against a child is prohibited from working with children; what is the maximum term of such a prohibition; and if he will make a statement; [115818]
(2) if it is his intention that a disqualification order issued under Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, should apply indefinitely; and if he will make a statement; [115831]
(3) what mechanisms prevent (a) sex offenders and (b) other offenders from working with children; and if he will make a statement. [115833]

§ Mr. Straw
There are several statutory mechanisms that currently exist to prevent sex offenders and other offenders from working with children. The Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Act 1996 and the Protection of Children Act 1999 provide for lists to be kept by the Secretary of State for Education and556W Employment, the Secretary of State for Health or the National Assembly for Wales of individuals deemed unsuitable, and therefore banned, from working with children in the areas of healthcare, social services, and education. In addition, there are Regulations relating to particular areas of work with children made under the Children Act 1989.
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill introduces measures that would complete the establishment of an integrated system for the protection of children. Under this system, a judge would be able to disqualify those who commit serious criminal offences against children from working with them. In addition, the Bill proposes a new criminal offence of breaching a ban on working with children imposed either through inclusion on one of the relevant lists or by the courts. It also proposes a new definition of working with children which covers all such work in the public, private, voluntary and volunteering sectors.
Under the Bill, an offender convicted of an offence not listed in Schedule 4, or convicted of such an offence but sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months, would not be subject to the statutory disqualification against working with children imposed by a judge. However, if they already work with children in one of the areas covered by the lists kept under the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Act 1996, or the Protection of Children Act 1999, they could be banned by the Secretary of State. They could also be banned under those lists as a result of conduct which demonstrates that they are unsuitable to work with children even if they are not convicted of any offence. Under Part V of the Police Act 1997, an offender's full criminal record will be available to those registered under the Act who countersign applications for criminal or enhanced criminal record certificates in respect of those to whom they intend to offer positions which involve working with children.
An offender who is disqualified by a court under Part II of the Bill or is placed on one of the lists will be disqualified from working with children indefinitely. However, the Bill provides for a review of the disqualification order by a Tribunal. The individual must first prove to the Tribunal that his circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the disqualification order. The individual must then demonstrate to the Tribunal that this change of circumstances is such that he is no longer a risk to children, and therefore need no longer be subject to disqualification. This review process is only available after a period of ten years (five years for juveniles) after the disqualification was imposed or the offender released from custody.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons who will be sent to prison annually as a result of the introduction under Clause 55 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill of the three-month sentence for failing to secure regular attendance at school; what will be the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [115854]

§ Mr. Straw
At present, some 80 per cent. of parents fail to turn up in court when prosecuted for school attendance offences. The intention of this measure is to compel the parent to attend court. Introducing the risk of imprisonment allows magistrates to issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant who fails to turn up at court to 557W answer charges when summonsed to do so. It also allows magistrates to impose other sentencing options such as community service orders. Magistrates will want to consider how best to secure education for the child involved, and we expect such a sentence will be appropriate only in wholly exceptional circumstances.
The costs of implementing the measure are estimated at up to £1.2 million per annum. This assumes legal aid costs of up to £1 million, and some minor costs associated with enforcing the warrant to attend court and prosecution costs for education authorities.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) the average cost to public funds of an exclusion order made under Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, (b) the number of orders that will be made annually and (c) the number of other community orders that will include exclusion requirements; if magistrates courts will be able to make such an order; and if he will make a statement. [115824]

§ Mr. Straw
The Bill contains provisions to enable these powers to be piloted. This will enable us to make a better judgment about the extent to which they may be used and their financial impact.
In the meantime, the figures quoted in the Explanatory Memorandum assume that there will be about 440 free-standing exclusion orders and 755 exclusion conditions imposed annually. The estimated net impact on public resources (taking into account both costs and savings) is approximately £500 per exclusion imposed.
As with all other community orders, magistrates courts will be able to make an exclusion order, or impose exclusion as a condition of a community order.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners who will be released on licence earlier than at present as a result of the introduction of(a) monitoring and (b) drug testing requirements for release on licence under the provisions of Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; and if he will make a statement. [115820]

§ Mr. Boateng
The measures will not change any prisoner's eligibility for release. The basis of any discretionary release decision will continue to be careful risk assessment. The use of the new licence conditions will be subject to piloting before any consideration is given to wider implementation. Evaluation of the pilots will include consideration of the impact of the new licence conditions on discretionary release decisions taken by the Parole Board and by the Prison Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We estimate that the new powers to impose drug testing as a licence condition will have no impact at all on release decisions, but will act solely as a reinforcing measure in cases where release would have been authorised or required in any case. However, the wider availability of electronic monitoring may influence release decisions in a small number of cases involving prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more who are eligible for parole, and where the risk assessment is finely balanced. We currently estimate that the parole rate may rise by up to 4 per cent., which would represent 558W approximately 230 additional prisoners granted parole per annum. These estimates will be tested through the pilots, and guidance will be issued to the Parole Board in the light of the pilots.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that a person breaching the provisions of(a) an exclusion order and (b) a drug abstinence order made under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be taken before a court after the first breach; and if he will make a statement. [115822]

§ Mr. Straw
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill provides that an offender over 18 who fails unacceptably to comply with the conditions of an exclusion order or a drug abstinence order may be given a statutory warning that a second unacceptable failure to comply within 12 months would result in a return to court. There remains the option of returning an offender to court for a first unacceptable failure to comply.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that a positive test for(a) Class A and (b) Class B drugs conducted under Clause 48 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be taken into account as an aggravating factor in the sentencing exercise if the suspect is subsequently convicted of the offence with which they have been charged; and if he will make a statement. [115819]

§ Mr. Straw
Clause 48 of The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill provides for drug testing for specified Class A drugs only. The purpose is to identify and monitor drug misusers, who may need treatment; to inform bail decisions; and to assist in appropriate sentencing. The Bill does not make drug use an aggravating factor in relation to an offence.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that any suspect charged with an offence who subsequently tests positive for(a) Class A and (b) Class B drugs under the provisions of Clause 48 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be prosecuted for unlawful possession of such a drug (i) in addition to prosecution for other offences with which they have been charged and (ii) in cases where the charges for other offences are subsequently dropped; and if he will make a statement. [115817]

§ Mr. Straw
The purpose of drug testing, for specified Class A drugs, as provided for in Clause 48 of the Bill, is to identify and monitor drug misusers who may need treatment and to inform bail decisions. A positive test will not, in itself, result in prosecution for unlawful possession.

§ Miss Widdecombe
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average cost to public funds of a drug abstinence order made under Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; what estimate he has made of the number of orders that will be made annually; what estimate he has made of the number of other community orders that will include drug abstinence requirements; if magistrates courts will be abe to make such an order; and if he will make a statement. [115823]

§ Mr. Straw
The average cost of a Drug Abstinence Order/ Requirement under community supervision is estimated at £1,500. The new drug testing regime will be 559W piloted in the first instance. It is estimated that initial piloting in three areas would result in 3,500 offenders being made subject to the drug abstinence requirement.