Beta This is a new service and it is still being tested. Tell us about a problem.

Parliament's record since 1997: debates, questions, statements, votes, bills, committees and members' interests

Where MPs Stand

Sourced briefings on the record of Parliament

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

House of Commons, 12 June 2000.

New Clause 9

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

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

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 101, 108 to 113 and 119.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The amendments relate to the electronic monitoring of community sentences proposed in the Bill. The measures will provide the probation service and other agencies with vital new tools to increase the protection of the public and to improve the effectiveness of community sentences through increased compliance and tougher enforcement. The amendments relate to a change that we trailed in Committee, but before I say anything more, I would point out that these changes have nothing to do with the home detention curfew or electronic monitoring of prisoners on release on licence. I know that there has been some confusion on that point in the past, and I want to establish the facts early and to make it clear to hon. Members who want to address curfews and prisoners on licence that they will have the chance to do so, but now is not the time, as the amendments deal with other matters. In Committee, I advised that, later in the Bill's passage, we would be considering how best to use electronic monitoring to strengthen enforcement of a range of orders. The amendments are the result of that further consideration. They replace clause 47 on monitoring of requirements in community rehabilitation orders and several other references to electronic monitoring of freestanding exclusion and curfew orders with a new, better-ordered and more comprehensive clause that enables the court, when imposing a community order, to secure the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any of the requirements imposed by the terms of the order. Obviously, that will include the electronic monitoring of offenders subject to curfew and exclusion. It will also, in due course, allow us to use technology such as voice verification systems, which could enable us to identify whether an offender is speaking from a location on an agreed list and whether the right person is responding to pre-planned or random checks. All such schemes would of course be properly piloted, but that is an example of the scope that the clause would open up in enforcing community sentences. The amendments draw together powers enabling the electronic monitoring of the terms of freestanding curfew and exclusion orders and any requirements of any community order. As I stated in Committee, the purpose of the amendments, apart from the obvious benefits in clarity and scope, is to enable electronic monitoring to be used to enforce more of the requirements of community orders. In addition, they apply to a wider range of those orders. Of course such schemes will be subject to the same rigorous testing and piloting as other new initiatives before they are rolled out. The amendments also broaden the definition of an "affected person" in relation to exclusion requirements and orders to include not only those who have to give their consent to allow electronic monitoring to occur, but individuals who are, to some degree, being protected by the order or exclusion in question. The former group is already covered by the Bill, and hon. Members who were present in Committee will remember our short debate about persons who might have an interest. An offender's victims would have an opportunity to be advised, as affected persons, about exclusion requirements and orders. That is reasonable and sensible. For example, if an offender, who hangs about a woman's house during the night, is excluded from those premises between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am, the victim should know that that is the case. That would tell her exactly what she should expect under the order, when the exclusion is in effect and when it is not. They are the only changes of substance that will be achieved under these amendments. The rest of the detail will remain effectively the same.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is right to say that the issues relating to whether it is appropriate for people to be released early on tags will arise in later debates. He knows from our extensive debates in Committee that there are many such issues, but I entirely agree that this is not the right debate in which deal with them. However, I shall put some specific questions to the Minister. He will be aware that our concern throughout—indeed, it has been expressed by Labour as well as Opposition Members—has been that proper account should be taken of working probation officers' views in particular. The Minister is well aware that the National Association of Probation Officers has expressed grave concerns about several aspects of the Bill. As he says, he trailed in Committee the fact that further changes might be made, but has he fully consulted working probation officers and, in particular, has he taken account of the views of probation committees and the National Association of Probation Officers? The concerns expressed on both sides in Committee were real. Although it is only a relatively short time since the Committee completed its proceedings, the Government want to replace a fairly large chunk of the Bill and we want to be sure that they will not change it for the worse. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that. I accept that many of the amendments in the group are consequential. We are discussing only one substantive change, although the grouping of amendments makes it seem as though there are many changes. We are discussing the major change in new clause 9, from which the other changes in detail flow. I hope that the Minister will also tell us whether he has taken account of the views of police officers, police organisations and the Council for Circuit Judges. The Minister will recall that there was much discussion in Committee about whether circuit judges and lay magistrates, who are at the sharp end of using such provisions, had been consulted. There is a grave weakness in that the Government are making changes at a late stage, but they have not necessarily taken into account the views of those who will impose the sentences. There are still grave concerns. We want the Minister to tell us exactly who has been consulted on these further, detailed changes. Having said that, I do not propose to press him further, on the basis that he will deal with all those points.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who speaks with great authority on these matters, that the resources will indeed be available before the amendments are brought into effect. We are anxious to ensure that we pilot and evaluate before rolling out. That also gives us the opportunity to make an assessment as to cost and, therefore, of cost-effectiveness and value in terms of that process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about individuals' rumoured swapping of identities in an attempt to fool those responsible for administering tagging, but I have yet to have brought to my attention a single substantiated case in which that happened. That point is developing the characteristics of an urban myth.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It is anecdotal.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, it is anecdotal. However, we are determined to ensure that that anecdote has no substantive basis and that those responsible for administering the tag are alert to the possibility that there might be an attempt to subvert the system in such a way. So far, we are not aware of a single substantiated case in which that happened. I endorse wholeheartedly the hon. Gentleman's expression of concern that sentencers should be informed and adequately and appropriately trained in the form of words used to impose sentences. It will be important to ensure—the process has already begun in relation to other aspects of the Bill—that magistrates and other sentencers have the knowledge of the content of the sentences that they are asked to impose necessary to give them the confidence to impose those sentences. With respect, those points are well made and certainly taken. In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, I say that he over-eggs the pudding. I do not accept that concerns exist to the extent that he suggests. I believe that anyone who wants to ensure that the public are better protected sees the potential that the new technology represents in providing that better protection, and giving victims of crime, and those who might otherwise become victims, a sense of security and safety. I have spoken to sentencers, probation and chief probation officers and those who head probation committees, and have widely trailed our proposals. Those to whom I have spoken have broadly welcomed them, and I have no reason to believe that the Home Office probation unit has not received the same response from those whom it has consulted. I hope that, on that basis, Opposition Members will give these modest and, in my view, non-controversial, proposals a fair wind.